Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to say, this summer was probably the best election season I can recall. Obama has a slight lead. Romney implodes with the 47% making is looks like a blowout. Clinton and (Michelle) Obama rocked the house at the convention adding to that impression. Then, Romney spanked Obama soundly in debate 1, rekindling his whole campaign. Obama regains his legs fights to a draw in debate 2 (which George Will said was the best presidential debate ever), and prevails in debate 3. Romney makes a hell of a charge in early October, grabbing the popular vote and pulling within the margin of error in the swing states, and then Sandy rolled in, deciding it.
Both candidates fought very hard and provided a great show for their supporters, and the winner won narrowly, but decisively (no 2000 debacle). All in all, it was a great presidential contest, and both candidates worked extremely hard to make their cases.
I have to say, this summer was probably the best election season I can recall. Obama has a lead. Romney imploed with the 47%. Clinton and (Michelle) Obama rocked the house at the convention, Romney spanked Obama in debate 1, Obama fought to a draw in debate 2 (which George Will said was the best presidential debate ever), and prevailed in debate 3. Romney made a hell of a charge in early October, and then Sandy rolled in, deciding it.
Both candidates fought very hard and provided a great show for their supporters, and the winner won narrowly, but decisively (no 2000 debacle). All in all, it was a great presidential contest, and both candidates worked extremely hard to make their cases.
Democracy in action.
I really don't think it was a horserace at all. Obama never lost his consistent swing-state lead in the polls, even though Romney did jump after the first debate. And as we now know, those polls were right, while Rasmussen, who consistently showed a Romney lead, was among the worst.
I really don't think it was a horserace at all. Obama never lost his consistent swing-state lead in the polls, even though Romney did jump after the first debate. And as we now know, those polls were right, while Rasmussen, who consistently showed a Romney lead, was among the worst.
Sure, in retrospect, and knowing Nate Silver killed it with all his predictions, you are right. But it did not feel that way to me during the race. I really felt Romney had the lead for much of October.
What we did not know at that time was the effect of Sandy, the hispanic vote, the youth vote, or the epic Obama ground game. None of the polls showed Obama carrying FL, for instance, and CO only came around on the post Sandy home stretch, though it may have been in the bag the whole time.
It FELT like a great horse race to me, and I was sweating it at times.
Sure, in retrospect, and knowing Nate Silver killed it with all his predictions, you are right. But it did not feel that way to me during the race. I really felt Romney had the lead for much of October.
What we did not know at that time was the effect of Sandy, the hispanic vote, the youth vote, or the epic Obama ground game. None of the polls showed Obama carrying FL, for instance, and CO only came around on the post Sandy home stretch, though it may have been in the bag the whole time.
It FELT like a great horse race to me, and I was sweating it at times.
The only time I sweated it was after the first Obama debate and before the second.
That's part of the problem - the media MADE it into a horserace by only focusing on polls that showed the election close, and ignoring the rest. I was looking at Drudge this past month on occasion, and he ONLY posted polls that showed Romney ahead. The right created their own narrative by looking selectively at the evidence that confirmed what they wanted to believe, and that's why, even on election day, they were absolutely certain that Romney would win.
Obama never lost his lead in Ohio, for example (except for the odd poll every once in a while). PA and WI were "media made" swing states that Romney was never going to win. IA polled strongly for Obama. The only places that were uncertain were FL, VA, CO and NC. Nobody in the media bothered to mention that Romney would need to win an almost impossible combination of these states to take the presidency, and the consensus of polls consistently showed this. Obama never needed to win Florida or North Carolina.
The right, is anything, should be furious at their media for outright lying to them for the past few months. Romney was always the underdog, and the only momentum he had was after that first debate. That's it.
I thought it was a great election season, and I have seen all since Johnson.
I particularly enjoyed the various Republicans who ran for the Republican nomination, with one after another shining star blazing into the atmosphere, only to come crashing down like a wet meteor (yes, Governor Perry, I am particularly looking at you).
As for Obama v. Romney: I was one of those who believed it was a very close race. I saw the various polls, but come election night I truly had no idea who would win. I declined to join that thread about declaring for one side or another, and, if losing, not posting for a week. I had no idea.
I was also somewhat pleased to not live in a 'battleground' state (apparently, the two candidates only really campaigned in some 10 or 12 states). I felt for those who live in Iowa, Ohio, etc., who were apparently barraged with robo-phone calls, political ads totaling millions and millions of dollars, etc. (I also love Tivo: I was able to blast through any local ads for Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis, etc).
