A late break in the presidential race?

[pjohns]

As a Republican, I have been looking for way for Gov. Romney to eke out 270 electoral votes (or even 269; an electoral tie would probably suffice), since it is the common wisdom that this is going to be very close.

Still, I am now beginning to wonder if there will be a late break in the numbers, turning this into an electoral-vote rout.

One good precedent for this is the 1980 presidential election. Very late in the game, it looked to be a real nail-biter. However, by the time it was all over, Reagan had garneded 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49 electoral votes--about a ten-to-one ratio.

Just a few days ago, on FNC, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi conceded that when the race is thrown wide open at the very end, the challenger is almost always the beneficiary of this sudden break. (However, I do not wish to misrepresent Mr. Trippi; he also indicated that he thinks that probably will not happen this year.)

I am beginning to wonder, however, if it may happen. And if it should happen, Gov. Romney would very likely be the recipient of the good news.

Thoughts?

[Deadwood]

As a Republican, I have been looking for way for Gov. Romney to eke out 270 electoral votes (or even 269; an electoral tie would probably suffice), since it is the common wisdom that this is going to be very close.

Still, I am now beginning to wonder if there will be a late break in the numbers, turning this into an electoral-vote rout.

One good precedent for this is the 1980 presidential election. Very late in the game, it looked to be a real nail-biter. However, by the time it was all over, Reagan had garneded 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49 electoral votes--about a ten-to-one ratio.

Just a few days ago, on FNC, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi conceded that when the race is thrown wide open at the very end, the challenger is almost always the beneficiary of this sudden break. (However, I do not wish to misrepresent Mr. Trippi; he also indicated that he thinks that probably will not happen this year.)

I am beginning to wonder, however, if it may happen. And if it should happen, Gov. Romney would very likely be the recipient of the good news.

Thoughts?

I have been saying since the beginning that this race is and has been similar to the Carter/Reagan race, although the bitterness from the Democrats is much deeper in this one.

Also, Obama's core, the Democratic base is pissed off. It is considered soft and an early snowfall in Ohio could mean the difference.

There is no way to predict a late break, as was the case in in 1980. The numbers though, are running about the same, with Romney with all the momentum on his side.

Unless there is a break, I believe this will be another stolen election where Obama wins on electoral votes while Romney wins more of the popular vote.

While the economy is THE issue to date, it may break on the issue of trust. One more headline about the lying over Benghazi and that break could happen. Obama has shit in his own soup on that one and he may have to eat it.

[Morningstar]

I am certain that Romney would win the popular vote today.

I have no idea who will carry 270+ electoral votes.

[Chris]

Today RCP has Mitt and Barack neck and neck on popular vote, Mitt behind on electoral college. Mitt may have seen his 15 minutes of fame, so to speak, a bump after the first debate that seems to have stalled out and deflated. We may be stuck with another 4 years of Obama.

[garyo]

Say it ain't so.

[Morningstar]

Today RCP has Mitt and Barack neck and neck on popular vote, Mitt behind on electoral college. Mitt may have seen his 15 minutes of fame, so to speak, a bump after the first debate that seems to have stalled out and deflated. We may be stuck with another 4 years of Obama.

That's my hunch.

Either it will be Obama squeaking by, or we are all wrong and Romney will blow him out.

No one ever mentions the fact that a bunch of potential republican voters will be voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul. That is going to hurt Mitt in some tight states.

[garyo]

My gut feeling is Romney will win, not by a landslide but a good solid majority.

[garyo]

Obama has also peaked and Romney is picking up steam with the residual voters.

[roadmaster]

If people were interested and informed Mitt would win by a landslide.

[pjohns]

Today RCP has...Mitt behind on electoral college.

That is because RCP has taken North Carolina out of the "Leans Romney" category, and placed it (along with its 15 electoral votes) in the "Toss Up" category.

But I continue to believe that Gov. Romney will win The Tar Heel State rather easily--probably by five percentage points, or possibly more.

[patrickt]

That's my hunch.

Either it will be Obama squeaking by, or we are all wrong and Romney will blow him out.

No one ever mentions the fact that a bunch of potential republican voters will be voting libertarian or writing in Ron Paul. That is going to hurt Mitt in some tight states.

I don't think so. I saw Ross Perot get Bill Clinton elected but the libertarians don't have the support, in my opinion, that Ross Perot had and they don't have the money. I don't think there are enough idiotic and vicious libertarans who will stamp their feet and throw it to Obama to make a difference. But, I could be wrong.

[Chris]

If people were interested and informed Mitt would win by a landslide.

He wouldn't have been nominated if that were the case.

[Morningstar]

He wouldn't have been nominated if that were the case.

Exactly.

[Chris]

Exactly.

Nor would Obama have been.

[Morningstar]

Nor would Obama have been.

Indeed.

[Captain Obvious]

So now I'm seeing some MSM sites showing Romney with a slight lead.

And I'm in Pittsburgh, and among the plethora of local congressional ads I spotted an Obama ad running - in PA.

These are the tea leaves that I tend to consider when gauging who has the upper hand.

[Morningstar]

So now I'm seeing some MSM sites showing Romney with a slight lead.

And I'm in Pittsburgh, and among the plethora of local congressional ads I spotted an Obama ad running - in PA.

These are the tea leaves that I tend to consider when gauging who has the upper hand.

I've been hearing anti-Obama ads in PA this last week. Which tells me that someone believes that Romney has a shot here...

Two months ago, I don't think anyone believed Romney could carry PA.

[Captain Obvious]

I've been hearing anti-Obama ads in PA this last week. Which tells me that someone believes that Romney has a shot here...

Two months ago, I don't think anyone believed Romney could carry PA.



I voted Johnson on the premise that Romney had no shot at PA.

Now, as I feared, I'm second guessing my strategy.

This clearly is the danger at this stage with 3rd party candidates.
Chris, this was texmaster 's point.

[Chris]

I voted Johnson on the premise that Romney had no shot at PA.

Now, as I feared, I'm second guessing my strategy.

This clearly is the danger at this stage with 3rd party candidates.
Chris, this was texmaster 's point.

Indeed, and the point to which I disagreed and still do. The only way to get rid of the indistinguishable duopoly we're saddled with is to vote third party.

[Morningstar]

Indeed, and the point to which I disagreed and still do. The only way to get rid of the indistinguishable duopoly we're saddled with is to vote third party.

100% correct.

[Captain Obvious]

Indeed, and the point to which I disagreed and still do. The only way to get rid of the indistinguishable duopoly we're saddled with is to vote third party.

I don't disagree.

It's a catch 22.

[Deadwood]

I voted Johnson on the premise that Romney had no shot at PA.

Now, as I feared, I'm second guessing my strategy.

This clearly is the danger at this stage with 3rd party candidates.
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), this was @texmaster (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=249) 's point.

That's the problem with strategic voting, especially on an early ballot.

[Larry Dickman]

Obama has also peaked and Romney is picking up steam with the residual voters.


It's all about trending. There has been NO movement toward OhBama at all. Late deciders will swing heavily to Mitt

[Larry Dickman]

If people were interested and informed Mitt would win by a landslide.

Totally agree and it may well be that people are interested. Honestly I cannot fathom people thinking another four years of this piece of shit is an option.

[Larry Dickman]

That's the problem with strategic voting, especially on an early ballot.


I agree 100%. This early voting jazz needs to go away anyway. There is no reason for it other than it allows much easier chance for fraud. We went two centuries with regular voting and absentee. If you can't work within one of those options you don't give a shit enough to be counted.

[Captain Obvious]

I agree 100%. This early voting jazz needs to go away anyway. There is no reason for it other than it allows much easier chance for fraud. We went two centuries with regular voting and absentee. If you can't work within one of those options you don't give a shit enough to be counted.

The only problem with that, and this would be my case, is that many people could not vote.

If I didn't have the option of voting absentee, I wouldn't be voting. I work out of state.

[Larry Dickman]

The only problem with that, and this would be my case, is that many people could not vote.

If I didn't have the option of voting absentee, I wouldn't be voting. I work out of state.


No, absentee is fine, but it shouldn't be earlier than maybe a week before the election. You deserve to have your vote cast, but as you said, had you waited until now, you very well would rethink your choice.

[birddog]

The only way to get rid of the indistinguishable duopoly we're saddled with is to vote third party.

Possible true, but only if there is a dynamic, competent, attractive candidate that starts early. It should not be one who had already lost in one of the primarys. Voting for the loser Johnson is a vote for Obama.

If you don't see any difference between the two major partys, you are not looking.

[Chris]

Possible true, but only if there is a dynamic, competent, attractive candidate that starts early. It should not be one who had already lost in one of the primarys. Voting for the loser Johnson is a vote for Obama.

If you don't see any difference between the two major partys, you are not looking.

My point is not to vote third party expecting to win but to, over time, make third parties more and more viable.

I see no real differences between the duopolistic parties other than nominal ones. They're both into central planning, both plan redistribution of wealth to social and corporate welfare, both are growing government and intruding into social and personal matters none of their business. Might one take us down the road to serfdom faster, perhaps, but which one?

[birddog]

My point is not to vote third party expecting to win but to, over time, make third parties more and more viable.

I see no real differences between the duopolistic parties other than nominal ones. They're both into central planning, both plan redistribution of wealth to social and corporate welfare, both are growing government and intruding into social and personal matters none of their business. Might one take us down the road to serfdom faster, perhaps, but which one?

We will have to agree to disagree. There are distinct differences in fed judges that are appointed, and these are much more than nominal. Overall, I trust Romney much more with protecting the Second Amendment.

The cabinet and agency offices filled being likely conservative choices is helpful.

When I was fresh out of the Army an an Undergraduate, I remember carry a little transistor around and hearing George Wallace's famous speech live about " there's not a dime's worth of difference------".

It's easy to be unhappy with both political partys for sure, but Romney will be a distinct improvement over Obama, and we need to support him.

[Captain Obvious]

No, absentee is fine, but it shouldn't be earlier than maybe a week before the election. You deserve to have your vote cast, but as you said, had you waited until now, you very well would rethink your choice.

You know - it would be just my luck.

Romney loses PA by 1 vote and loses the election because he didn't carry PA.

I can see it coming from across the landscape.

[Deadwood]

My point is not to vote third party expecting to win but to, over time, make third parties more and more viable.

I see no real differences between the duopolistic parties other than nominal ones. They're both into central planning, both plan redistribution of wealth to social and corporate welfare, both are growing government and intruding into social and personal matters none of their business. Might one take us down the road to serfdom faster, perhaps, but which one?

The three party system has worked well in Canada. However, Canada is a parliamentary system where the part with the most seats forms government, it's leader becomes Prime Minister and a cabinet is chosen from the elected members of parliament.

The only was a third part would be viable in the US is with strong showing in the House AND the senate. Forget the presidency for the time being, and become the balance of power in the congress. It would not take a lot in the house, say 35 to 40 seats. The senate would take time as only one third are elected every two years, but persistence then you have a driving force and one to be reckoned with.

THEN you go after the White House.

I doubt I will see it in my lifetime, but there COULD be a beginning. Another four years of Obama and say another four of trying to fix it should bring the country to its knees.

[pjohns]

The only way to get rid of the indistinguishable duopoly we're saddled with is to vote third party.

The fact that you would consider the Republican Party and the Democratic Party "indistinguishable" is very indtructive, indeed...

[pjohns]

My point is not to vote third party expecting to win but to, over time, make third parties more and more viable.

To thus strategize is to elevate some (possible) future goal over a (certain) immediate goal. And I have a great deal of difficulty with that sort of prioritizing.

My vote in the 2012 presidential election is simple: It is to elect a president in 2012 (who will take the oath of office in January of 2013). It is not to try to lay the groundwork for 2024, or 2028, or 2032...

[Chris]

To thus strategize is to elevate some (possible) future goal over a (certain) immediate goal. And I have a great deal of difficulty with that sort of prioritizing.

My vote in the 2012 presidential election is simple: It is to elect a president in 2012 (who will take the oath of office in January of 2013). It is not to try to lay the groundwork for 2024, or 2028, or 2032...

The Iroquois, it is said, considered the effects of decisions 7 generations out. Politics, and government, today, by Reps and/or Dems, is too short-sighted. It's about winning elections, not what's good for the country.

[Morningstar]

To thus strategize is to elevate some (possible) future goal over a (certain) immediate goal. And I have a great deal of difficulty with that sort of prioritizing.

My vote in the 2012 presidential election is simple: It is to elect a president in 2012 (who will take the oath of office in January of 2013). It is not to try to lay the groundwork for 2024, or 2028, or 2032...

So, you will lay no groundwork, and therefore, build nothing new.

Which is a failure or the greatest magnitude.

[pjohns]

So, you will lay no groundwork, and therefore, build nothing new.

More precisely, I will not sacrifice the certainty of a huge difference in the present for the possibility of an even greater difference in the future.

Moreover, I am not at all dissatisfied with the current two-party system; so I have no compelling reason to contemplate such an enormous sacrifice...