Why are people so confident of a Romney win?

[milhouse24]

I think the Libya scandal illustrates the bumbling that the administration has done on a wide number of issues. 

It just makes the administration look incompetent. 

[Paul Kemp]

I do have some of my family members who are supporting Obama who laugh at the idea of Romney coming anywhere near the White House. They think the map will be the same. Needless to say, people who think like that are encouraging for Republicans.

Naso, your family is not and will never be representative of any voting bloc.

[Likely Voter]

I think the more operative question is: why are people so confident of an Obama win. Obama is polling around 47 and Romney is leading nationally (narrowly) and does appear to have 'mo' yet the betting sites still have Obama as the favorite. Dems are still confident he will win (although are nervous).

I think the only thing holding on to the Obama confidence is that he is leading in most OH polls. But that just might change this week and then all hell will break loose.

[Phony Moderate]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

The last two are irrelevant.  (Indeed, based on prior examples, knowing how to run a business has typically been an indicator for being a bad president,)  As for State government, past experience has shown that gubernatorial experience is no guarantee of being a good President.  Granted, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Reagan, and Clinton were governors, but so were Jefferson, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Coolidge, Carter, and Dubya, so it certainly does not indicate things will be smooth.  Since state governments typically have far more restrictions what they can do, saying a good governor will be a good president is like saying someone who is a good enough driver to get a safe-driver discount will also be a good enough driver to win the NASCAR Sprint Cup.

The last two are relevant, because they show what is necessary for economic activity and good administrative skills..

....

He specifically said that, based on prior examples (Hoover, Carter, etc), having experience in business does not guarantee a successful presidency. Far from it, in fact.

[Brittain33]

I think the more operative question is: why are people so confident of an Obama win. Obama is polling around 47 and Romney is leading nationally (narrowly) and does appear to have 'mo' yet the betting sites still have Obama as the favorite. Dems are still confident he will win (although are nervous).

I think the only thing holding on to the Obama confidence is that he is leading in most OH polls. But that just might change this week and then all hell will break loose.

It's a good question. For me, it's because everything looks so much like 2004 and Obama's got a solid lead in Ohio. I don't think I should be as confident as I am, rationally.

[J. J.]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

The last two are irrelevant.  (Indeed, based on prior examples, knowing how to run a business has typically been an indicator for being a bad president,)  As for State government, past experience has shown that gubernatorial experience is no guarantee of being a good President.  Granted, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Reagan, and Clinton were governors, but so were Jefferson, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Coolidge, Carter, and Dubya, so it certainly does not indicate things will be smooth.  Since state governments typically have far more restrictions what they can do, saying a good governor will be a good president is like saying someone who is a good enough driver to get a safe-driver discount will also be a good enough driver to win the NASCAR Sprint Cup.

The last two are relevant, because they show what is necessary for economic activity and good administrative skills..

....

He specifically said that, based on prior examples (Hoover, Carter, etc), having experience in business does not guarantee a successful presidency. Far from it, in fact.

They were all governors.  Johnson and Wilson had virtually no business experience.  He also didn't mention Hoover in that list.  

It is a good combination, one that Lincoln had.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I think the Libya scandal illustrates the bumbling that the administration has done on a wide number of issues. 

It just makes the administration look incompetent. 

You think a lot of things, a huge proportion of them being borderline retarded.

The Libya scandal illustrated Romney's complete inability to be a responsible leader.

[J. J.]

I think the Libya scandal illustrates the bumbling that the administration has done on a wide number of issues. 

It just makes the administration look incompetent. 

You think a lot of things, a huge proportion of them being borderline retarded.

The Libya scandal illustrated Romney's complete inability to be a responsible leader.

No, in this case, it is clearly an Obama bungle, by his own tacit admission.  I am surprised that it is, because he has generally done well with foreign policy.  The way he has handled it has made it worse. 

[The Vorlon]

Folks backing Romney are optimistic for the following reasons:

1)   Obama has very rarely broken 50% in any national poll.  I thik there was a National Public Radio Poll and maybe a Zogby or two, but under 50% is the traditional "vulnerable incumbent" dividing line.

2)   Obama was clearly ahead, it is now very very close to even.  It's a bit of a dogs breakfast on both sides but I think I trust the polls showing a modest Romney lead just a tiny bit more than those showing a modest Obama lead.

