How Much Are Romney’s “47 Percent” Remarks Hurting Him?

Mitt Romney's "47 Percent" remarks seem to be hurting him.

The Obama campaign is out with yet another “47 percent” ad that The Atlantic’s Molly Ball calls brutal:

Jonathan Chait comments:

What’s devastating about the ad, aside from the juxtaposition of Romney’s words against photos of regular Americans, is something I only noticed the second time I watched it. It’s the sound of silverware clinking on china in the background as Romney speaks. That detail contrasts the atmosphere Romney inhabits with the one in which most Americans live. You can tell, even though you’re not seeing this, that the remarks are being made to people enjoying a formal dinner.

The damage of the remarks is twofold. Obviously, it deeply reinforces the worst stereotypes voters have of Romney. Indeed, the fact that he is currentlyrunning ads trying to make the case that he does care about all of America testifies to the grim position in which Romney finds himself. If you’re trying to clear the threshold of “does this candidate hate me” six weeks before the election, you’re probably not on the verge of closing the sale.

Worse still, the comments destroy Romney’s fundamental credibility. Here America sees what he says behind closed doors. Nothing he can say in public can possibly overcome the damage of these comments, because voters will quite correctly assume that he is telling them what they want to hear. George W. Bush’s campaign figured out how to do this to both Al Gore and John Kerry — by painting them as liars, Bush destroyed them as a message delivery platform. Romney has, essentially, done it to himself.

The size of the political damage Romney has incurred is beside the point. He was trailing narrowly, but in a polarized electorate with a tiny number of undecided voters. Not only has he turned some of those undecided voters against him, but he’s blown up his bridge to reach them.

Ball says in her post that this ad, which just came out yesterday morning is already running heavily in the Canton, Ohio area. Presumably, it’s also being run in Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, Columbus, and Cincinnati as well. And, while I haven’t seen it show up yet from the limited television viewing I’ve done over the past 24 hours, I would imagine that it will show up here in Virginia too. It really is quite an effective ad. As Chait notes, juxtaposing Romney’s own words over the images of people meant to represent average Americans who make up this “47 percent” that Romney was speaking of sends a message as much as the Bain ads that the Obama campaign and Priorities USA were running this summer. Fair or not, that message is that Mitt Romney is a man who is disconnected from the concerns of such a large segment of the American public that he can actually utter the words “I don’t need to worry about them.”  Indeed, according to a recent poll out of Ohio, only 38% of those surveyed believe that Romney cares about the needs and problems of people like them.  If you’re looking for a reason why Ohio is now considered by many pollsters to be a state that leans toward Obama, that would be the reason right there.  In other words, the “47 percent” comments are a problem because they reinforce the narrative that the Obama campaign and its supporters created about Romney, without any push back at all from his campaign, over the summer.

Nate Silver tries to figure out the impact that the “47 percent” remark has had on the race:

By Sept. 17, the date when the video of Mr. Romney’s remarks was released and received widespread attention, the momentum from Mr. Obama’s convention appeared to have stalled (although not necessarily reversed itself). Mr. Obama led in the popular vote by 4.1 percentage points on that date, according to the “now-cast.”

Since then, however, Mr. Obama has gained further ground in the polls. As of Thursday, he led in the popular vote by 5.7 percentage points in the “now-cast,” a gain of 1.6 percentage points since Mr. Romney’s remarks became known to the public.

It’s hard to tell whether this recent gain for Mr. Obama reflects the effect of the “47 percent” comments specifically. But the most typical pattern after a party convention is that a candidate who gains ground in the polls cedes at least some of it back.

Instead, the more pertinent question seems not whether Mr. Obama is losing ground, but whether he is still gaining it.

Silver produces this chart which shows the polls since late August and the impact of the four major events that have occurred since then:

While it certainly isn’t clear if the “47 percent” remarks have resulted in a sea change in the race, they do seem to have delayed any fall that might have occurred from the end of the President’s convention bounce. Even that puts Romney in a conundrum. .

At this point, I’m kind of at a loss to figure out what Romney could do to overcome this problem. We are now 39 days away from Election Day, people are already voting, and the first debate is only a few days away. Josh Barro lists a few ways that Romney could fix this problem, although he doesn’t think he’ll succeed in doing any of them. It occurs to me, though, that we’re coming close to the point now where Romney’s only hope of victory would be the hope that President Obama makes a major mistake or that some kind of crisis causes the public to turn against him. Possible? As I’ve said before when talking about Romney’s chances, anything is possible. The problem for Mitt Romney is that it isn’t very likely.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. DC Loser says:

    I don’t know what you’ve been watching here in the DC metro area, but all the local channels I’ve watched during the late evening and early morning newscasts have been running this ad. Yup, it’s pretty devastating.

