Proof the Bain attacks are working...

[Drunken Irishman]

The media is lying to you (surprise, surprise!). They keep telling you that since Obama unleashed the Bain attack ads, the overall race has tightened - suggesting that they might not be effective.

They're wrong.

Obama posted his first real Bain attack ad on May 14th:

A couple other ads followed and then you had the Cory Booker episode on the 20th.

So, that's around the time the media likes to pretend the Bain ads changed the dynamics of this race - around the week of May 14th (so, two weeks ago).

On May 12th, Rasmussen released its daily tracking poll which had Romney +8 against Obama nationally. On May 18th, at the start of the whole 'is Bain hurting Obama' ordeal, Gallup had Romney leading 47-44.

CBS News, the Washington Times and Mason-Dixon all had Romney leading nationally. Every one of those polls was released on, or before, May 14th.

So, I think we've proven that, prior to the Bain attacks, Romney was actually doing pretty well head-to-head against Obama. For the first time in this race, going all the way back to last year, he held the lead in just as many polls as Obama and on May 8th, prior to any real Bain attack by the President, Obama's average lead over Romney was a paltry .2% - almost essentially tied,

Then that video came out six days later, ignited a firestorm and the following thing happened...

Rasmussen tightened considerably. Romney went from leading by 8 on May 12th to now trailing by 1 nationally to Obama today. The poll has actually been pretty steady the last week or so, which indicates the dip ultimately happened around the time of the whole Bain episode. Likewise, Romney's largest lead in Gallup, which occurred on the 18th, has now turned into a two-point deficit nationally and he hasn't led in their daily tracking poll since the 19th - when he held a one-point lead.

ABC News released their poll showing Obama up 3, while FOX has him up 7 and NBC has him up 4. No recent poll has Romney leading, whereas, prior to the Bain episode, he held a lead in a handful of polls nationally.

But the media doesn't mention this. Somehow, the race specifically tightened after the Bain attacks and that's just not true. Romney was polling far better before the attacks than he is now - as his overall average deficit against Obama is 2 points.

What happened was the race tightened the second Romney secured, in theory anyway, the Republican nomination. That all happened earlier in the month and it wasn't sustainable - he hasn't sustained it at all.

If those attacks were backfiring like the media is suggesting, Obama would be down in the polls right now - not up. Because prior to the attacks, Romney's poll numbers were improving greatly. But since the attacks, they've been blunted and he's returning to the level he's spent most this campaign: 2-4 points behind Obama nationally.

It's all really illustrated in that Rasmussen daily tracking poll. The media made a huge deal of its numbers when Romney was up eight and yet, they've ignored the fact he's collapsed, his support dropping nine points since that initial release. They'll tell you the race is tightening because of Bain, but refuse to mention that it was actually tightening BEFORE Bain and the trend favored Romney exceptionally. But it doesn't anymore. Obama is the one trending up - both in the polls and on Intrade (he's at 57.8, whereas last week, he was two-points lower; Romney is at 38.8, even though, last week, he was at 40%).

So, the attacks have had an impact and the Obama campaign rolled 'em out at the right time. Just when Romney was trending upward, they stepped up their attacks, killed his momentum and now he's falling back down to earth.

[jenmito]

1. Of course they're working. And the Obama campaign KNOWS it or they wouldn't keep

using them. And the Repubs. wouldn't keep saying how they AREN'T working.

[tallahasseedem]

2. Thank you for the info!

The harder the beltway media fights it, the more I know it works! They want this thing to be a horse race.

[democrat_patriot]

3. The Obama team has their own pollsters

Lots of them.

If the Bain ads continue, you know they are working...

[freshwest]

4. Pollsters saying they appear ineffective are likely made by Romney's corporations.

It's not 'free speech,' it's 'paid for speech.' And always promotes the views of the owners and the wealthy to keep the status quo in their favor.

[KurtNYC]

5. If the election was the Indy 500, the media would be out there giving speeding tickets to Obama.

When the message isn't something they want to repeat, they talk about the numbers.

When they don't like the numbers, they lie about what moved the numbers.

[K8-EEE]

6. The fact that losers Newt and Perry are "counciling" Obama not to "go there" kind of means

GO THERE AND KEEP GOING!

