Romney was in PA to go for blowout not backup plan
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:36:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Romney was in PA to go for blowout not backup plan
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Romney was in PA to go for blowout not backup plan  (Read 4386 times)
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2012, 01:09:00 AM »

The more I think about this, the less it makes sense.  I mean, I've never worked in a campaign, but my surmise is that one of the things campaigns do with polls is decide where the candidate needs to go so that they can jack up turnout as is necessary to win.  If the Romney campaign was consistently overestimating turnout to begin with, then how could they make such decisions reliably?  Sure there are reasonable precedents, but the electorate changes all the time too for all kinds of reasons, so you still have to rely on polling, which means you have to find out where the best estimates are at and trust them.  I just find the story Crawford was fed here to be very suspicious.  
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2012, 01:15:28 AM »

The more I think about this, the less it makes sense.  I mean, I've never worked in a campaign, but my surmise is that one of the things campaigns do with polls is decide where the candidate needs to go so that they can jack up turnout as is necessary to win.  If the Romney campaign was consistently overestimating turnout to begin with, then how could they make such decisions reliably?  Sure there are reasonable precedents, but the electorate changes all the time too for all kinds of reasons, so you still have to rely on polling, which means you have to find out where the best estimates are at and trust them.  I just find the story Crawford was fed here to be very suspicious.  

Paul Ryan was sent to Minnesota for no good reason.  They ignored Nevada and New Mexico despite similar polls in MN because it was more obvious there that there wasn't enough whites to win.  It's obvious they skewed the white samples in the states to 2004 levels and as a result PA and the Midwest looked like they were going to vote for Romney.

It's clear their strategy thought it was 2004 electorate.  Joke campaign.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2012, 01:18:48 AM »

True that on the Ryan Minnesota visit.  If they really did that much systematic overestimation in such a close race, yeah, that's incredibly stupid.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2012, 08:06:51 AM »

As read the article, and compare to results locally in IL, I don't see that they were as insulated from reality as the posts in this thread suggest. Miscalculation 2 is probably the key to the failure of the experts:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This directly caused the Dem turnout to be a larger fraction than 2008 when few pundits on either side expected a return to those historic levels. One problem in the polls could be that they weren't asking respondents how they identified themselves in 2008. If they had we might have seen more pre-election stories about the conversion of I to D. With that info I believe that political advisers would have treated their own polls differently as well.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2012, 08:23:49 AM »

Well, it might not have been all for nothing. Pennsylvania was rather "close", and maybe Ryan's time in Minnesota was enough to put Bachmann over the top? But this does shed light to those "then why is Romney/Ryan in Pennsylvania/Minnesota/etc" questions.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2012, 09:02:18 AM »

I thought that maybe the internals were showing a closing, because Obama started radio advertizing first.  Without that, I'd completely ignore PA. 
Logged
Niemeyerite
JulioMadrid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,803
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -9.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2012, 09:53:09 AM »

I thought that maybe the internals were showing a closing, because Obama started radio advertizing first.  Without that, I'd completely ignore PA. 

You said that PA was very close and that, while you predicted Obama would win, you woudn't be surprised at all if Romney carried the state.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2012, 09:57:05 AM »

I thought that maybe the internals were showing a closing, because Obama started radio advertizing first.  Without that, I'd completely ignore PA. 

You said that PA was very close and that, while you predicted Obama would win, you woudn't be surprised at all if Romney carried the state.

I would not have been shocked if Romney had won, based on both campaigns (and some of the turnout).  I honestly thought that both internals were showing it close. 
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2012, 09:58:14 AM »

I thought that maybe the internals were showing a closing, because Obama started radio advertizing first.  Without that, I'd completely ignore PA. 

You said that PA was very close and that, while you predicted Obama would win, you woudn't be surprised at all if Romney carried the state.

He said something along the same lines in 2008 when McCain decamped there and also pushed the same narrative in 2004. It's usually all to do with the turnout in Philly which he get's wrong each time.
Logged
riceowl
riceowl315
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2012, 09:59:47 AM »

Will Newsweek have that same behind-the-scenes article that they had last election?  It was pretty great.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2012, 10:06:06 AM »

I thought that maybe the internals were showing a closing, because Obama started radio advertizing first.  Without that, I'd completely ignore PA. 