  2. DC,

    I’ve seen other 47 percent ads here, but not this one, which only went into rotation yesterday to begin with.

    Admittedly, I do not watch very much of the “Big Four” networks unless it’s for sports or one of the few television programs I’m actually interested in.

  3. john personna says:

    On first hearing I called it the “coup de grâce.” I think that is holding up.

  4. J-Dub says:

    Waiting for Romney ad declaring “I am not a witch”

  5. Mikey says:

    I thought John McCain ran the worst major-party Presidential campaign it was possible to run.

    Apparently, I was wrong.

  6. Gromitt Gunn says:

    While I concur with Molly Ball that the ad is brutal, I also know that as a center-left Dem, I’m subject to confirmation bias in this regard. So I am not sure how much is me seeing something that reinforces my own viewpoint versus seeing an ad that should have an effect on those less tuned in.

    The fact that the polling trend seems pretty pronounced, and that Doug also sees it as effective is leading me to think that it may be as brutal as I think.

  7. OzarkHillbilly says:

    I blame you Doug. I have now finally watched a political ad. And yeah, it was brutal…. like an ice pick slipped between the ribs straight to the heart.

  8. Ron Beasley says:

    @Mikey: Actually Romney’s campaign reminds me more of Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign which consisted almost entirely of “I’m not Clinton.”

  9. J-Dub says:

    @Ron Beasley: That was the beginning of the end for me as a Republican. I was so annoyed that they hoisted Bob Dole on us that I voted for Ralph Nader in that election.

  10. Gustopher says:

    I don’t think that was as brutal as “America the Beautiful”.

    But then again, I’m pretty sure that Romney was saying that he would ignore that 47% during the campaign, not the presidency. He would ignore 99% during a presidency.

  11. Gustopher says:

    @J-Dub: I voted for Bob Dole. And I voted for GHW Bush. I want my party back.

  12. C. Clavin says:

    As per usual, Chait nails it:

    “…Worse still, the comments destroy Romney’s fundamental credibility. Here America sees what he says behind closed doors. Nothing he can say in public can possibly overcome the damage of these comments, because voters will quite correctly assume that he is telling them what they want to hear…”

    Coffin. Meet nail.

  13. Fiona says:

    Every time I hear the 47 percent snippet, it’s the tone as much as anything that stands out. Listen to how Romney says “entitled” — the sneering contempt is evident. Rod Dreher, over at American Conservative, has posted the new 47 percent ad along with Romney’s one-minute ad where he talks to the camera and tells everyone how compassionate he is. In which ad does Romney come across as more sincere in what he’s saying?

    As a rule, voters don’t want to be condescended to. Unfortunately, condescension seems to ooze from Romney and, to a somewhat lesser extent, his wife. The 47 percent comments reinforced for a lot of people how they already felt about Romney. Too bad for him they’re the people he needs to convince to vote for him.

  14. Rafer Janders says:

    I love the way the camer lingers on those mooching, parasitic elderly veterans…..

  15. LCaution says:

    It may be hurting on the margins, and in terms of electoral votes, but as a Democrat I remind myself that the % difference in the total popular vote is still flirting around the MOE – and that about 47% started and remain committed to Mitt.

    A “devastating” effect to me would mean, say, a change from a 50-50 race to a 60-40 race. And that we don’t see.

    The winner in November is still going to have about 1/2 the country against him.

  16. MBunge says:

    I saw Halperin on Morning Joe saying he wasn’t sure at first how bad the 47% comments were going to be, which may illustrate exactly why Romney felt it was fine to use that language.

    I also think that if you break it down, the killer part is the whole “personal responsibility and care for their lives” line. If he hadn’t said that, there could have been a media pushback about how all Romney was doing was talking about how he could never convince those folks to vote for him. Essentially calling them bums, however, make the underlying contempt and disdain impossible for any vaguely fair-minded person to miss.

    Mike

  17. Rafer Janders says:

    @Ron Beasley:

    Actually Romney’s campaign reminds me more of Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign which consisted almost entirely of “I’m not Clinton.”

    Nah. Dole’s campaign was boring, but Dole didn’t come out of it with his reputation as a human being destroyed. It didn’t turn him into a clown in the public eye, or make the name “Bob Dole” into the punchline of a joke, which is just what’s been happening to Romney.

  18. James in LA says:

    Mitt Romney wasn’t going to win before he declared 47% of the populace irresponsible based on nothing, nothing at all. This remark puts the President on a now plausible path to turning states once thought unthinkable, places like AZ, MO, and IN. Too much time left for this to sink in.

