You known how, a few weeks ago as the Olympics were about to get started, Mitt Romney went to London and made an ass of himself? That was kind of funny, and it got a lot of people wondering whether Romney would really be such a great person to have running the country.
But yesterday was not funny at all. In the wake of attacks on American embassies in Egypt and Libya, the latter of which resulted in four American deaths including that of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Romney “went for a cheap attack at a time when any calm, mature adult would have waited and opted for at least a brief show of national unity” (to quote Gail Collins). In the course of doing so, Romney got important facts wrong – of course, a more experienced person, or one with more common sense, would have realized that situations like this move quickly and unpredictably, and therefore restraint in the early going is advisable, but Romney chose to go for the quick attack instead, and it backfired. His response has flabbergasted even Republicans.
“They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up,” said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an “utter disaster” and a “Lehman moment” — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader….
“It’s bad,” said a former aide to Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “Just on a factual level that the statement was not a response but preceding, or one could make the case precipitating. And just calling it a ‘disgrace’ doesn’t really cut it. Not ready for prime time.”
A third Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, “It wasn’t presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation.”
There’s an excellent column in today’s Globe by Nicholas Burns, a career diplomat who has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations including that of George W. Bush. Burns puts yesterday’s events in perspective far batter than I could.
Yesterday’s tragic murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats in Libya illustrates the ever-present dangers for Americans in the volatile Middle East. Thousands of US diplomats like Stevens are on point for us all over the world, and they make an enormous contribution to our national security. But this tragedy also points to the need for capable, experienced, and wise people at the top of our government when crises test the mettle of our leaders. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both made strong and determined statements in response to the attack on our diplomats, focusing on our unequivocal opposition to terrorism and fanatacism in the Middle East.
In contrast, GOP candidate Mitt Romney accused the administration of showing sympathy to terrorists and apologizing for their actions. By making these completely inaccurate charges, Romney injected the politics of the presidential race into a complex drama half a world away on a day when all Americans should have been rallying around our government and its diplomats in the Middle East.
Crises often reveal the true nature and also the limitations of our leaders. Romney’s statements, made with incomplete understanding of the facts on the ground, represent the worst of our sound-bite-driven politics. He should have issued a strong statement of support for our diplomats in the fight against terrorism and refrained from commenting on what he could not understand sitting outside the government as our two diplomatic outposts were being attacked. Instead, he made an already bad situation even worse. In fact, his statements were so reckless and irresponsible that it prompts the inevitable question: What kind of commander-in-chief would he be?
Read the whole thing.
Discuss
107 Comments . Leave a comment below.… that he might be ‘ready’ in the future. This makes me wonder, if he loses this thing, how many more times we can expect to see him run.
twice and been elected?
Need I say more.
1960 and 1968. He may have run for the nomination more than once.
I wasn’t counting re-election.
Nixon ran for reelection in 1972, the 1960 (lost to Kennedy) and 1968 (won over Hubert Humphrey (which could/should have been RFK).
Also, there was Adlai Stevenson II, who was the nominee in 1952 and 1956 (both times against Eisenhower). He tried again in 1960 but lost to JFK.
See, alll that time watching Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley were not a complete waste of time.
ran and lost in the 1976 Republican primary.
This is Leadership 101 that you don’t rush in to make political hay out of a tragedy, much less an international tragedy.
posted on a fakeTwitter account?
Actually, it looks like the people running the campaign came from the RNC.
It’s worth noting that the Chair of the RNC, Reince Preibus tweeted “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.” The apple doesn’t fall far from the political tree.
Being advised presumes enough of other people that he could think they could be right and he could be wrong. I don’t think he thinks that’s possible.
let it be Mr. KrazyKhazie who engineered this complete disaster.
O my kingdom for an etch-a-sketch.
What a terrible fumble by Romney.
I do, however, think that this is not going to be a good topic for the Good Guys for the next month. Yikes, the only security was local. And the US ambassador in an unstable middle eastern country was out and about on September 11. Something wasn’t thought through.
Indeed… something was not thought through… on your part.
Observe:
Nobody was “out and about”. There were within the diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
I have heard several reports (i) that security was actually provided by the Libyan government, and (ii) that Libayn security helped get US personnel “inside to safety.”