You said that PA was very close and that, while you predicted Obama would win, you woudn't be surprised at all if Romney carried the state.

He said something along the same lines in 2008 when McCain decamped there and also pushed the same narrative in 2004. It's usually all to do with the turnout in Philly which he get's wrong each time.

I couldn't, and frankly still can't, figure out the emphasis on PA, in either election.

Going into Pittsburgh, because of the bleed over into OH, I can understand. 
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2012, 11:00:03 AM »

Who was the Republican Strategist interviewed by Brian Williams on NBC who basically said that the campaign was a loser campaign and that it was completely mishandled, mismanaged and really seemed out of touch?

I was shocked to hear him say that because strategists usually give political nonsense when asked difficult questions.  When Brian Williams asked him about the GOP's performance on Tues in general, the guy basically said, "we ran a bunch of losers this year and we completely mismanaged the electorate and changes in the American population" (paraphrased)

Very interesting.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2012, 11:25:39 AM »

As read the article, and compare to results locally in IL, I don't see that they were as insulated from reality as the posts in this thread suggest. Miscalculation 2 is probably the key to the failure of the experts:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This directly caused the Dem turnout to be a larger fraction than 2008 when few pundits on either side expected a return to those historic levels. One problem in the polls could be that they weren't asking respondents how they identified themselves in 2008. If they had we might have seen more pre-election stories about the conversion of I to D. With that info I believe that political advisers would have treated their own polls differently as well.

Wasn't the theory that a large number of Republicans had begun to identify as independents without changing their voting habits widely accepted long before election day?
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2012, 11:42:40 AM »

I am not sure how much stock we can put in this report. However, if this is true it's probably a good thing that Romney wasn't elected president. Above all, this would suggest that Romney lived in a bubble during the entire campaign and was surrounded by advisers who either didn't know better or simply didn't dare to tell their boss the truth. Indeed, I highly doubt that a good and effective president can afford to be surrounded by such "advisers". Additionally - again with the caveat that this story is true - this debunks the myth that Romney is a fact-based and highly rational person.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2012, 11:46:50 AM »
« Edited: November 09, 2012, 11:50:54 AM by Politico »

this debunks the myth that Romney is a fact-based and highly rational person.

Sorry, but you do not build a net worth of $200+ million by NOT being fact-based and highly rational. Connections only get you so far. For example, look at George W. Bush.

Obviously the campaign did not bank on Democrats being able to replicate the persuasion of Jim Jones. The kicker in the Kool-Aid kicks in, in about a year or two. Enjoy 2012 because 2014 and 2016 are going to be brutal. Alas, it will probably be too late to turn around the ship by then. We are indeed on a path towards a transformational change of America, but it's going to make 2008 look like happy days.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2012, 11:58:51 AM »

this debunks the myth that Romney is a fact-based and highly rational person.

Sorry, but you do not build a net worth of $200+ million by NOT being fact-based and highly rational. Connections only get you so far. For example, look at George W. Bush.

If you feel you "built" a net worth yourself after being born the son and heir of the GM Chair, then yes, that's a tad delusional too.

Romney was a good businessman, but he still clearly suffers from the delusion of being born on third base and believing he hit a triple.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2012, 01:02:54 PM »

If this is just Romney and his entourage being technically incompetent nincompoops, its nothing more than an amusing story.   However I think it is symptomatic of quite a lot more:

The Republican base is unable to adjust to or accept what America has become.  I think this is quite scary, and could lead to lots of awful things occurring down the road.  The fact is that 1/3 of America - most of them white males - are in a state of outrage, and not just any outrage, the outraged which comes from privilege lost.  I think the potential for violence is growing.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2012, 01:08:43 PM »

I choose not to believe this.