[klook]

7. It's hilarious that those 2 losers

would pretend to offer any meaningful advice to ANYBODY, much less the Obama campaign!!

[Honeycombe8]

14. Exactly right! WHO in his right mind would take advice from LOSERS? LOL. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Right

If Republicans are complaining about something, that usually means that it is hurting them somehow and we should keep using it. I'm glad to hear that President Obama isn't stepping down his use of Bain though people like Booker have certainly muddled the message somewhat. Grrrrr..........

[walterreuther]

12. Newt should know better

The funny thing is that Newt had his greatest success against Romney when he went after him on Bain. He started the Bain attacks right before SC. He went from down in SC and FOX News talking about how Romney was going to be the 1st to ever run the table to winning in a blowout by double digits.

Even in a hard core conservative state like SC in the GOP Primary Romney took a big hit and had huge negatives.

In the SC exit poll, it was 64-28 SC GOPers had a positive view of Romney and Bain. Not a great # for a conservative electorate. But, of the 64 positive they pretty much split 40 for Romney and 36 for Newt., or 40 for Romney and 60 for the other guys. Of the 28 that had a negative view of Romney and Bain, they went 50 for Newt and 3 for Romney, or 3 for romney and 97 for the other guys. Basically, Newt was a net -2 among those who were ok with Bain and a net +13 or so among those who had a negative view of Romney and Bain. He won the state by 12. You do the math.

So in SC at least Bain wasn't a plus for Romney. People could be fine with it but still vote for someone else. But if you didn't like Bain, well, you didn't vote for Romney.

If Obama can repeat that in key states and even if he has a relatively small 30% or so who get turned off by the Bain attacks...if 97% of them vote for him and he runs close among those who like Bain...well, we know what will happen.

So after SC all the establishment GOP unloaded on Newt and begged him to stop.

Then...despite the Bain attacks giving Newt a huge boost and dealing Romney a big blow, right after SC and before FL...Newt abandoned them.

Instead of going after Romney on Bain in FL as he did in SC, he changed course and started talking about moon colonies and other meaningless stuff.

I have no idea why Newt stopped the Bain attacks. They were the best and most effective thing he did against Romney. So much for being a vaunted strategist.

Personally I think the MA economic record and being 747th in jobs and dead last 50 of 50 after his first year will be way more effective against Romney and the WH should focus on that.

[Raine1967]

16. Welcome to DU!

I think you make very interesting points. Valid ones...

The thing is, Newt doesn't know better. He never did.

That said, I am pretty sure the Obama campaign will continue to focus on Bain as well as his Massachusetts economic record (and probably a lot more). Newt never seemed like a real good multi-tasker.

Obama is.

[Auggie]

8. Thanks for posting. I hadn't seen the video.

[Dawson Leery]

9. The Bain ads are running in the industrial states.

They are having a negative impact on Romney and a positive one on Obama.
The cocktail party pundits are paid to assist the Republican party, which is why they are whining about this highly effective offense against the vulture.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Didn't Bain help sink Romney before

in the US Senate race against Kennedy in 1994? I guess, ultimately, it will be up to the people to decide whether or not Romney's past as a venture capitalist will help or hurt him but since he's making the case that he has the business chops (as a result of having worked for Bain) to save the US economy- despite the fact I'm not quite sure how his expertise in venture capitalism will help the national economy- I think that questioning his role with Bain is fair game. To me, thinking of Romney applying venture capitalism to our national economy, frankly, is not very reassuring though, now that I think about it, cutting federal employees and selling off public assets (via "privatization&quot to corporate interests is essentially something that Republicans have been advocating (and doing) for the past 20-30 years and I can't say that results have been good for anybody but the 1%.

[walterreuther]

13. honest question

An honest question from an occassional lurker and someone who admittedly leans to the right but also is no fan of Romney and wouldn't mind seeing him get rolled at all. Romney to me is one of the biggest phonies I've seen in politics. Right up there with John Edwards to be bi-partisan.

Anyway, I like the threads here and find them informative. But I have noticed this trend where many posters seem to think the media is against Obama and for Romney?

Huh?

It's a known fact going back decades that the political media is overwhelmingly liberal and democratic. Even in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states and got 60% of the vote, Mondale still got 100% of the vote among the DC-NY News correspondents, writers, etc... The pattern held in every other election. Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, they all crushed the GOP candidate among the media, all by more than 2-1 margins, getting upwards of 75% or more.