  19. gVOR08 says:

    I expect to see Romney start doing better. I mean, what are the odds he can continue to shoot himself in the foot in his mouth every week for another six weeks? I’ve avoided watching debates for at least the last two presidential elections. Wednesday at 9:00 I’m going to be in front of the TV with a bowl of popcorn and an adult beverage.

    Idle speculation that makes no difference to anything, but how long do you suppose Chicago has had that tape, waiting for the right moment?

  20. Davebo says:

    @MBunge: If the Romney campaign is listening to Halperin I’d say they are already screwed.

  21. C. Clavin says:

    @ Gustopher…

    “…But then again, I’m pretty sure that Romney was saying that he would ignore that 47% during the campaign, not the presidency…”

    I heard this same line on Sunday from the blonde psycho lady.
    To accept this explaination you have to ignore the part where he says they are unwilling to take responsibility for their lives. That belief…misguided as it may be…is not limited to the campaign.
    But even more importantly…the entire premise is just factually incorrect. It is nonsense. It is the sort of mis-information that low-information voters like Jan wet themselves over. And therein lies a major problem with Romney…he is either a pathological liar, or an idiot. And neither has any place being the Commander-in-Cheif.

  22. Midwestern Dad says:

    Good post.

    “Romney’s own words”…”Fair or not, that message is that Mitt Romney is a man who is disconnected from the concerns of such a large segment of the American public that he can actually utter the words “I don’t need to worry about them.”

    Politics is about perception. Words have meaning. Mitt said it and barring some major gaffe or European economic meltdown, he is toast.

  23. john personna says:

    @MBunge:

    I also think that if you break it down, the killer part is the whole “personal responsibility and care for their lives” line.

    Yes. Some coverage has been kind to Romney since then, by dropping that line from the discussion. It is vital the whole thing though. It is the whole misbegotten chain of thinking from 47% who don’t pay federal income tax, to them taking benefits, to them not having responsibility for their lives and being irredeemable.

  24. J-Dub says:

    @Gustopher: It’s gone and it’s not coming back.

  25. C. Clavin says:

    When was the last time Romney won a news-cycle…much less an entire week?
    39 days left.

  26. Rafer Janders says:

    @MBunge:

    I also think that if you break it down, the killer part is the whole “personal responsibility and care for their lives” line.

    Or him talking about those worthless bums who feel like they’re entitled to food. I mean, it’s not like you need food to live.

  27. anjin-san says:

    ♫♪
    Tin soldiers and Ryan coming
    We’re finally on our own
    This autumn I hear the drumming
    Mitt’s toast in Ohio
    ♪♫♪

  28. Andre Kenji says:

    @Ron Beasley:

    Actually Romney’s campaign reminds me more of Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign which consisted almost entirely of “I’m not Clinton.”

    No way. Dole was a likable guy and a WWII veteran. To me it´s very difficult to find a analogy. I think that Republican Dukakis or Kerry would be a good one, but even that it´s unfair with Dukakis and Kerry.

  29. LCaution says:

    I second and third the focus on the “entitled” (o.t. how have Conservatives turned that word into a curse?) and “personal responsibility” aspects of his comments. Absent those characterizations, it was a simple assessment of the status of the race, the fixed bases of both parties. One could then reasonably assert that he was expressing a marketing position, where to use campaign time and funds.

    It was the easy contempt for Obama’s supporters that hurts.

  30. Facebones says:

    I liked Dave Weigel’s heaedline on the matter: “Hey, Remember How Sean Hannity Thought the 47 Percent Tape Was Great for Romney?”

  31. anjin-san says:

    Actually Romney’s campaign reminds me more of Bob Dole’s

    Not really seeing that one. I did not care for Dole’s politics, but I respect him, and a lot of Democrats probably feel the same way. He’s a serious guy & a wounded vet – he does not go around telling veterans he was “serving his church” while they were getting shot at.

  32. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @James in LA:

    places like AZ, MO, and IN.

    They will be lacing up the ice skates in hell before MO goes to Obama. My money is still on Akin to pull it out in Nov.

  33. Davebo says:

    he does not go around telling veterans he was “serving his church” while they were getting shot at.

    Seriously, if you have an all expense paid vacation like Mitt did do you choose France? I’ve spent a lot of time there and it’s a beautiful country and all, but France?

    I’d have gone with Tahiti or perhaps American Somoa.

  34. anjin-san says:

    The 47% Romney is so contemptuous of includes my mother in law, who is still working at 79. We can’t get her to stop, she says only lazy people don’t work if they have a chance to.

    Of course in Romney’s eyes, she is a bum. He believes in /*half of*/ America.

  35. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @anjin-san: Letting your freak flag fly, Anjin?

