A Conservatives Honest Appraisal

Let me start by saying, that in the world of politics, there is very little that is black and white, with almost everything being grey, with wiggle room afforded due to word nuance, spin,carefully selected stats, interpretation etc. Essentially anyone can hand select whatever statistics will tell the story that they want to hear or believe. With this in mind, it is human nature to discount and pick apart those things that dont support our preconceived notions, and to internalize those things that do. It is for this very reason that people can sit there and argue politics with both sides being truthful, and both sides claiming to have the "facts" on their side. As an example take a look at the subject of the economy. There are no less then a thousand different economic indicators, and at any one time either side can hand select 6 or 8 of those indicators that will back up whatever position they are wishing to hold, to tell whatever outcome they wish to express either good or bad.

With this in mind, I wanted to comment on my take on where the election currently sits. In the interest of full disclosure, I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate or liberal, with my tent being firmly erected in the Republican camp. The way I see it, the proclamations of Romneys imminent demise are greatly exxagerated. I would be lying if I were to pretend that I wouldnt rather see the current polling favoring Romney, but with that being said, several things dont sit right with me and the current narrative being promulgated mainly by the mainstream press.

First off, lets face it, regardless of spin, the economy has performed horribly, much worse then anyone legitimately projected at the beginning of Obamas term. I know the left will retort with some derivation of " he saved us from another depression", but lets be honest, nobody, including Obamas team, truly thought or projected any economic outcome worse then what has occurred. Attempts at spinning the economic performance as good or acceptable, as Cappy is so fond of saying, is merely "whistling in the graveyard". Economic performance doesnt have a direct 1 to 1 correlation at the actual ballot box, but you certainly cant argue there is an inverse relationship.

At this point, the left would predictably point out that bad economy or not, the polls are where they are, and this is due to Romney being such a horrible candidate etc. Which could have some validity, however, being a political junkie, I have been well aware for a couple years now that attacking the other candidate is the only way to potentially win when economic performance is abysmal. This line of attack being pre ordained, makes it hard to take seriously the claim once it is made. In this election, you could have the theoretical best candidate to ever walk the face of the earth, and that would still be the narrative coming from the left.

From a conservatives perspective, the overwhelming bulk of the mainstream media is shockingly in the tank for Obama. It appears that when questioning Romney, there is a vim, vigor, and disdain in their tone and follow up questions that just doesnt exist when questioning Obama. It appears to a conservative that the mainstream press has no desire whatsoever to harm Obama in any way during this election, refusing to adequately cover subjects that could prove sticky for the president, such as the middle east situation. The press has spent far more time grilling Romney on the subject then they have the actual president who is in charge, which is shockingly shameless in pushing their desired outcome. I dont bring up the media bias for the purpose of whining about it, but rather to explain my skepticism in what they push as their narrative for the upcoming election. With all that is wrong with our country today, the media is pushing the notion that it is over WAY too much to be believable, particularly this far away from the election and not one debate yet having taken place. Which brings me to the polling.

From a conservatives perspective, there are several relatively recent instances where polling appears to us to be used to try to influence voting behavior. In Florida in 2000, in a state that was historically close in the outcome, the polling stated such a large margin for Gore, that the state was called for him before the polls even closed in the panhandle, which is a conservative stronghold. Was this announcement designed to suppress the voter turnout in the conservative part of the state? We will never know for sure, but to any Conservative it surely appears that way, and Liberals would feel the same way if the tables were reversed. Polls can be off slightly from time to time, but to be off to the point that you call a state early before the polls have closed, when its historically close, just doesnt pass the smell test for me. Another example was the 2004 election. Exit polling had Kerry winning, and winning big. Obviously this was wrong. In 2008 the polling organization in the weeks leading up had obama winning by a much larger margin then he received, and only until the last few days did those organizations bring their polling in line with where Rasmussen was at the time. In terms of 2012, we have Democrats being over sampled in poll after poll, using turnout numbers from 2008 when enthusiasm for the first black president was at a fever pitch. Nobody is expecting that proportion of turn out in this election cycle, yet that is the model being employed. I see results from this model projecting predictions of a ten point lead for Obama in Ohio. Let me be the first to say, Obama is NOT going to win Ohio by 10 points, or anything even remotely close to that number. He could very well win that state, but it would be by a 1 or 2 or maybe 3 point margin if he were lucky. With a reported 10 point lead, how can that assessment honestly be taken seriously? This is outside of the margin of error in terms of where that state will end up, and as such, is a statistically invalid analysis. If it were to end up being a 7 point win for Obama in Ohio, I would be wrong about it being statistically invalid, but id be happy to bet anyone almost any amount of money the margin in Ohio will not be anywhere near 7 points. As such, I simply find this analysis hard to believe. I could go on and on about various polls and the methodology employed, but I think I have explained my point.

This election could go either way, I am not predicting either a Romney or Obama win. This election will be close whichever way it goes, and what happens between now and November including the debates will determine who wins. Reports that this election is so lopsided that it is over is merely "whistling in the graveyard".