Wouldn’t the ambassador ordinarily be at the embassy? That’s in Tripoli. But he was in Benghazi, at a consulate. Embassies have a lot of security, consulates do not. That, and the “inside to safety” thing, was why I wrote “out and about.”
This sounded factually wrong to me. I’ve gone back to the clip of Romney’s comments, made after the death of Ambassador Stevens, and I do not find where Romney “accused the administration of showing sympathy to terrorists” concerning the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the death of Amb. Stevens, including during the Q&A.
Romney’s criticism of State and the Obama admin concerned the apologetic tweet from some numbskull in the US Embassy in Cairo and Romney’s contention that the WH did not initially refute or reject that tweet.
I went back to look at the tweet. It’s exactly what Romney says it is. Nor has the Embassy refuted or walked it back. It’s a shameful apology.
The media is trying to fuse the Cairo and Benghazi incidents together as if Romeny issued a blanket criticism for both in a single statement.
Didn’t happen that way, as far as I see from the clips on You Tube.
And now we see the birth of a new brand of “truther”. The Libya-truther.
Ad hominem attacks are always the best counter-arguments. Don’t you go changin’.
It appears that everyone knows you for the flaming bitter troll you appear to be! Please educate us meer rabble.
you need to review the timeline more carefully. Of particular importance is that Romney’s wretched statement attacking Obama went out *after* the Obama administration had disavowed the Embassy’s tweet, and after at least one death was confirmed in Libya. Burns therefore seems to me entirely correct in saying that Romney accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with terrorists.
Sometimes, your guy just screws up and there’s no way to whitewash it. For you, Shep, this is one of those times.
I also agree with Romney’s criticism of the Embassy’s original and embarrassing tweet.
The US Embassy Cairo IS the voice of America in Egypt. The Department of State IS the US Government, and represents the American people in foreign lands. State is an executive branch department, and the WH cannot simply wave away it’s own chosen representatives’ comments with a “not approved” dismissal. Head should role, and our ambassador replaced.
Furthermore, you can read Nick Burn’s statement anyway you wish to suit your political argument, but both the text of Romney’s comments and the timeline shows his criticism is focused on the embassy tweeting and the embassy’s subsequent response, standing by their earlier blame-America-first comments. At no time did Romney accuse the Obama administration of sympathizing with terrorists IN CONNECTION WITH the Benghazi attack. Only you do that.
Your trying to fuse events is a dodge, and a distraction from the real issue, the Embassy’s original tweet: will this administration, will this president, ever SUPPORT American values without reflexively blaming the US? Who, if not the Department of State, will go to bat for America in foreign lands? Where was the bold, proud, and immediate defense of our First Amendment from our country’s official representation in Egypt?
THIS is the core of Romney’s criticism. It was my instant reaction upon reading the raw text of the embassy’s tweet when the story originally broke.
And let’s see how emerging reports of State being forewarned about both the Cairo AND Benghazi attacks unfold.
Errant tweets from a Foreign Service twenty-something will be the least of the president’s — and your — problems.
Huh, and I thought the “real issue” was the fact that American diplomatic outposts were attacked and personnel lost their lives. Silly me. Thanks for getting us refocused on what really matters.
Yes, it would be a mistake to trivialize these “tweets” on the very important and serious thing called “Twitter.”
But it must also be understood to have been made by a staffer, not vetted or approved by anyone, while that staffer was trying to defuse a volatile situation, and while that staffer was, justifiably, afraid.
So, senior people might, I think preserve American commitment to core values such as our 1st Amendment by gently walking back the “tweet” without accusing our diplomatic staff, who actually risk their lives for their country by serving in these dangerous locales, of cravenly capitulating to terrorists.
Which is what the President did, and Romney did not.
The whole flapdoddle here is progressives’ concatenation of the Cairo attack/tweets with the Benghazi attacks/murder of our personnel.
You make the judgement “not ready for prime time” on the basis of comments not directed to events in Benghazi, per the timeline we’ve agreed on. Now you blast me for ignoring the larger issues. Huh. You’re a hard man to pin down, David.
I’m sure Romney will make additional criticisms, all valid, on the ineptitude of this president and his Reset Apology Tour foreign policy, his State Department, his reckless tweeting Foreign Service staff, the lack of diplomatic security, and on and on.
to sensible moderate/independents like centralmassdad instead of loons like Dick Morris and Anne Coulter. Because based on your commentary, the latter two are where you’re getting all your information. Pro tip: they lie like rugs.