  36. anjin-san says:

    @ OzarkHillbilly

    I feel like I owe it to someone…

  37. @Andre Kenji: My thought on the 47% ad was that it is serving the same underlying message as the 1988 Willie Horton Ad:

    “See, the caricature of X has been confirmed by their own words/actions”

    In Wilile Horton, it had nasty racial undertones but it was a validator for saying that liberals cared more about criminals than law-abiding civilians and that will get YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES killed.

    In this case, it is the GOP is an economic royalist party that does not give a flying rat’s ass about most of us.

  38. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @anjin-san:

    I feel like I owe it to someone…

    Yeah well, a Southern man don’t need you around anyhow…

  39. gVOR08 says:

    @anjin-san: Won the thread for the week.

  40. jukeboxgrad says:

    Of course in Romney’s eyes, she is a bum. He believes in /*half of*/ America.

    Anyone remember how Mitt ended his convention speech? I think he said this: “God bless half of America.”

    Stolen from a commenter elsewhere.

  41. Mikey says:

    I’m trying to recall the last major party candidate who was this bad at connecting with the “common man.” Based on all the historical precedents, Romney should be running away with this. He should be stomping Obama from San Diego to Schenectady. But he isn’t, and the whole “47%” thing illustrates why. He’s writing those people off not because they won’t connect with him, but because HE can’t connect with THEM. And on top of that, he’s blaming THEM for it! Hellooooo, Mr. Romney, have you forgotten one of the most basic principles of communication? YOU are responsible for connecting with your audience, not vice-versa. It’s not THEIR fault you’re not a real boy.

  42. jukeboxgrad says:

    fiona:

    Every time I hear the 47 percent snippet, it’s the tone as much as anything that stands out. … In which ad does Romney come across as more sincere in what he’s saying?

    I think this is the key point. Notice this:

    As one Republican campaign veteran said, “I felt like when I was watching that video that it was the first time I’d ever seen the real Mitt Romney.”

    And this:

    “And one of the things people have said about Romney in the past is that he doesn’t connect fully when he gives these big, formal speeches.” But in the video, Eventoff noted, you can see how conversational and approachable Romney seems, how it feels like the people in the audiences are ones “he knows very well.”

    Various people have observed how he seems like an entirely different person in that video, and this difference itself carries a powerful message.

    If you ignore his words on that tape, and just focus on his tone and affect, he seems sincere, relaxed and truthful, in a way that we normally never see from him. So even before we pay any attention to the words, we get this message from him: ‘I respect only my peers, the super-rich. Therefore I am relaxed and honest with them. I have no respect for the rest of you, and therefore I regularly lie to you, and that’s why I always seem so stiff and insincere when I’m addressing the hoi polloi. That’s why the Mitt you are seeing now is a Mitt most of you have never seen before.’

    He really is relaxed with that group, and not relaxed with the rest of us. This tells us that he respects only them, and feels contempt for the rest of us. Of course his words also express this message, but we get the message from his tone before we even realize what he is saying with his words. The messaging is powerful because the words and the tone complement each other so well.

  43. LC says:

    I’ve been thinking about why the polls haven’t moved further in Obama’s favor than they have as a result of the Romney video, and I suspect it is because we and the media are focused on the wrong 47%.

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that 47% of voters are firmly committed to Obama and 47% are firmly committed to Romney. You could post a picture of either man committing a crime, and this base wouldn’t move a nanometer.

    Then assume a 50% split between the undecided 6%: 3% leaning toward Romney, 3% leaning toward Obama. How do the leaners react? Well, some portion of the Romney leaners, maybe the larger portion, will pat themselves on the back. They are part of the 47% who are not moochers (even though, in fact, they may fit the criteria). Their support for Romeny is proof. So the video reinforces their support. Some portion will identify with the “bad” 47% – but will that identification push them toward or away from Romney?

    Similarly, some percent of Obama leaners will identify with the “good” 47%, some with the “bad” 47% If I’m a weak Obama supporter, will Romney’s characterization of me as a moocher make my support for Obama stronger because I resent Romney’s characterization or move me toward Romney because I don’t see myself as a moocher and don’t want to be associated with moochers?

    In other words, in trying to assess the importance of Romney’s words, we need to focus on voter identification with each group as characterized by Romney as well as their reaction to his dividing voters into two such groups.

  44. Stan says:

    @Mikey: “Based on all the historical precedents, Romney should be running away with this.”

    Not quite right. The unemployment rate was high in 1936, but FDR carried every state except Maine and Vermont because he couldn’t be blamed for the Depression, because the GDP had recovered by November ’36, and because he was an awfully good politician. Of course he was lucky (like Obama) in having a weak opponent.