3)  A presidential reelection bid is, first and foremost, a referendum on the incumbent.  Obama did not win this question (see Reagan 1984, Clinton 1996)  if he hasn't convinced 50% of the people to vote for him in 4 years, why will he suddenly do it in the last 14 days?

~~~~~~~~

FWIW....

I think Obama is very narrowly ahead, it will be a hell of a long night on Election day!

[Likely Voter]

At this point who is winning is probably in the eye of the beholder. The RCP avg today has four polls with Romney leads, four with Obama leads and one tie. It doesnt include 3 daily trackers (Rand, Reuters, PPP), and of those 1 shows Obama ahead, 1 Romney ahead and one a tie.

There are other indicators of Romney winning and yet other indicators of Obama winning. At this point it is becoming harder and harder to be objective because it is so tight, its hard to know if you believe something because you want to believe it or you really think its true.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A heady mix of alcohol, junk food and confirmation bias. But mostly alcohol.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

The last two are irrelevant.  (Indeed, based on prior examples, knowing how to run a business has typically been an indicator for being a bad president,)  As for State government, past experience has shown that gubernatorial experience is no guarantee of being a good President.  Granted, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Reagan, and Clinton were governors, but so were Jefferson, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Coolidge, Carter, and Dubya, so it certainly does not indicate things will be smooth.  Since state governments typically have far more restrictions what they can do, saying a good governor will be a good president is like saying someone who is a good enough driver to get a safe-driver discount will also be a good enough driver to win the NASCAR Sprint Cup.

The last two are relevant, because they show what is necessary for economic activity and good administrative skills..

....

He specifically said that, based on prior examples (Hoover, Carter, etc), having experience in business does not guarantee a successful presidency. Far from it, in fact.

They were all governors.  Johnson and Wilson had virtually no business experience.  He also didn't mention Hoover in that list.  

It is a good combination, one that Lincoln had.

Being a governor was the first example you gave, not one of the last two.  You really should read what you are replying to before posting.  Hoover was never a governor, but Harding, Hoover and Carter all had business experience and were poor presidents. Running a business and running a government are completely different things.  Businessmen generally don't have to dead with a board of 535 directors who mostly think they can do a better job than he can, for one thing.  (That's also another reason while gubernatorial experience is generally not a good preparation.  Even if the political situation in the state they governed is similar to the Federal one. [And Massachusetts politics are not like Federal politics.] they aren't used to having to deal with so many egomaniacs in the legislature that need to be placated.)

[milhouse24]

I think the Libya scandal illustrates the bumbling that the administration has done on a wide number of issues. 

It just makes the administration look incompetent. 

You think a lot of things, a huge proportion of them being borderline retarded.

The Libya scandal illustrated Romney's complete inability to be a responsible leader.

Why don't you ban yourself, you vulgar Obama hack troll.

[The Constable]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

Certainly Romneycare was a triumph (see Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, as I am not permitted to link yet) but Romney did not exactly "run a state" or work on bipartisan terms for the vast majority of legislature enacted during his time as Massachusetts governor. He merely vetoed 844 pieces of legislature. The Dermocratic assembly overrode nearly every one of them. So not exactly "bipartisan".

[J. J.]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

Certainly Romneycare was a triumph (see Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, as I am not permitted to link yet) but Romney did not exactly "run a state" or work on bipartisan terms for the vast majority of legislature enacted during his time as Massachusetts governor. He merely vetoed 844 pieces of legislature. The Dermocratic assembly overrode nearly every one of them. So not exactly "bipartisan".

He did get things accomplished as governor. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I didn't think he would.  In fact I put a fair amount of money into IEM shares for Obama (although contrary to Intrade, those are popular vote), but I took them out today (taking a hit of 10-20 cents, depending on when the individual shares were bought), because Romney's chances for winning the popular vote are really going up, and I can still make money investing in other markets.  That being said, I still see Obama winning, but a Romney win isn't as crazy as it once was.

[The Constable]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

Certainly Romneycare was a triumph (see Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, as I am not permitted to link yet) but Romney did not exactly "run a state" or work on bipartisan terms for the vast majority of legislature enacted during his time as Massachusetts governor. He merely vetoed 844 pieces of legislature. The Dermocratic assembly overrode nearly every one of them. So not exactly "bipartisan".

He did get things accomplished as governor. 

