Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Polling Wrap: Are there upsets in store next month in the state of Michigan? (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The fact that they're on TV means (0+ / 0-)

    The campaign thinks it's the best attack possible.  But I doubt think that tells us the magnitude of the effect.

    26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

    by Xenocrypt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:04:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  *don't think (0+ / 0-)

      Still getting used to this phone.

      26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

      by Xenocrypt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:09:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The fact they're on TV for TWO MONTHS... (5+ / 0-)

      ...means they're effective.  You don't stick with something for a couple months with no signs of abating when something doesn't seem to be moving the needle.

      And again, we have some public polling and focus groups establishing these ads work.

      Not to mention the exact same things hurt Romney temporarily in the GOP primaries, and more fatally in 1994.

      There's plenty of evidence this stuff actually works.  It's not hypothetical.

      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:19:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Xenocrypt and I had a related discussion yesterday (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, DCCyclone

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        My conclusion -- it limits Mitt's upside, even if the economy gets worse over the next few months --

        based on a comparison with Carter-Reagan '80. Of course '12 is nowhere near as bad as '80 for us economically (or in foreign policy), and I think that's part of the equation.

        "I hope; therefore, I can live."
        For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

        by tietack on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 09:01:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, the '80 & also '92 comparisons are stupid (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tietack

          Carter and Bush 41 both had job approvals in the 20s and 30s.  Obama is in the high 40s.  Night-and-day difference.

          Also, regarding your statement in one comment there that "voters aren't listening carefully now," what some people seem to miss is that's what TV ads are for.  No they are not listening carefully, therefore OFA is shoving ads directly into their faces everytime they turn on the TV.  And they see them, and the ads register.

          I'm not sure what Xenocrypt is getting at, what he thinks decides elections.  No it's not all silly economic models that try to reduce everything to a few items...voting behavior and outcomes are more complicated than that, and those models always have big holes as a result.  Campaigns and candidates always matter.

          It's as I said, campaigns aren't built to move ballot test polling in the summer, they're built to move votes in the fall.  If they move ballot test polling quickly, all the better, but that's not the purpose.

          44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 06:31:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think a contrast to '80 is appropriate (0+ / 0-)

            There are superficial similarities between '12 and '80 -- but important contrasts, e.g.:

            Obama's approval > Carter
            Inflation in '12 << Inflation in '80
            Romney as a candidate << Reagan

            However, these economic circumstances are similar enough -- there is a potential for Romney to get late momentum.

            I think Bain, and putting "Romney exports American jobs" message in people's heads, reduces that risk of late Romney momentum to near zero.

            However, I'm not aware of anyone who is making contrasts to '92. Given the Perot factor, '92 and '12 are really apples and oranges, and such a comparison can objectively be called "stupid".

            "I hope; therefore, I can live."
            For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

            by tietack on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 06:50:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well one other thing.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Xenocrypt

              Yes but we also don't have an Iranian Hostage Crisis either and that foriegn policy debacle mainly cemented the public's image of Carter as an undecisive type.

            •  I think the first two of those factors (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tietack

              are more important than the second.  If I recall correctly, Reagan wasn't that popular as a challenger anyway.

              Obama has decent favorables and mediocre approvals, he's the incumbent, the economy isn't great but it stopped getting actively worse long ago, there aren't any Iranian Hostage Crisis things (of course we're still in Afghanistan but I have no reason to think that's costing Obama electorally).  And he's narrowly ahead.  Forget regression--what's intuitively surprising there?  Do you really think that could all be true but he'd be dead in the water against Mike Huckabee?  It's certainly possible but I don't think it has to be true.

              (If Obama were behind, maybe that wouldn't be surprising either--but at this point I doubt he'd be trailing any reasonable Republican.)

              26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

              by Xenocrypt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:18:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reagan was smoooooooooth (0+ / 0-)

                and he knew how to connect, which overcame the image he had with "flaws" like his proposed Rhodesian Expeditionary Force.

                Huckabee isn't nearly that good, but he'd still have a chance to connect to the American public late in the campaign --

                though OfA certainly would have shifted to social issues against a Huck as a nominee.

                "I hope; therefore, I can live."
                For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

                by tietack on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:47:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, circumstances not similar (0+ / 0-)

              Carter's term had gas lines!  People would shit bricks beyond belief to have those now.  They did so then.

              And there wasn't just inflation, but 20%(!) inflation, and also 20%(!) interest rates!

              And then the Iran hostage trauma.

              None of those things exist now, which is why no, there is no potential for Romney to have the kind of late momentum Reagan had, not under present circumstances.  Something more and unexpected will have to go wrong for Obama for anything remotely like '80 to happen.

              44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:34:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I said "contrast" not "comparison" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DCCyclone

                Even with all of the differences (most in our favor), Carter was tied until late October.

                "I hope; therefore, I can live."
                For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

                by tietack on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:55:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whoops, I misread your previous comment then (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tietack

                  Sorry about that!

                  I do think the only reason Carter was hanging in there for so long was that people were suspicious of Reagan.  Only very late did they break for him, and yes the one debate a week out was the kicker.  In an era when the only media were the three broadcast TV networks, PBS, radio, and print, a single debate was a very big deal that would penetrate without any other noise getting in the way.

                  44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

                  by DCCyclone on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:27:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  De nada; Reagan had skills that Romney does not (0+ / 0-)

                    However, there is a risk that the economy will get worse over the next few months, and that can work in favor of a challenger...

                    unless that challenger has the economic albatross that we're hanging around his neck known as Bain (or Bane, as Rush might suggest).

                    "I hope; therefore, I can live."
                    For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

                    by tietack on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:50:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I think campaigns and candidates play a part (0+ / 0-)

            But that doesn't mean they always explain who won or lost.  I've been looking at past House elections and there have definitely been strong challengers and weak incumbents, but usually, the weak incumbents still win.  Sometimes there's a wave, and then that's not true.  

            I know you think mathematical models are silly, and I think some of them are a reach, but fundamentally they're just a way to summarize a lot of information.  And the last few elected incumbent Presidents to lose--Taft, Hoover, Carter, Bush--all had either election-year recessions (before the election) or election-year unemployment peaks.  Maybe that's just a coincidence, and Bush II should have broken the pattern but Kerry was a putz, but it makes sense to me.  (I think unemployment peaked in September of 2003 so perhaps a narrow incumbent win makes sense.)

            Obama has something different--and so I don't see what needs to be explained.  Maybe if he, say, stopped campaigning altogether then he'd lose, but that's not what's under discussion.

            26, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-14 (formerly PA-02/NY-12).

            by Xenocrypt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:07:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  House races are different (0+ / 0-)

              Presidentials are unique.  Voting behavior is completely different, campaigning is unique, the media and public attention are unique.

              Senate races are a big dropoff, as are Governor's races.

              But then there's a very steep dropoff and everything else downballot is totally different.  Voters pay no attention at all until very late, and that extends up to U.S. House races.

              All this means the factors are very different regarding what affects election outcomes.

              I can tell you last year in NoVa field alone won a bunch of races.  In my little neck of the woods, local Dems overperformed greatly over expectations because our field effort dwarfed the GOP's.  My incumbent Dem county school board member was expected to lose, I expected her to lose, and she surprised and hung on.  Dems otherwise were expected to lose several open school board seats, but held every single one.

              Presidentials, campaigns matter a lot, but it's messaging and impressions left with voters that matter.  Obviously these things affect the outcome ultimately only in close races, or in close states even if the winner isn't in doubt.

              44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:41:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site