  45. Mikey says:

    @Stan: That’s all true. Perhaps adding “since FDR” would make my statement more accurate.

  46. Andre Kenji says:

    Romney reminds me of Dukakis and Kerry, maybe it´s a New England problem. Both Kerry and Dukakis did not articulate a message, and said that people should vote for them because they were superior to the other candidate. I saw that interview with Chris Wallace, when he enters his vacation home and both he and Ann says that they all the house work, with no maids. That sounded condescending and arrogant. Anyone that has 200 million dollars would have house maids, and in fact these house maids would make Romney looks like more a human being.

    Romney could simply say that he is privileged to have a lot of money, to have George Romney as his father and that he tries to understand people´s problems, not to pretend that *he* has the same problems that middle class people have.

  47. anjin-san says:

    @ Andre Kenji

    Yea, you have to love the attempt to postion Romney as being “frugal”

    Watching his father, George, eat an entire batch of home-made ice cream that was accidentally sweetened with salt, so that it wouldn’t go to waste, had a huge impact on Mitt. Waste is simply not tolerated.”

    — Laurie Romney, quoted by the Colorado Statesman, describing her father-in-law’s frugality

    Here are some photos of Romney’s beautiful 12 million dollar CA beach house, which is slated for a massive expansion/remodel:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Endangered-species-Romney-beach-house-41058.php#photo-2752022

    I guess this dazzling property is just not cutting it for the frugal Mittster in it’s current state.

    More detail:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74518.html

    Now there is nothing wrong with a rich guy spending gobs of money. Just don’t inslut people by telling them what a frugal guy you are. I know a 1%er who is frugal. He lives in a 700k house in a zero prestige suburb near SF, drives a 7 year old Ford pickup, and wears overalls.

  48. legion says:

    @Andre Kenji: Frankly, I’d have strongly considered voting for Dole if he’d kept his gruff, occasionally sarcastic, willing-to-get-his-hands-dirty persona from his time in Congress. But as soon as he went on campaign, he basically lost his “edge”, and that allowed Clinton’s personality to overwhelm him in the voters’ eyes. As the campaign wore on, he just got more and more bland.

  49. Smooth Jazz says:

    “Indeed, according to a recent poll out of Ohio, only 38% of those surveyed believe that Romney cares about the needs and problems of people like them. If you’re looking for a reason why Ohio is now considered by many pollsters to be a state that leans toward Obama, that would be the reason right there”

    Indeed, Smindeed. All you can do is quote left wing hacks Jonathan Chait & Nate Silver. Who are you going to quote as the next paragon of virtue. This blog has really gone whole hog left wing hasn’t.

    At any rate, perhaps those 47% comments aren’t hurting in Iowa:

    http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/romney-leads-obama-in-latest-tir-poll/

    Or OH if these absentee ballot requests are representative of enthusiasm:

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/27/tracking-ohios-absentee-ballot-requests/

    I know this blog has been sucked in by the Quinnipiac/NY Times/NBC/CBS/Marist voter turnout models, so for your sake and Steven Taylor and the other left wingers here claiming the election already over – You better hope those 2 data points above don’t become reality in other states. It will be sooooooo funny if you got sucked it by bogus polls and end up with egg all over your faces.

  50. grumpy realist says:

    @Smooth Jazz: OK, we’ll make a bet: you, that the polls are wrong and that Romney will easily win the Presidency. Me, that the polls are right and that Obama will win the Presidency. Loser will refrain from posting on OTB for the next 6 months after the election. Deal?

  51. grumpy realist says:

    @Smooth Jazz: Also, I still don’t understand if you really believe that the polls are so erroneous that you don’t put your money where your mouth is and make a bet on InTrade. You’ll clean up! Especially since Romney is now only listed with a 20.6% chance.

  52. Nikki says:

    @Smooth Jazz: You guys are just gonna double down on the crazy over the next four years, aren’t you?

  53. mattb says:

    @Smooth Jazz:
    I note that you never respond to my pointing out that one of your “approved” pollsters — Rasmussen — who you’ve gone out of your way to defend, continues to show Obama ahead in electoral college polling.

  54. Smooth Jazz says:

    “@Smooth Jazz: OK, we’ll make a bet: you, that the polls are wrong and that Romney will easily win the Presidency. Me, that the polls are right and that Obama will win the Presidency. Loser will refrain from posting on OTB for the next 6 months after the election. Deal?”

    I’m not making any deals or bets. I’m not going to post here at OTB all that much either way. Since this blog has gone 100% left wing, and with all the commenters and posters decidedly far left, it would be like me posting at DailyKOS or TBogg, sans the whack jobs. There was a time when this blog was more balanced and measured – say 50/50 right and left in terms of posts and commenters. Now that this platform has thrown whole hog in with the left, moderate and right of center commenters wouldn’t fit in and would be lost in a sea of liberal cranks getting attacked daily.