… the timing is suspect (see David’s comment above…) the statement by the Romney campaign is inexcusable. Nothing justifies it. Nothing.
Furthermore, if, say, John Kerry in ’04 or Gore in ’00 or Clinton in ’92 had said anything half so egregious this close to the election, every last voice in the Republican party would have (rightly) raised their voices in condemnation (indeed, a portion of them are doing just that now…) and we’d be hearing endless iterations of ‘poliltics stops at the waters edge’ ad infinitum.
Instead, you try to justify what you’d condemn if the speaker were a Dem.
n/t
Issued by the embassy in Cairo before any protests began:
This is certainly not an apology. It is a statement of American values and a reaffirmation of American values. Our founding fathers affirmed the rights of all religious people to their beliefs. Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran.
The only apologizing I have heard recently is from the Libyans who are apologizing to us and demonstrating in favor of the USA.
“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” said the president.
Oops.
At least, noted Obama hater John McCain doesn’t think so.
You’re quoting John McCain to defend Obama.
If this isn’t a gaff, why has the WH walked the statement back?
Aimed at Egypt, reminding them of the help they receive from us. Whether you agree with the barb or not, it’s not a gaffe.
just a statement from the POTUS completely contrary to OFFICIAL — repeat: OFFICIAL — US policy.
Now I’m really scared…of the two, Biden actually is the foreign policy expert.
These things can be checked, you know – let’s see what the State Dept. has to say about Egypt…
Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm
On the other hand, what does the State Dept. sy about the UK, unargubly an ally of the US?
Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3846.htm
So, the official position of the State Dept. doesn’t say anything about Egypt being an ally of the US, while it does say so for a country that is an ally – who’s the foreign policy expert now?
That the US lists the UK as an ally, but not Egypt, here’s some more, from the same source as Johnt’s links:
Japan
Germany
The word “ally” has a very specific and important meaning to diplomatic circles and isn’t a word that’s bandied around a lot.
It’s notable that our arbiter of OFFICIAL US POLICY – aka bostonshepherd – is silent on this response to his fabrications.
The problem with Romneys leadershipis that at Bain he bade short te decisions to make short term one time profits without consideration of the long term effects or consequences, it’s what’s practical at any given moment. This explains the constantly shifting positions to gain tactical advantage while pushing the strategic issues down the road. Under Obama we have had a solid, centrist, successful foreign policy and security strategy. We cannot, abd can never, say the same about Romney who will have a hard time keeping conflicting promises in office or having the temperament to handles crises.
Bain was all about short-term profits, with no consideration given to the long-term health of the target company, with the result that Bain always got paid handsomely even when the target company went down the crapper and ended up in bankruptcy court. Not a great strategy for world affairs, though.
a truthful statement is considered a gaffe. I find this to be an honest assessment:
“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” said the president.
Others are just grabbing at straws.
Boston Shepherd’s repetition of Fox spin, that Romney’s gaffe was a carefully thought out screw up by his advisors:
“painting Mr. Obama as apologizing for the United States.”
I hope it works, because it’s true.
It’s one of the biggest, most often debunked lies of this election cycle. It is a disgrace. You should be deeply embarrassed for adopting it … says a lot about you, none of it good.
Mitt Romney apologizes for the US all the time, saying we aren’t as good as other countries and showing himself as a guy who would take orders not just from the Israeli PM but even the Polish PM. It is quite possible he would allow his Bain buddy Bibi to drag us into WW3. While no one is paying attention to foreign policy this election, as LBJ said of Goldwater “the stakes are too high for you to stay home”.
He’s crossed the border of craven politician and into deranged. I’ve for a long time thought he wasn’t ‘quite right’ (really, I think the evidence is very strong that he’s a sociopath or something similar — such is his utter disregard for other members of the human species)… it’s moments like these which will make other Americans feel the same way.
but I think it’s a non-issue. Someone above compared it to the Olympics gaffe… ask the average Independent voter what the Olympic thing was about and I’m sure they have no idea… despite the MSM trying to make it a mountain.
care, but you’re half right about the MSM. They aren’t necessarily in love with Obama, but they now dislike Romney, just as they fell in love with Lyin’ Ryan earlier in the year.