He achieved something great with near-universal health care (and then ran away from the good that it did to hundreds of thousands like it was a cancer) and did a very good job balancing the budget by closing business loopholes...but he did not even bother to talk to his legislature after the first year of his term, let alone compromise with them, and they ended up just going around him to achieve a great deal of the legislature passed.

[J. J.]

I know many find this hard to believe but President Obama is in over his head and people across this country are realizing that it is time to put someone in there who actually knows what he's doing.

The problem is, nothing indicates that Romney knows how to run a government.

He ran a state, a business and the Olympics. 

Certainly Romneycare was a triumph (see Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, as I am not permitted to link yet) but Romney did not exactly "run a state" or work on bipartisan terms for the vast majority of legislature enacted during his time as Massachusetts governor. He merely vetoed 844 pieces of legislature. The Dermocratic assembly overrode nearly every one of them. So not exactly "bipartisan".

He did get things accomplished as governor. 

He achieved something great with near-universal health care (and then ran away from the good that it did to hundreds of thousands like it was a cancer) and did a very good job balancing the budget by closing business loopholes...but he did not even bother to talk to his legislature after the first year of his term, let alone compromise with them, and they ended up just going around him to achieve a great deal of the legislature passed.

According to the majority leader, he did. 

[nhmagic]

1 - See the RNC memo (granted Ohio has it's funny registration process) http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/331501/rnc-check-out-our-early-votes-swing-states

2 - Romney will win more undecideds than Obama, as challengers often do.

3 - Pollsters, whatever they are doing, are misjudging the type of electorate or having a response bias of some kind that skews democratic.  A D+7 or 8 sample (regardless of the pollster not actively modeling this) showing a Romney lead or slight loss means that Romney will win.  The electorate will not be as heavily democratic as it was in 2008. 

4 - Romney has the momentum going into the final days and a tie debate and a slight Obama win on foreign policy debates did not make Romney an unacceptable alternative in the eyes of the electorate. 

5 - A silent majority.

6 - The venue chosen by Obama to hold his election night win/lose speech.

7 - Active panic in the media and in Obama's campaign.

8 - Locally, he's been up here trying to shore NH up way too much for them not to be worried.

[J. J.]

I'll add these: 

A.  The early voting.  It is trending more Republican, compared to 2008.  It is just not more requests or voters, but in Obama's base, it is doing better than 2008, in some places by a lot.

B.  Obama has been pulling back.  We've talked about the "firewall."  Obama has his back to it. 

That doesn't mean victory, but those are good signs. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Granted, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Reagan, and Clinton were governors, but so were Jefferson, Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Coolidge, Carter, and Dubya, so it certainly does not indicate things will be smooth.

And, of course, Jefferson was a terrible Governor.  I think he's one of the few people who turned out to be a better President than Governor - for everyone else they were either better Governors, or it was a wash.

[k-onmmunist]

because he's far more willing to play dirty. ultimately it doesn't matter who wins since they're two sides of the same coin but at the moment if i had to say who was going to win, probably romney.

[heatmaster]

Again I see the same mistake being made.
1. 2008 models need to be discarded as you are dealing with current voting intentions and not past voting habits (2008).
2. The Economy is the number 1 issue, so it doesn't really matter how large Obama's winning margin in the swing states was.
3. Focus on current voting intentions, plus the polling data available.
4. Republican voting enthusiasm has sky-rocketed, while Democratic enthusiasm is low.
5. Obama is the incumbent, the status quo candidate with a record the defend.
6. The Evangelical vote will show up.
7. Romney has the largest lead amongst Independents, since Reagan in '84.
8. Romney and Obama have virtually split the women's vote.
9. Romney is leading among suburban voter's.
10. Only 48% believe Obama will win, while 51% believe Romney will prevail.
11. Obama trails with 46% to 51% for Romney in the last Gallup tracking poll.
12. Obama has only 46% approval rating, while only 49% disapproves.
13. No Incumbent President seeking re-election scoring the number's Obama has been scoring in October, has gone onto win - Obama of course could be the exception to the rule, for all you die-hard Obama fans, but I doubt it.
14. There could be an "under-tow" affect in the election, next week; what I mean as opposed to a "wave" election, the Obama base doesn't materialize in the numbers that Obama hopes.
15. Obama could have cannibalized his vote, with early voting; he's in trouble if the base doesn't show up in the numbers he expects.
16. Obama has been taking hits in several different polls.
17. Trouble in Obamaland, if you have to send Joe Biden into Pennsylvania, a state which you thought was in the bag; another "solid" Obama state, Michigan is tied; Wisconsin, Obama's support is soft there as in Minnesota; then the Des Moines Register, endorsing Romney, must means that Iowa could be also drifting toward Romney; the evangelical vote around Colorado Springs are motivated and this will likely present problems for the President in Colorado.
18. Of course I could be wrong, and pigs might fly and hell will freeze over and Obama wins, despite the statistics I quoted.