I look forward to 2016, when both parties will be swamped with potential candidates. Hopefully, one party will actually have an interesting convention to watch (the old conventions, prior to the primary system, were instructive to watch; my first one to watch was 1964, with favorite son candidates, back-room deals, etc).
I agree, Fiddlehead.
What we got was a clash of two great personalities, each very representative of their party and each hard and tough fighters committed to going all the way to the finish.
I remember a lot of elections that were pretty much cooked and done by the end of September, but not this one. This contest was a lot more vivid than I ever thought it would be last spring, when the Republican primaries were dragging along forever like an old guy with his walker.
The only time I sweated it was after the first Obama debate and before the second.
That's part of the problem - the media MADE it into a horserace by only focusing on polls that showed the election close, and ignoring the rest. I was looking at Drudge this past month on occasion, and he ONLY posted polls that showed Romney ahead. The right created their own narrative by looking selectively at the evidence that confirmed what they wanted to believe, and that's why, even on election day, they were absolutely certain that Romney would win.
Obama never lost his lead in Ohio, for example (except for the odd poll every once in a while). PA and WI were "media made" swing states that Romney was never going to win. IA polled strongly for Obama. The only places that were uncertain were FL, VA, CO and NC. Nobody in the media bothered to mention that Romney would need to win an almost impossible combination of these states to take the presidency, and the consensus of polls consistently showed this. Obama never needed to win Florida or North Carolina.
The right, is anything, should be furious at their media for outright lying to them for the past few months. Romney was always the underdog, and the only momentum he had was after that first debate. That's it.
I hate resurrecting old threads, but I thought this was a great point, and probably explains why many Romney supporters were so shocked by the results. I do think that Republicans self selected the polls they cared about, but I think the biggest problem was the media doing the same thing, and not just Fox News.
I think the smart people in the media knew Obama would probably win, but saying that doesn't draw in viewers, so they falsely portrayed the election as a horse race. I remember watching CNN one day when they released a new Ohio poll. Wolf Blitzer started off by saying that Obama and Romney were neck and neck, and then when they revealed the results it showed Obama leading by four. I was furious, not as an Obama supporter but as a viewer. Anybody who has studied polling knows that a four point lead is definitely a lead, even when taking the margin of error into account. Yet they billed it as a dead heat. That's just not responsible journalism. And then of course Fox News only highlighted the Rasmussen polls which were very generous to Romney.
The worst was when the media started essentially creating new swing states. During the last week or two of the campaign, Romney dumped a bunch of extra cash into Pennsylvania in a total hail mary, but then everyone on the news started calling PA a swing state. Sorry, but spending a few bucks on ads doesn't make a state a battleground, but they led us to believe the opposite. So I don't blame conservatives for being upset. The election was not covered in the right context.
I have to say, this summer was probably the best election season I can recall. Obama has a slight lead. Romney implodes with the 47% making is looks like a blowout. Clinton and (Michelle) Obama rocked the house at the convention adding to that impression. Then, Romney spanked Obama soundly in debate 1, rekindling his whole campaign. Obama regains his legs fights to a draw in debate 2 (which George Will said was the best presidential debate ever), and prevails in debate 3. Romney makes a hell of a charge in early October, grabbing the popular vote and pulling within the margin of error in the swing states, and then Sandy rolled in, deciding it.
Both candidates fought very hard and provided a great show for their supporters, and the winner won narrowly, but decisively (no 2000 debacle). All in all, it was a great presidential contest, and both candidates worked extremely hard to make their cases.
Democracy in action.
.
I still don't think Sandy had anything to do with it. If anything, fewer Democrats from NJ and NY voted because they had other things to do.
I highly doubt that very many people in the swing states changed their minds because of Sandy, because it did not affect them personally. Obama won most of the swing states quite handily.
Republicans keep harping on Sandy because they just cannot believe they lost. It couldn't be that Americans have rejected their policies, now could it? They were so sure they would win with their outdated political agenda.
Both Obama and Chris Christie were doing their jobs during Sandy, and that just infuriated the Republicans. They've even turned against Christie, and he was doing his job (and a good one, I must admit, even though I'm a Democrat) during a very difficult time.
Now if the President had been a Republican, they would have been cheering. Christie needed the President there so that he could get disaster relief aid. Obama took time off from campaigning in some swing states to be there. You would think that would have lost him some undecideds. And at least Obama was there, unlike Bush the Younger in New Orleans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
