General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOf Course Romney is Behind in the Polls
Of Course Romney is Behind in the Polls
by BooMan
Sat Jul 28th, 2012 at 10:24:48 AM EST
I'm tired of political scientists who look at historical economic data and say that Mitt Romney should be leading in the polls. I see a lot of this coming from people on the left, and I think it may have something to do with the left's propensity to see history as unfolding in some kind of deterministic dialectical way. People on the right are much more inclined to give credit to the "great men in history" approach to understanding events. That's why they fetishize Winston Churchill, for example.
I'm trying to think of the right kind of analogy to explain my dissatisfaction. Remember Mike Tyson at the end of his professional career, after he had suffered defeat, gone to jail for rape, and then decided to bite off a chunk of Evander Holyfield's ear rather than continue to fight him man-to-man? At that point, Tyson had lost everyone's sympathy and their trust. You wouldn't expect the prognosticators to predict future victories, nor would you expect the judges to be unbiased against him. But what if you had him fight a featherweight fighter? What if you had him fight some guy you picked up off the street? In those cases, Tyson's declining performance and erratic behavior would not be an indicator that he was about to lose. Not at all. Mitt Romney should not be ahead in the polls because he's a featherweight. He's no match for the president as a politician.
And, frankly, this is a highly unfair analogy because President Obama hasn't behaved erratically or showed any signs of ring-rust. He hasn't lost people's trust. And the Republicans, now led by Mitt Romney, have done everything they can think of to prevent a robust economic recovery. Do the experts factor Republicans' culpability for the economy into their equations? When was the last time a political party intentionally sabotaged the economy and the country's credit rating during a period of high unemployment? Are the people supposed to be completely unaware of this record?
When has a party been so openly hostile to so much of the electorate? Over the last four years, the Republicans have waged a War on Women, who make up more than 50% of the electorate. They have vilified Latinos, who are the fastest growing demographic in the country. They've passed laws aimed mainly at disenfranchising blacks. They've waged a cultural war against gay rights. They've attacked Muslims' right to build mosques and worship as they please. They've alienated the scientific community by denying that climate change is occurring. They've waged an unprecedented war on public sector employees and unions in general. That's a lot of people who need to disregard the way they've been treated in order to cast a vote against Obama because of the economy. Forget the GDP or the unemployment rate, any party that alienates this many people should be behind in the polls.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/7/28/102448/411
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,699 posts)siligut
(12,272 posts)Republicans know they can't win in a fair election. However, their attitude and the meme they are pushing to their base is that some people don't deserve to vote, some people aren't real Americans.
samsingh
(17,601 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)There is money to be made by a 'close' race.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)and a brainwashed populace. Which is why it's as close as it is.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)They won't tell anyone (repeatedly) the Gang Of Phari$ee$ want to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps altogether.
Imagine the DEPRESSION that will follow...
Idiot$.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Mitt Robme should be behind by like 98% to 2%. His policies clearly only have the interests in mind of about 2% of the population such as tax cuts for the upper class vs tax hikes for the working class, slashing "entitlement" programs, and repealing the ACA. The elites in this country have done well in tricking a number of voters to vote against their own pocketbooks.
Dan
(3,579 posts)who would pay to see Tyson fight to see some guy off the streets - - - unless you hyped it with lies..
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)When they should be straight forward and easy to understand.
How can a poll show Obama with a 2 point lead they turn around and show Romney has a 40 point deficit with Hispanic voters, a 90 point deficit with African-American voters and a 16 point deficit with women. Granted, there is overlap with women and the other groups, but still. Oh, an then there is the under 30 deficit for Romney.
For these numbers to work means Obama has at least a 25-30 point deficit with white males and an even larger deficit than that for those over 30. Don't these numbers show that for a large portion of the electorate race is the only issue that matters and shouldn't this be getting a great deal of new coverage.
Or, are certain groups being under polled and substantially? The math just doesn't add up, especially with Gallup.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)But the repubs are doing all they can to disenfranchise them also. So it may in fact reflect the end result.
dtom67
(634 posts)This is why I sometimes suspect that our system is too corrupt; How did any of these clowns get elected?
Mitch "The Bitch" McClown-all only thinks about the people of Kentucky when he is wiping his @ss with them.
How does he get elected?
How can I believe that we have fair elections?
The repubs are gonna spend a $billion+ to beat us this fall;
If they win any part of the national election, I will not be able to believe.....
triplepoint
(431 posts)It's deja vu all over again....but this time....we're up against seemingly unlimited organized money thanks to the "Citizens United" decision by the supreme dorks. It is all perception. There is no spoon....