    My point all along is not so much that polls are wrong; It’s that the ones showing Obama with huge leads in OH, FLA, etc are basing their turnnout assumptions that have never before occured in swing states such as FLA, VA & FLA. I can see Dems outvoting Reps by 10% in PA, an historically Dem state, but OH, FLA & VA, I say no way Dems are going to make these absurd turnout models. Obama isn’t that loved, and there are too many Reps and independents energized to vote him out, for Dems to be outvoting Reps by margins greater than the historically year of 2008. Doug Mataconis, Nate Silver, Jonathan Chait, and other lefties buy it. I don’t.

    I sincerely believe that NBC, MSNBC, CBS, NY Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, AP, etc entities historically hostile to Repubs, are working with polling organs such Quinnipiac, Marist and other liberal New York centric polling outfits to game the system by artifically inflating Dem turnout models beyond reason and historical norms. The pollsters get the sponsorship $ and backing of major media entities, give them the numbers they want and they move on to live another day since these numbers will be ancient history by election day. Sorta like PPP/DailyKOS/SEIU polls; They are eye candy months before election day, then disappear into the ether at the appropriate time.

    No bets. But I’m anxious to see if we get anywhere near Dems 10% voter turnout versus Reps in the swing states on election day. GL to you.

  55. jukeboxgrad says:

    I can see Dems outvoting Reps by 10% in PA, an historically Dem state, but OH, FLA & VA, I say no way

    400 words of gibberish. A word that’s never mentioned: Rasmussen. Why? Because he shows Obama ahead in OH, VA, FL. You’re ducking the question; what a surprise.

    Keep hope alive.

  56. Smooth Jazz says:

    “400 words of gibberish. A word that’s never mentioned: Rasmussen. Why? Because he shows Obama ahead in OH, VA, FL. You’re ducking the question; what a surprise.

    Keep hope alive.”

    WTF are you talking about. Who said anything about Rasmussen. Who cares about Rasmussen? This is about phony 9 – 10 points margins in states that are usually within the margin of error. With Obama not all that popular, and with so many energized to vote him out barely 2 years after Reps swept everything in sight, I think NY Times & the other lefties are putting out phony numbers using liberal NY pollsters to do the deed. If Romney is down by a couple points, then it becomes a ground game and enthusiasm story. Rasmussen has nothing to do with the point I’m making.

  57. An Interested Party says:

    It will be sooooooo funny if you got sucked it by bogus polls and end up with egg all over your faces.

    It’ll be even funnier when the President wins and all the LOLs in the world won’t be able to comfort you…

    I’m not making any deals or bets. I’m not going to post here at OTB all that much either way.

    That’s hardly surprising, as many losers with your circumstances often slink away…

    As for the ad above, Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, eat your hearts out…

  58. jukeboxgrad says:

    smooth:

    Who said anything about Rasmussen.

    You did. This is what you said in another thread:

    Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster for the 2004 & 2008 Presidential elections.

    I don’t know why you bothered mentioning that if you think he should be ignored.

  59. Drew says:
  60. Smooth Jazz says:

    “That’s hardly surprising, as many losers with your circumstances often slink away…”

    Slink away??? Don’t flatter yourself. I hardly post here ever since it became DailyKOS2 and taken over by left wing cranks. I only posted a couple times in recent days because of the rigged NY Times & NBC polls. I did post here regularly at one time but not any more. If I no longer post here, it because I don’t want to be around lefties, not because the results of an election. When James Joyner turned his blog over to LIberals, all the right leaning pollsters left. I only show up here once in a while to get you liberals cranked up and running aorund like rats. Get over yourself.

  61. jukeboxgrad says:

    all the right leaning pollsters

    You don’t want to mention his name, but I see you just can’t stop thinking about Rasmussen.

  62. Smooth Jazz says:

    “You did. This is what you said in another thread:

    Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster for the 2004 & 2008 Presidential elections.

    I don’t know why you bothered mentioning that if you think he should be ignored”

    WAH??? What I said on another thread?? Who cares about another thread.I didn’t say anything about Rasmussen in THIS thread so I’m not sure why you brought it up in response to the IA poll and OH absentee ballot info i posted earlier. I just posted an IA poll that showed Romney leading in a poll taken the other day, contrary to Obama loving NBC/Marist/CBS polls that had Obama leading by 8 – 9 a few days ago. If Romney is ahead in IA, even by a small margin, he isn’t losing FLA & OH by 8 – 9 points. Also the OH numbers for absentee ballots show Rep enthusiasm is way up and Dem enthusiasm down compared to 2008. I would suggest you look at the 2 links I posted earlier. Rasmussen has nothing to do with what I posted earlier.