As Krugman pointed out, they decided to dislike Gore in 2000 and that poisoned the stories on him. Romney’s biggest problem is that he repeats the same behaviors so often it sure as hell looks like he’ll do or say anything to win. It looks like his campaign team created this statement for him, but he’s too stupid to know that it was a no-no.
You really don’t have an ear for things that can be construed as racist, do you?
Could I say “your man” or would that be construed as racist.
NM, I’ll replace it with “your guy”, happy?
I don’t quite get how you might miss this but African-American men were often referred to as “boys” as if to imply that they weren’t fully adult. A careful writer, therefore, avoids that mistake precisely because, to educated readers, it is suggestive of racism.
If you’ve somehow missed that one, then perhaps you aren’t yet an educated reader. I’m sure Mr. Bail or Mr. Lynne will be happy to provide you all the remedial education you require in this regard.
or maybe I’m tired of people having to chose every single word they write or say so carefully because “something” means “something else” to “someone” “somewhere”… We should be able to speak freely and use the words and phrases of our language as it is and not worry about someone misinterpreting it.
… Superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t pull the mask of that ‘ol Lone Ranger and you certainly don’t want to call a grown black man boy. It’s right up there with calling your wife ‘your bitch’.
There’s a certain type of person who enjoys using phrases like that.
Part of the announcement from the Fed was they are revising the 2012 GDP projection down to 2.0 for the year.
Now that’s news that will effect an election!
better enough. But I don’t think it’s going to affect the election that much. The economy is regional. Some areas are doing better–Ohio, for example, has seen unemployment improved dramatically, though it is still high–while some like Nevada haven’t.
For the economy to affect the election, it will take two things: perceived lack of improvement in states that are in contention; and people thinking Romney-Ryan will do a better job.
QE3 is going to have some positive effects on the stock market and maybe the economy, but it will produce good news for at least a few weeks going forward. It’s another loss for the GOP.
because the Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act.
The buck stops with Obama. He takes the good news bump and he takes the bad news hit. He can’t have it both ways.
Oh, you only care about truths that “play” now.
Thought not.
Don’t vote for George Bush in November.
In my government, laws require a legislative branch. Although there is this unreasonable view on the part of some that he can just push congress to get what he needs passed, but they live in fantasyland.
On a side note, this notion that you think this latest gaff is “a non-issue” much seems to me to be the biggest tone-deaf misread I’ve heard from you in this race. Romney tried to insert himself into the news cycle in a desperate attempt to shake up a campaign who’s fundamentals aren’t working for him. In the process he managed to actually offend people that may have been ‘moveable’ for him. I myself, the day it happened, didn’t think it was that big a deal for him (admittedly, my expectations for ‘presidential’ behavior from him were already pretty low), but when I got home and perused the internet the magnitude of the backlash surprised me quite a bit.
By any reasonable standard of the reactions – it played. Right now pollsters are talking about the apparent bump that the convention had for Obama, its relative size and staying power. In the next few days they’ll talk about the apparent hit that Romney took for this, it’s relative size and staying power.
I wonder why everyone speaks so wonderfully about Bill Clinton’s Presidency? After all, he wasn’t in the Legislative Branch.
As for Romney, two groups think it’s bad… the MSM (where your perceived backlash is coming from, and blogs like BMG…), and people who already don’t like Romney. But the real test is from the voters and in November we will know categorically. If Romney loses then you are right, not just about this statement, but the Olympics, “firing people…” and everything else about him and his campaign. I have no problem admitting being wrong when that happens (I’ll even wear an “I WAS WRONG!” T-shirt for a day. Hopefully you will be “man enough” to admit the same if Romney wins (or maybe you’ll just blame uninformed voters).
…. the GOP. They were furious that welfare reform got to be a feather in *his* cap.
Based on the reaction I’m looking at, this thing was much worse than the Olympics or ‘firing people’ or ‘everything else’. Based on reaction this is probably even worse than his tax returns. I’m not commenting on the rest of that stuff anyway – just how bad this particular thing was.
The AJA could not clear the US Senate, could not clear cloture twice, in a chamber the Democrats control (for now.) It’s rejection was bipartisan.
The Republicans have rendered the Senate uncontrollable.
I hope you like bananas.
means never having to say you’re sorry-just dig deeper.