 

Reports are overwhelmingly supportive of an obvious re-election... I just read an article this morning on Google News that said Obama was close to, was destined to, or had in essence already the 270 points needed to win... inferring the next five weeks will be a big waste of time and money.

I think an underlying current in your OP is distrust in mainstream media. And I don't blame you. Heck, that's why I come to this site- to hear differing opinions. But I am seeing one underying truth and that is that Obama will be re-elected by a wide margain... in some polls today, he's already won.

As a whim, you know what would be nice? To see Obama give a statement that he is donating $200 million of his war chest to say, feed Africa or something... that it's no longer neccesary to go overboard and blow campain money on the campaign, considering he already won. "Let Romney blow millions to smear me, I am still me." That's enough to win.

I read and trust Google News because it's as close as you can get to objective news. I suggest you check that out-

 

You mention distrust of the media.

In order to fix that, I wish that the President would be required to debate the opposition party once a month. It should be on CSpan. That way the media can't spin politics. Can you imagine if Obama had to debate the Republicans on a monthly basis? Do you think he would have these high rates. He would have to explain on a monthly basis why this economy is in shambles.

A live monthly debate would by pass the media. They media can't rescue the President if he crashes and burns live on a TV debate.

 

How about manditory debates for all candidates? You can only miss up to 3, and you are disqualified from the election if you do not attend the minimum amount required.

 

Your point is very well taken, I support Obama and call myself a left wing progressive, but I grew up in a conservative household and many of my lefty friends are surprised at some of my opinions. Hunter Thompson wrote 'the polls don't predict reality, they follow it'. Of course the election is not over, there is still more then a full month to go. America is split down the middle politically thanks to the warring camps us 'baby boomers' broke down into forty years ago. Like you I am not a knee jerk, I look at candidates and issues one at a time. We need to get over this anger and start taking on the serious issues our nation faces. Energy, jobs, education. I worry about the future for my children and grandchildren, and I know many on the right worry about the same things. Let's start finding concerns we share and look for solutions instead of arguing about it.

 

Obama is definitely leading where it counts, the electoral college, so no matter what the country is feeling, its irrelevant to that. He simply is carrying the States with more electoral votes so Romney has a huge fight trying to take the battleground States that are left. He is in the unfortunate position of having to win most of them to win the election and that probably isn't going to happen.

The country may want him overall but that is not what determines who the President is. In my opinion, the republicans should have focused more on States like California in the previous 4 years then spinning their wheels doing nothing.

 

Knowing Barraq, he will probably try to find some wy to duck out of the debate by playing golf in hawaii with 50cent or some other peice of garbage like Will I Am. Hillary will be there to wash his ballz and carry his sac.

 

Okay, you've made up your mind... go vote for someone other than Obama; got it.

Even so, I'm not buying YOUR analysis of what happened with the economy.

I've paid attention to Presidents coming and going since the 60's; I cannot remember when a President stepped into a pile of sh__ as deep as Obama did on his FIRST day into office. ON TOP OF THAT... Mr. Obama had essentially the ENTIRE Republican component of Congress plot against him the day he stepped into office; what they carried out is IMO a betrayal of the American people.

Now, here comes (almost always) LYING, Mr. 47%, Mint-Raw-Money, the Etchy-Sketchy (flip-flopping), out-of-touch, uninspiring ex-Governor and Vulture Capitalist.

Here it is, right here: President Barack Obama GETS MY VOTE in 2012!!!

 

FDR stepped into far worse and Barack got practically everything he wanted the first two years. Here's a news flash, the democrats wanted Bush to be a 1-term President also.

Shocking I know!

 

Welcome to TODAY. We disagree. And the election is November 2012; we'll see what happens.

 

Not sure how you can disagree with that but ok.

 

I disagree. I think it's more likely that the republicans stole the election again.

 

So let me get this straight.....You disagree with my analysis that the economy has been abysmal, because as you say he stepped into a pile of sh_ upon entering office?.....is that the sum total of your defense of the economy? This response would be the very definition of a straw man to the subject that you purport to be addressing. The subject in question has NOTHING to do with what he inherited, it has EVERYTHING to do with how he perfomred in turning it around versus projections when he took office. Everyone knows he inherited a bad economy, that isnt in doubt. Which is why I specifically said it has performed much worse than anyone of any credibility had projected, including Obamas own economic team. You see, when he took office, we already knew the economy was in shambles, which is why projections at that time are what is relevant, because those projections already took into account the banking collapse that had just occurred. Obama came into office with the hopes and plans of minimizing the economic malaise, and in that respect he has failed miserably. To find evidence of under performing versus expectations, one need look no further than the unemployment rate being projected to stay under 8 at its apex while going over 10 and remaining over 8 to this day, and the two "summers of recovery that never even remotely materialized. If you are going to attempt to refute my words, please actually address them, and dont go off on your own manufactured strawman debate.

 

With that type of rationale, you NEVER have to internalize any failing of the party you support. How delightfully delusional.

 

While I made mention of my distrust of the media in regards to putting forth a narrative that this election is over, the main thrust was that I dont trust the methodology being employed in polling that oversamples democrats utilizing a turnout model that applied in 2008 when Obama fever was at its apex, and shows a swing state like Ohio with a 10 point margin, when in fact that will NEVER be even in the margin of error of the eventual outcome in a swing state. So while Google news may be a non biased news source, an unbiased news source presenting polling with flawed methodology, is still presenting invalid projections. Garbage in....garbage out.