  63. jukeboxgrad says:

    Rasmussen has nothing to do with what I posted earlier.

    You made claims about OH, VA and FL. According to Rasmussen, Obama leads in those states. You find it convenient to describe Rasmussen as “the most accurate pollster” until you notice him saying something inconvenient. Then it’s time to ignore him.

  64. Smooth Jazz says:

    “You made claims about OH, VA and FL. According to Rasmussen, Obama leads in those states. You find it convenient to describe Rasmussen as “the most accurate pollster” until you notice him saying something inconvenient. Then it’s time to ignore him.”

    Get a grip and try to follow me will you. I KNOW Rasmussen has Obama leading in those states, by 1 or 2 points, when he last polled there and reported it to the public. Rasmussen last polled FL & OH 2 – 3 weeks ago and YES, did show Obama leading by 1 point in those states at that time. My post on this thread is not about polls Rasmussen took weeks ago, it is about this:

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/27/tracking-ohios-absentee-ballot-requests/

    If this absentee ballot trend holds up, it is a very dangerous sign for Obama. It is something to watch carefully along with the poll I posted earlier that showed Obama losing in IA.

  65. James says:

    @Smooth Jazz: Romney is not ahead in IA. He’s down ~90,000 absentee requests as it is, and the poll you cite has a sample of only 500 registered voters, with an MoE of 4.4%.

  66. jukeboxgrad says:

    smooth:

    Rasmussen last polled FL & OH 2 – 3 weeks ago

    It was 9/12, which is 16 days ago, which is barely two weeks. Are you claiming that Mitt’s situation has improved in the last two weeks?

    this absentee ballot trend

    On 9/18 Fox found Obama at +7 in OH. So they’re also part of the liberal conspiracy? I like what Chait said about this today:

    Meanwhile, in perhaps the cruelest dagger yet, Fox News has joined the left-wing media conspiracy by releasing a poll showing Obama leading Romney by five points among likely voters. The good folks at unskewedpolls.com, who have applied their unique interpretive methodology to public polling to find Romney leading in a rout, work their magic to remove the pro-Obama bias from the Fox News poll and find that as a result … Obama leads by two points. Either Romney is really, truly, behind even in the unskewed polls, or the liberal polling conspiracy has penetrated not only Fox News but unskewedpolls.com itself. It’s not clear which explanation is more grim.

    We need another site to further unskew what unskewedpolls.com has not been able to sufficiently unskew.

    the poll I posted earlier that showed Obama losing in IA

    That poll shows Iowa as Romney +1. So what? Even if that’s correct, Obama doesn’t need Iowa. Obama wins 313-225 just by getting the states where Rasmussen shows him leading: OH, VA, FL, NV and WI.

    In order to believe that Obama is not ahead, you need to believe that Rasmussen and Fox are part of the liberal conspiracy. Really?

  67. Smooth Jazz says:

    “That poll shows Iowa as Romney +1. So what? Even if that’s correct, Obama doesn’t need Iowa”

    Say what?? Do you even understand the dynamics of polling? If Romney is winning IA, even by a low margin, he almost surely is not losing OH, V& FL since IA tends to be more Dem than all those other swing states. In other words, IF the poll from IA is accurate, it throws a monkey rench into all those OH & FLA polls that have Obama winning by 7 – 10 points. Historically, polls have a certain dynamic and relationship between swing states that is unmistakable. If Romney is winning IA, it does not augur well for Obama is other less DEM swing states.

  68. Spartacus says:

    @MBunge:

    “I also think that if you break it down, the killer part is the whole “personal responsibility and care for their lives” line. ”

    I agree completely, which is why I don’t understand why there hasn’t been more focus on that part of the statement. There’s much more focus on the “victim” part of the statement.

  69. An Interested Party says:

    I only show up here once in a while to get you liberals cranked up and running around like rats make myself look like a fool and to be a target of endless but well deserved derision.

    Happy to be of help…

  70. jukeboxgrad says:

    smooth:

    If Romney is winning IA, even by a low margin, he almost surely is not losing OH, V& FL since IA tends to be more Dem than all those other swing states.

    The Cook Partisan Voting Index for those states is here:

    FL R+2
    IA D+1
    OH R+1
    VA R+2

    You’re correct about the direction of the tendency, but the magnitude of the tendency is too small to bear the weight you’re putting on it. And let’s notice what Rasmussen says about those states:

    FL Obama +2
    IA Romney +3
    OH Obama +1
    VA Obama +1

    Based on your theory, Rasmussen has it backwards, and must be wrong. But it’s you that’s wrong, because you’re looking at a weak, general tendency and treating it as a firm rule that is “almost surely” applicable in every instance.