Get me that “like” button stat!
implies that at some point he might be.
I just think the guy has terrible judgment, and he’s never displayed any capacity to learn from his consistently facepalmworthy moments.
Five years ago, this is the kind of incoherent babbling we heard:
What the hell ever is that supposed to be?
David Bernstein has a lot more. His foreign policy vision is like a lurid comic book written by Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton on a PCP bender.
This is precisely what is happening across northern Africa and the Middle East as we speak. Please note which flags have been flown in place of the torn down Stars and Stripes, and displayed everywhere in these “protests.”
What is the Salafists’ end game in Libya?
Obama’s response was weak.
PS thanks for radio silence on this subject for a day, then deleting my post which did not approach it in a way palatable to the audience here ie “Americans die and how that proves Mitt Romney is dumb”.
.
.
Who would we kill?
“Bring ‘em on.”. It worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, it can work in Libya too.
Then we’ll slash taxes on the Job Creators.
Obama would have killed Osama bin Laden if Shrub hadn’t got him first.
…we should nuke Iran. Would that make you happy?
was not very coherent. It was a sort of collection of conservative mental impressions without much of a thread of argument. It was difficult to respond to because it was so unclear.
It was also shorter than most people’s comments.
*
In a news cycle world, you and I have no idea about what “Obama’s response” is. A lot of diplomacy and the like happens out of the glare of the media.
I took it down because it was an embarrassment to you and to BMG. Next time count to 10 before you publish.
…in one comment since I can’t nest.
BostonShepherd, learn how the Senate works. Just because something can’t survive cloture doesn’t mean Dems rejected it too. They can’t invoke cloture on their own.
I fully defend the original statement from our embassy in Egypt. How is calling for tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of others NOT a solidly American value?
Am I the only one who thinks Romney has a lot of nerve accusing the President of “apologizing for America” given how much Romney mocked/apologized for Massachusetts when he was Governor? That ought to be thrown back in his face every time he brings it up.
(1) I understand cloture. But Harry Reid couldn’t even get 50 votes on the first cloture attempt, and only 51 votes on the second try. Some Dems voted with the Repubs, so my comment was about Repubs unilaterally “blocking” the AJA as if it were something everyone wanted.
(2) What you point out are indeed American values. No argument. However, if one considers it was one of the first words delivered AFTER our embassy was attacked, it’s the wrong thing to emphasize.
The response should have been (a) stay off our sovereign territory, at the risk of getting shot, (b) go to hell, we’re a free country and everyone has the constitutional right to say anything they want, and (c) that includes our disgust at mocking Islam.
It’s an apology with an explanation. That’s how many likely voters see it, and how the Romney campaign will play it.
For those people sentient and voting circa 1979, these images of our embassies under attack trigger very visceral — and negative — emotions. It remains, a touchy subject.
(3) Yes, Romney has some nerve alright. Are you saying it’s ok then for Obama to mock and apologize for America?
Some words have different meanings. Before and after, for instance. Apologize seems to be another one.
What’s funny about bostonshepard and seascraper’s knee-jerk defense of Romney, is that neither actually likes Romney all that much. They are good at coming up with ways to attack Obama, albeit ineffectively, but you will never hear either one tell us what a great leader Romney will be, how he inspires them, or how clear his vision for the future is.
This is why Romney will lose in November. Even his own supporters do not like him all that much. So instead of trying to run a positive campaign trying to sell Romney’s positives, they are stuck with a mostly negative campaign. The problem with that is that Obama has been under a non-stop barrage of criticism from the Right going back before he was elected, so additional negative attacks don’t have all that much effect except to keep Romney’s base fired up (because they can’t get fired up by Romney himself). Romney, on the other hand, does have something to lose from attacks from the Obama side.
So by all means, please go on and continue your ineffective attacks on Obama while your candidate goes down in flames and brings down others in the party with him.
But certainly way up on a pedestal when contrasted with Obama.
As for negative advertising, well, it works, and there’s plenty negative to advertise — unemployment, an economy about to double-dip, out-of-control government spending, cumulative federal debt of $200,000 per household, Fed Reserve about to add additional debt of $275 per person per month, $4 gas prices, food prices, dead US diplomats, a consulate in flames, the images of Salafist flags on US Embassy flagpoles, anti-American demonstrations from Morocco to Bangladesh…you get the point. And I have don’t have all day.
