One has to ask, why is Mitt Romney so confident that he will win in states that have been categorically stamped “Democrat”? Those states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and even New England States have seen an uptick in campaign ads in the last week from the Romney Campaign and supporting PAC’s. What one notices about these ads is the soft tone, the fact that they are continuing to remind those viewers that the economy is not improved, that groceries cost more -and that one individual is somewhat responsible – the end, one has a choice. The press and Democrats consider it to be one of several factors, none of which could possibly lead to a Romney victory. The most obvious one touted is that Romney has money to burn. Frankly, that does not sound like Mitt Romney at all. Romney was not the kind of Governor or businessman who would just throw good money after bad in a whim. This makes the decision to spend on ads in Michigan and Massachusetts (aiming for New Hampshire – but there is that trickledown effect), an odd-on bet that Romney is making investments that are, on paper, sound.
Of course, there are the prediction models, whether one used favorability or one uses the University of Colorado method of economic indicators, Romney is set to win by 330 Electoral College votes. Most national polls continue to see a tight race, and this includes NPR who has Romney leading by 1! Of course, there is history as well, that has a model that screams Romney victory – that is the election of 1980. In that scenario, the polls at the time had both Carter and Reagan tied, up to the eve of the election. What followed the day after left pundits and the press asking “what happened”? There is an article through Google archives that has the Gallup organization giving the explanation. They and other pollsters had used a model for their predictions based on the prior general election. That gave Jimmy Carter an immediate plus 7 in polling based on the numbers of Democrats who had voted in the previous Presidential election. The explanation: there were simply more Republican’s and Republican leaners from 1978 to 1980 than Democrats. That information was not included in the polling.
Fast forward a few decades and what happens? National poling firms are still using the previous election model to determine every single state and national poll – This gives President Obama and immediate 8 point lead. Therefore, the polls are “skewed” or artificially inflated. Internal polling is another story entirely – depending upon the campaign and their resources, the candidates may or may not decide to compete in certain states. There is the reason that Mitt Romney is confident.
Last night, a call came through from the only person in New York City that has power (no cable or no internet) – the request: To find out the equivalent ratio of taxes paid by “millionaires” such as Mitt Romney. The reason, an argument between two individuals, one who had called and a friend who was suggesting that the “millionaires” underpay taxes – which led to a Google search where an article, tucked away in Forbes found that GOP Candidate Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes. This was based on the fact that Romney paid taxes as a corporation and then as an individual. The author was quite perplexed that Romney was not pointing this out. The Article here at www.forbes.com was sent by text to use in a rebuttal.
The Obama supporter in question who was concerned that Mitt Romney did not pay his fair share, was up in arms due to an email received (during Hurricane Sandy) that suggested the Obama campaign was on its last dime, and that Romney had more money to spend and was going to beat Obama if the recipient did not immediately send cash. Apparently, Romney’s presence in Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio were proof of this fact. (Understanding that this is hearsay and unsubstantiated due to lack of said email) That said, the import of the aforementioned challenge between two friends, both liberal, one who had turned towards Romney, unwillingly at first, and now as gung-ho as any Midwestern Republican, the other a died in the wool Democrat who is blinded by rhetoric. One might suggest that if there are those in the middle of the most liberal leaning northeast, then there is truly trouble in the Obama Camp.
Does anyone, however, really have a crystal ball on which to predict a win or a loss? No – the models given those who predict based on odds (actual betting odds – overseas online betting) have Obama up in double digits. Those betting on Obama to win may end up making the house a ton of money. The traditional polls, with the exception of Gallup, are calling the race tied. But then there is history, of which said blogger is a buff and one thing that nags, is that history repeats itself in the right time, in the right circumstances. It is what makes the argument for a landslide in November for Mitt Romney completely believable, add to that a few internal polls that maybe pointing in a win direction, and there is good reason why these ad buys are being made.
Therefore, with less than a week before the election, there is no reason to believe the outcome will be other than a Mitt Romney win. It is that simple. This is regardless of the President’s handling of the crisis of Hurricane Sandy – which was remarkable – but one event does not erase an entire four years of policy. It is the enthusiasm that is evident among the Romney Supporters, and that includes generic Republicans, Independent voters, and those Democrats now looking for hard material with which to argue a case for Romney. It is the lack of enthusiasm from those core supporters that is evident, the “why bother to vote”, “let’s not discuss politics, please” and general avoidance that is prevalent, even in Massachusetts, New York and yes, California. That’s why Mitt Romney is confident that he will win, and that is also why the Obama campaign continues to push ridiculous ads, and a need for cash, as they cannot defend even the bluest states. This is not to suggest that New York, California, and Massachusetts won’t be in the Obama column (along with 10 to 13 other states), it is just that the national model does not support either an Electoral College, or popular vote win in the 2012 election.
Interesting articles this morning:
From the Boston Globe Belmont (Boston) makes plans in case Mitt Romney votes in his home district (complete with complaints that in doing so, the mere presence of Romney would cause some voters issues). (The Globe supports Obama)
From the Herald Mitt Set to Win Maybe by a Mile (The Herald endorsed Mitt Romney)
Of interest:
Politico: “One Term Celebrity” (on the NY Times Columnist who is predicting a blow-out for Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment