Skip to comments.Obama’s Aura of Defeat
Posted on 10/25/2012 9:03:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In an argument that was echoed and amplified around the liberal twittersphere yesterday, New Yorks Jonathan Chait made the case that the Romney campaign has bluffed the press into covering the last two weeks of the campaign as though Obamas losing. Like George W. Bush in 2000, who famously (and probably foolishly) campaigned in California to lend himself an air of inevitability in the closing days of the campaign, Team Romneys current brash confidence is designed to persuade the media to overlook the underlying numbers that still point to an advantage for the incumbent. And its working, Chait argues: The widespread perception that Romney is pulling ahead, he writes, is Romneys campaign suckering the press corps with a confidence game.
I agree with Chait that the numbers still show Obama with a slightly clearer path than Romney to an (excruciatingly narrow) electoral college victory. But if youre looking for a reason (besides, of course, the national polling showing an ever-so-slight Romney edge) why the media narrative has tilted toward the Republicans over the last week or so, I think the Romney campaigns guarantee of victory has mattered much less than the Obama campaigns recent aura of defeat.
Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals...
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
He’s got all the symptoms!
Love the article, but it is worth noting that Douthat is a conservative blogger / columnist.
He lost to Bobby Rush in a Illinois primary and was rattled by it... and he is losing it now.
I’m just shocked that this is from the NY Times? I actually agreed with the whole article!!!!
New York Times... finally reporting accurate news ? they must have looked at their financials and figured that they can not lie and stay in business anymore.
So why is he writing crap like this:
"I agree with Chait that the numbers still show Obama with a slightly clearer path than Romney to an (excruciatingly narrow) electoral college victory."
What 'numbers' is he talking about???
Need to photoshop that with him speaking into the phone backwards.
I don't Doubt That, Ross!
Wasn’t J.S. Stalin the “conservative” in V.I. Lenin’s cabinet?
It isn't clear whether this is a calculated strategy to fire up the base to get out and vote. My suspicion is that all the power of the presidency has gone to his head and he is now beyond listening to the people around him. No one seemed to be brave enough to tell him to shut up and study for the first debate.
It seems he is now just acting on his own pride and bitterness that someone is actually challenging him.
Nate Silver, a twenty-something “boy genius” at his newspaper.
The numbers he’s talking about are Electoral Votes (EVs). It seems to be moving more favorably toward Romney, but it all comes down to EVs.
Obama, or any Dem, starts off with NY/CA/IL, all EV-rich. Until recently it was assumed that PA/WI/MN would also be automatically in Obama’s column. The Republican, on the other hand, generally has the EVs from the South, but it takes a lot of southern and other states to match the base of any Dem’s EVs.
Also, even the lib media know that the Benghazi situation is a big fuster-cluck. This must also drive some of the coverage towards Romney. Seriously, every intelligent person alive knows one of these Benghazi is going to blow-up into a big scandal. Isn’t it best to get off the Obama train before you are forced to ride it over the cliff after he wins re-election. I think the lib media is absolutely afraid of Obama might have done in Benghazi and it’s tilting their coverage.....maybe.
That's been known for years. What numbers is he looking at today that show Obama with a clearer path to getting more EVs than Romney?
I am sure it is the fact that most polls show Obama with a slight lead in Ohio (although under 50%), and that Romney’s path to victory without Ohio is very tough. Not impossible, but very tough.
If the incumbent dosen’t have 50% now they have lost the state.
Politics is very simple.
Romney will win Ohio 52-48.
That's the Obama campaign to a tee.
Anytime I see articles saying Obama is still the favorite, I look to see what they say about Independents, and I see nothing. How does Obama win if Romney is winning among Independents by 7+ points? I never see this question addressed. By Dem turnout, it would have to be, but what evidence is there that this year Dem turnout will be so much higher than GOP turnout that Obama will succeed where no other incumbent has by winning an election while carrying only around 43% of the Independent vote?