By the way, I’m predicting Romney wins by 10 PM EST after carrying NH, VA, FL, and OH.
See what I mean? That is the best you can say about the guy? Don’t feel bad, no one else has anything nice to say about Romney either.
Yes, negative ads do work to some degree, but that works both ways. When push comes to shove, if Romney can’t convince people he is going to not make things worse, then I don’t see how he is going to win, and he is not going to do that with attacks.
Your prediction is pretty bold given that the polls have been trending Obama’s way in all four of those states, some substantially so. Of course, anything can change, but what makes you think it will?
The Republican convention was a wash, and long term the only thing anyone is going to remember about it is Clint Eastwood’s empty chair rant so it is probably a long-term negative. So all Romney has left is the debates. Do you really think that Romney is going to gain anything from them? Romney did ok when he was debating crazy people in the primaries, but it is going to be different with Obama. And in the meantime we can expect to see at least one or two gaffes a week from Romney’s campaign.
It really seems like Romney’s primary hope for election at this point is voter suppression.
Right now at FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver has OH, FL and VA a light blue and NH a darker Blue. But as we have seen from this week, facts and reality mean Nothing to Republicans. I am predicting Obama by 11PM with the polls closing in California and Washington.
FiveThirtyEigth
shepherd and seascraper have is that Romney hasn’t told anyone what his policies on job creation, the middle east or the annual Rose Garden Easter egg hunt might look like.
but I cannot argue with your point. He needs to tell people what HE will do and stop talking about Obama’s failed policies.
We know you support him, but you and everyone else here who takes Romney’s side hasn’t made any effort to convince us that you admire him or tell us why we would be a wise and effective leader. Because deep down you know he won’t be.
The problem is now much deeper than Romney’s choice of campaign strategy. Even if he starts talking about policy details now (and he probably will), most of his supporters aren’t ready to sell them, they are stuck in permanent attack mode and don’t know how to stop.
At some point, you should just cut your losses and try to prevent Romney from taking down Scott Brown and Richard Tisei with him.
But that’s me and I can’t talk for other Romney supporters.
I haven’t wasted time trying to convince people here because you are all un-convincible.
We’re in this till the end and are still quite bullish.
Secretly admiring Romney is going to help him win. If you and others aren’t willing or able to articulate why you like Romney, then how is he supposed to win?
Romney by 6 over Obama, Brown by 5 to 7 points, toss up in the Sixth but I pick Tisei because of the heavy Repub turnout.
Just to be clear, you are predicting Romney to beat Obama by at least 6% of the popular vote? Are you smoking crack? Do you give us permission to forever mock you if it goes the other way?
And no, boasting that Romney is going to win doesn’t prove to anyone that you actually like the guy. Hell, if a bag of rocks was running against Obama, you would still support it.
which means you can all share the short school bus the the polls and then go to Denny’s together and share a booth.
I liked him and voted for him s Gov of MA, I liked him when he ran in 2008 and I have liked him as a candidate once this started running. NO SECRET!
I do think I would support almost anyone running against Obama but we’d have to be specific on the makeup of the rocks. I would even have voted for Ron Paul and/or Rick Perry because I’m so anti-Obama, I admit it.
You still can’t tell us why.
You guys have to stop trying to convince us that Obama is crappy and instead convince us that Romney is good. If you can’t do that, then you have answered your own question as to why Romney hasn’t done it himself.
Romney doesn’t have the numbers among registered republican voters, particularly now that the coordinated attempt to supress the vote in multiple states has largely failed. Though it may seem the Independents will get him elected, on issues the Independents are more with the dems than with the republicans.
http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/09/%e2%80%9ccan-romney-get-a-majority%e2%80%9d/
…if you’re going to get into the predictions game on election outcomes, kindly cite some polls that bear that out.
First, I use what ever state poll has been published most recently, but only if it publishes the cross-tabs of how respondents identify themselves by party.
Second, I go back to the 2010 mid-terms and determine the change in voter sentiment using state races (house, senate, executive offices) from 2008. In NH, the swing was massive. From 55/45 D/R to 60/40 R/D. I call this “relative swing.” If you look at the voter turnout by party 2008 and 2010, these swings mimic the changes in voter turnout by party.