 

Finding solutions? Well there is Obama's way or the highway. That is the solution when dealing with the party of "no". LOL.

I guess I've grown too cynical to think that elections are even fair anymore. I mean, Obama lost the popular vote in his own party but still won the nomination The bottom line is that if you stroke the right feathers you win. Also, Obama comes from Chicago politics, so it's like trying to beat Capone. For these reasons I think Obama will win. Of course, most folks I talk to seem rather angry and/or scared. Considering that, I don't know how an Obama re-election could ever be considered legitimate, at least from my perspective.

 

I think you've provided a pretty well reasoned analysis. Although I have the same issues with the polling you mentioned, there is an underlying trend, and that's that Obama has edged up. If the polls were really that far off, you would expect wildly differing results from different polls, but they all tend to show strong Obama numbers. It is remarkable that with the economic news trending so badly, it's hard to understand how an incumbent could be doing so well against any generic opposition candidate, and Romney is about as generic as it comes. Particularly with the amount of bad economic news that we've gotten in about the same time that Obama has gone up in the polls. Durable goods orders down, the 2nd quarter GDP was downgraded to 1.25%... we are sliding back into recession, but consumer confidence is up and polling is showing that the public, at least for this snapshot, trusts Obama more on the economy.

I would have to say though, that if all the news that you watch is the half hour network news, it's like living in an alternate universe. The biggest foreign policy crisis of the year, that includes administration incompetence, cover up, misdirection, administration officials lying to the press and public, and being caught at it, has been distilled to Romney making a gaffe. Could you imagine a similar screw up by the Bush administration being covered this way? The press has thrown everything, but especially their credibility, into getting Obama re=elected. It really is that important to them. They control the disinterested undecideds who will make the difference in this election and they intend to use that power, and this isn't a last minute thing. The media began colluding with the White House back in January. That's why it will be an uphill climb for Romney regardless of what happens in the debates or what happens to the economy.

 

I think it shows that the power of the press reigns supreme. After all, most people are lemmings. Most I talk to have no idea what is going on.

 

I would absolutely agree that Obama has inched up, and for the moment at least, the polls are trending in his direction. In regards to wildly differing results, that is specifically to what Im referring. Nationally, Obama is winning by a few points and in most cases within or very close to the margin of error. However, you have a few smaller state polls, such as the one in Ohio, that WAY oversamples Democrats, and resultingly shows Obama with a 10 point lead, which plain and simple is NOT the case and will NOT be the case. It flies in the face of any form of logic to say that a candidate is winning nationally by 3 points, and yet in a SWING state, is winning by 10. Swing states are by their very nature closer than the national average, not 3 times as polarized. Being that Ohio is absolutely critical to a Republican winning the white house, the mainstream media is reporting this obvious statistical outlier Ohio poll, shouting it from the mountaintops, and following that with the narrative that this race is over as a result.

 

It does not defy logic that a national poll could show the race closer that in an individual swing state. National polls reflect the margins in all states. So some red ones with larger margin for Romney could be the cause of a national poll being closer. Personally I see no valid reason to not accept what the polls say about Ohio. Ohio's unemployment rate is below the national average at 7.2 % and Obama's support of the help for the car companies which many jobs in Ohio are based on which Romney did not support is probably a factor.

 

A valid reason NOT to believe that Obama is winning or will win Ohio by 10 points? Because in 2008, with Obama fever at an all time high, record enthusiasm and resulting turnout for the first black president, he won that state by 4%. Nobody is believing or expecting similar enthusiasm or turnout in this election, yet if we are to believe that poll, he is going to take his winning margin in 2008, and multiply it by 2.5. That simply is NOT going to happen, not in a million years. Most people have very little knowledge about how statistical sampling works. These polls typically work off of a 95% confidence interval. That means that 5% of the time, you will get a result outside of the margin of error. When this occurs it is called a statistical outlier, and a stitistical outlier poll is considered completely useless in terms of predictive value. That means 1 out of every 20 polls will produce a statistical outlier. In an election season, with literally hundreds of polls being bandied about, you can rest assured that statistical outliers will be in abundance. You can also rest assured that todays mainstream media will grab ahold of any statistical outlier they can, in order to promulgate the desired narrative they want to tell.

 

In essence, Conservatives tend to be for Romney. That's what this thread is saying overall.

 

LOL....Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

 

It is impossible for any individual to correctly gauge the mood of the entire nation. Where I am I see a lot of out front support of Obama, I mean his supporters speak of him openly and positively. The Romney supporters are around but they are quiet and when they speak of Romney there is a vague sense of disappointment in their candidate, as if they would rather vote for someone else.

But none of that really means anything. I am just one person, I speak to less than 1000 people per week, and the people I do talk to often avoid politics entirely. The polls are seldom perfect and sometimes they are completely useless.

So you are correct essentially, though I disagree with your details.

 

What details specifically do you disagree with?