And of course it held for Obama in 2008. Be honest. If you took a poll of all the major media players(non FOX News which is admittedly pro-GOP, and the WSJ as well) for the major networks, papers, magazines, blogs, etc... especially in the NY-DC corridor, what % do you think voted for Obama in 08? 99%? 98%?

Who do you think the following all voted for? Brian Williams? Charlie Gibson? Katie Couric? All the major WH and DC reporters for the major networks? All the behind the scenes staff? Gregory and Brokaw at MTP? Stephanopolous? Schieffer? Everyone at CNN and MSNBC? The Editorial staffs and political writers for the NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc..., Mark Halperin at Time, everyone at Politico like Harris, VanDeHei, Martin, Smith, etc..., everyone at Newsweek, pretty much everyone associated with the media that shapes national news coverage of politics. Again, aside from FOX and the WSJ. Think any of them voted for McCain? Or Bush in 04? Or Bush in 2000? Or Dole? etc...

How many of them are going to vote for Romney? We all know the answer. I'd be stunned if even one of them does.

I just never understood those one the left saying the media is against Obama. yes, the GOP media led by FOX is. But overall, the natl media loves him and supports him strongly, way more than they did W, even way more than Clinton. They're going to vote for him by around a 99% clip give or take. They're going to actively support him like they did in 2008. Now, it may not be as effective as it was then due to a number of factors(namely Obama having a record vs being an undefined candidate who many people placed their dreams and hopes in and the utter hatred of Bush and all things GOP having faded a bit in the past 4 yrs)

I just don't see any evidence the natl political media supports Romney or wants him to win. I see just the opposite. They want Obama to win. They'll all vote for him and they'll all be visibly disappointed, crestfallen, and upset on Nov 6 if he doesn't.

[klook]

15. You lost me at

"It's a known fact going back decades that the political media is overwhelmingly liberal and democratic."



The American mainstream media present the full gamut of oligarchy-sanctioned political thought, all the way from centrist to extremely right wing. But I understand you have a different perspective.

You have intuited the voting patterns of major U.S. media figures. For those of us not so blessed with clairvoyant powers, pray tell, for whom do you yourself plan to vote this November? (Full disclosure: I'll be voting a straight Democratic ticket!)

I look forward to more of your insights garnered during "occasional lurking" over the past week!

[Raine1967]

17. You see, I just welcomed you upthread...

and I meant it. When you say things like this:

It's a known fact going back decades that the political media is overwhelmingly liberal and democratic.

I have to wonder...

It is not a known fact. It is not a fact. That is an opinion.

I would suggest that if you really want to have an answer, just read a bit around here. Read. Read again.

This is a valid question, but do not suggest it is a known fact hereon DU. You will be shown thatwhat you consider a fact is no such thing.

[cyberswede]

22. Media Research Center - really?

You won't find much support for that website here.

You might find better information at this site. Read it. Learn something.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

[cyberswede]

18. The owners of the media benefit from right wing policies...

It's irrelevant how the reporters, columnists, and talking heads vote. The companies they work for are the ones pulling the strings.

I'm pretty sure that on the Sunday talk shows, guests from the right consistently outnumber guests from the left (excepting Up/Chris Hayes and MHP on MSNBC), which tends to give the right's perspective more exposure.

[JNelson6563]

20. "Known fact"

lolz Not long off the Faux News teat, eh? Ah well, that's ok, you're here so there's obviously hope for you.

Here's an honest question for you...who owns the "media"?

Julie

[klook]

21. So, hey, another honest question for you, walterreuther...

Do you support the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney's Bain record? (That is, after all, what this thread is supposedly about.)

Bonus question: Will you be voting for President Obama this November?

[pacalo]

23. "It's a known fact going back decades that the political media is overwhelmingly liberal..."

Could it be that the facts are in line with liberals rather than today's extreme rightwing politicians? The Republican candidates who participated in the primary debates wouldn't have gotten the time of day by the media in the days of Walter Cronkite & Edward R. Murrow. Today's Republicans get more news coverage than Democrats; just keep an eye on the Sunday shows, particularly "Meet the Press" to see which side is getting more more favoritism -- Democrats are rarely present on those panels.


/clarity