In NH, as an example, the house/senate/executive mix in 2008 was 55/45. Obama took NH 53/45. Same results in the other states where I’ve done this analysis. Remarkably close, actually.
Third, I assume independents, if they are broken out in the polling details, will split 50/50 in November.
Fourth, I take 50% of the relative swing, just a random choice, and revise the polling sample to reflect that swing, and recalculate the percentages accordingly.
I have done this for NH, PA, VA, FL, and OH. Romney wins all but PA, and Ohio is the closest. NH is +7 Romney. I haven’t calculated MI or WI but I bet those are toss ups right now.
My logic — turnout will be more similar to 2010 than to 2008 what with D and R enthusiasm levels running neck and neck, not the case in 2008. And the wild card is how independents will break…I use 50/50 but the last number I saw has Romney ahead nationally by 14%. That was before Charlotte.
One has to buy that the turnout percentages will not be quite as they were in 2008 which is generally what all the polls reflect, sort of a 53/47 D/R mix.
And, anecdotally, >50% of the Obama voters I know are voting for Romney. Excluding you guys.
YMMV.
Who needs actual statistical modeling and sophisticated analysis of multiple polls when we’ve got seat-of-the-pants, back-of-the-envelope gibberish from bostonshepherd?
Mr. Silver and I show very similar relative results for those states I reviewed: NH, OH, PA, VA, and FL: PA to Obama, the rest are close.
All 538 does is take a number of existing state polls, and weight them. Real Clear Politics does this as well by taking a simple average (equal weights.) I could not find the methodology by which Mr. Silver determines his weights; obviously he discounts older polls, but how does he weight the contemporaneous ones?
Anyway, he still leaves unanswered the question about shifting voter sentiment between 2008 and 2010. For example, in 538′s UNH’s New Hampshire poll of 9/10, likely-voter affiliation was:
Democrat n=255, or 43%
Republican n=93, or 16%
Independent n=243, or 41%
Split the Independent vote 50/50 and the results D/R are 51/49, tighter than the 53/45 2008 split but a far cry from 40/60 split in 2010. And it’s the reverse of the current registered party affiliation (as of Apr 2012) of 49/51.
And note, the state house+senate+executive ratio from the 2008 election was 53/45, same as the Obama/McCain split.
I think one can make a reasonable argument the there was in NH a very substantial shift in voter sentiment, as signaled by the 2010 results. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that some of this sentiment will carry over to 2012. How much? Can’t say, so I picked a naive 50% of the sentiment shift, and I split the unaffiliated registered voters 50/50.
However 538 weights the poll results they way he does, my methodology is still valid. You may disagree, but that doesn’t nullify my approach.
If I were getting crazy results, like CA +1 Romney, I’d abandon the exercise. But current electoral maps show NH, VA, and FL toss-ups or slightly Obama, OH mostly a toss up, and PA likely Obama. That, I think, mostly validates my methodology.
That doesn’t mean my results are right. Christopher makes valid points about on- and off-cycle turnout. But my methodology is defensible.
That’s just not true. Please, for the love of God, learn before you speak. This once, I’ll help you out with the straightforward Google search that would help prevent further embarrassment.
so I am like totally going to vote like Republican this year, OMG, because while you have like totally nailed NH, you are going out a limb and just guessing on Michigan and Wisoonsin.
What like totally solid methodology – O M G!
God forbid I should believe Nate Silver who uses proven statistical analysis (see FiveThirtyEight) when I could trust poll numbers that are based on the age old proven analysis, of “I just pulled the numbers out of my ass”.
…compare apples to apples. 2012 is a presidential year, the most recent of those being 2008. Midterm turnout is generally notoriously low and there’s no question the GOP had the enthusiasm advantage that year. Second, I’d love to see you explain away this and this.
You’re right about mid-term turn out. I thought that mid-terms have wider variability than presidential election years so that’s why I discount by 50% the off-year sentiment shift. I could be totally wrong about the shift carrying over, even at 50%. Maybe it’s 25%, or zero.
If it’s zero, then I’d be using the same D/R outcomes from 2008. Like most of the polling companies.
I did compare your selected map to my result…I was surprised to see them show FL as a toss-up. The rest align comparatively with my results.
As for 538, see my discussion with David, above.
And thanks for not calling me a silly moron.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Mon 20 May 12:47 PM