  71. David M says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    If Romney is winning IA, even by a low margin, he almost surely is not losing OH, V& FL since IA tends to be more Dem than all those other swing states.

    If you have polls showing Obama ahead in most of those states and a single poll showing Romney ahead in IA, wouldn’t the obvious conclusion be that there is a problem with the IA outlier rather than with the other dozen polls? Your logic about the relationship between VA, FL & OH isn’t wrong, but the idea that a single IA poll showing a Romney lead means that multiple polls showing Obama leads elsewhere can be ignored is just silly.

  72. James says:

    @Smooth Jazz: And you’re still ignoring Romney’s ~90,000 early ballot request disadvantage in IA.

  73. anjin-san says:

    @ Smooth Jazz

    Wake the F**k up!

  74. Drew says:

    Romneys victory is going to be like a shock wave here.

  75. @Doug Mataconis: That new ad was on WTTG (Channel 5 in Washington, D.C.) in the 5pm or 6pm news hour yesterday (09/28/2012).

  76. jukeboxgrad says:

    andre:

    Romney could simply say that he is privileged to have a lot of money … not to pretend that *he* has the same problems that middle class people have.

    Yes, exactly. And this seems to be a chronic problem for them. For example, notice what Ann Romney said in an interview, years ago. Describing their college experience, she said:

    they were not easy years … we couldn’t afford a desk … [we were] struggling students … we were living on the edge … [we] learned hard lessons.

    In the same interview she also admitted that they both had “wealthy” parents and were unemployed by choice because they were able to live off the stock portfolio handed to them by George Romney. As far as I can tell, they lived this way until Mitt was 28, when he finally finished school and got his first job.

    She’s pretending that they had “the same problems that middle class people have,” but that’s a lie. They didn’t. Describing their experience as “living on the edge” is an insult to everyone who really is “living on the edge.” So what’s offensive is not that they are rich. What’s offensive is that they are so profoundly clueless.

    We often see glimpses of Mitt’s cluelessness, but the 47% tape is like Mitt putting his cluelessness on a giant neon billboard, so it can finally be seen with sparkling clarity by voters who had previously been clueless about his cluelessness.

    More about that interview here.

  77. mattb says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    If Romney is winning IA, even by a low margin, he almost surely is not losing OH, V& FL since IA tends to be more Dem than all those other swing states.

    So basically you are now saying that Rasmussen polling — which shows Obama ahead of Romney in all those states except Iowa — isn’t accurate?

    Can you keep your position straight? Oh, wait… you are keeping it straight… you’re basically constantly saying that any poll that shows Obama ahead is a flawed poll. Exactly how is your position different from ‘unskewed’?

  78. wr says:

    @Smooth Jazz: ” I did post here regularly at one time but not any more.”

    And when you did, you spent most of your time telling us how Sarah Palin was going to win in a landslide and be the bestest president every. So please forgive me if I don’t take your predictions too seriously…

  79. jukeboxgrad says:

    Yup. Two years ago Mr. Jazz was dreaming about a Palin presidency:

    Perhaps a down to earth, non intellectual who has a son in the military is the answer next time aroundLOLOLOLOLOL!

  80. jukeboxgrad says:

    Something else about how perfect this video is (link). The angle and the composition of the image add greatly to the impact.

    We’re watching from the side. We’re far behind the guests, and a little below them, so we feel separate from them, and lesser than them. We can see that the camera is hidden behind objects that seem large, because they’re so close to the camera. We feel like we are small and hiding behind those objects. It’s like we are kids who have tiptoed out of our bedroom to stand at the top of the stairs and snoop on our parents while they talk about us.

    This fits in perfectly with what is conveyed by his tone and his words: that he thinks of this group as adults, his peers, and he thinks of the rest of us as helpless children who are beneath him.

    The taper is probably a hired hand, a member of catering staff. The camera angle and framing creates a sense that we are seeing the scene through their eyes, and that we could never be in a room like that except in the role of hired hand.

    Imagine if the tape was a conventional TV-style shot of his talking head. It would probably be less powerful, because we would have a sense that he is talking directly to us. In this video, we get a sense that he is talking about us behind our back. And of course that sense is correct.

    The ad Doug posted above only uses the sound, not the image, but many people have seen the image on the web, on the news and via other ads.

    The video was released 11 days ago. Since that day, Intrade has Obama up about 20%, and Obama at Gallup has gone from +0 to +6. This video is sinking Mitt; it’s devastatingly effective, for all the reasons that have been mentioned.