It makes infinitely more sense to assume they knew they had lost in Ohio, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado, and needed some EV somewhere. That's certainly what it looked like.
One problem in the polls could be that they weren't asking respondents how they identified themselves in 2008.
They used to, I believe. They certainly ask (and weight by, "party id" in the US sense being a nonexistent concept) how you voted last time here in Germany. The problem with that is of course that people lie or, with all those last-minute tactical decisions intra camp, just don't remember.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2012, 01:15:11 PM »

Wasn't the theory that a large number of Republicans had begun to identify as independents without changing their voting habits widely accepted long before election day?

Well, it was accepted by those who took an objective look at the numbers.  However, most of the right wing never took such an objective look.  In survey after survey, the general shift in party self-identification showed a drop in R, a gain in I, and not much change for D (leading to the D+6 or so advantage).  It didn't take a rocket scientist to conclude from this shift that a bunch of former R's were now identifying as I's.  From that conclusion, it's an obvious corollary that the new batch of I's would likely be very pro-Romney.  This would then skew the overall preference among *all* I's toward Romney -- which is exactly what the data showed.

The fundamental math error by the right wing is that they rejected the D+6 advantage in ID, but accepted the pro-Romney support among I's.  However, these two trends were inextricably linked; both were created by the R->I shift.  By rejecting the first trend and embracing the second, the right wing was, in effect, counting the pro-Romney R->I's *twice* -- once as Indepedendents, once as part of the "unskewed" Republican turnout.  With those numbers, it's no wonder that they believed they could win.  But that's what happens when you choose to accept only the facts that are beneficial to your side and reject those that aren't.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2012, 01:18:45 PM »

Romney was a good businessman, but he still clearly suffers from the delusion of being born on third base and believing he hit a triple.

Nah.  Romney thought he hit a home run.  That's why he was campaigning in Pennsylvania.
Logged
Zanas
Zanas46
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,947
France


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2012, 04:36:01 PM »

Wasn't the theory that a large number of Republicans had begun to identify as independents without changing their voting habits widely accepted long before election day?

Well, it was accepted by those who took an objective look at the numbers.  However, most of the right wing never took such an objective look.  In survey after survey, the general shift in party self-identification showed a drop in R, a gain in I, and not much change for D (leading to the D+6 or so advantage).  It didn't take a rocket scientist to conclude from this shift that a bunch of former R's were now identifying as I's.  From that conclusion, it's an obvious corollary that the new batch of I's would likely be very pro-Romney.  This would then skew the overall preference among *all* I's toward Romney -- which is exactly what the data showed.

The fundamental math error by the right wing is that they rejected the D+6 advantage in ID, but accepted the pro-Romney support among I's.  However, these two trends were inextricably linked; both were created by the R->I shift.  By rejecting the first trend and embracing the second, the right wing was, in effect, counting the pro-Romney R->I's *twice* -- once as Indepedendents, once as part of the "unskewed" Republican turnout.  With those numbers, it's no wonder that they believed they could win.  But that's what happens when you choose to accept only the facts that are beneficial to your side and reject those that aren't.
Excellent post. My thoughts exactly.
Logged
Iosif
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,609


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2012, 04:56:26 PM »

All Republicans believed the polls were wrong. Why would the Romney campaign be any different?
Logged
Scabr
Rookie
**
Posts: 44


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2012, 05:23:11 PM »

this debunks the myth that Romney is a fact-based and highly rational person.

Sorry, but you do not build a net worth of $200+ million by NOT being fact-based and highly rational. Connections only get you so far. For example, look at George W. Bush.

Obviously the campaign did not bank on Democrats being able to replicate the persuasion of Jim Jones. The kicker in the Kool-Aid kicks in, in about a year or two. Enjoy 2012 because 2014 and 2016 are going to be brutal. Alas, it will probably be too late to turn around the ship by then. We are indeed on a path towards a transformational change of America, but it's going to make 2008 look like happy days.

This is coming from a former Newt guy but...

Mitt Romney is a smart man, but he was so disastrously divorced from actually running the campaign and somehow, probably watching Fox news, reassured himself that the campaign was going fine, and that he was on track for a landslide, and that he put the campaign he wasn't running into the hands of some of the worst handlers imaginable.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.