Skip to main content

Bumped. Susan Gardner

Gallup
I'm sure the Romneyland spin machine will try to take solace in their narrow two percent advantage on the "more likely/less likely to vote for Romney" question, but these new numbers from Gallup are an utter disaster. Gallup has asked that question after almost every convention since 1984, and those are the worst numbers it has ever found. The 2004 GOP convention come close, with a 3 point net impact respectively, but George W. Bush was an incumbent polarizing president.

The root of the GOP's problem is Mitt Romney. His convention speech was the lowest-rated convention speech by any presidential nominee since Gallup started tracking 1996:

Romney's acceptance speech this year scored low by comparison to previous convention speeches going back to 1996. Thirty-eight percent of Americans rated the speech as excellent or good, while 16% rated it as poor or terrible. The 38% who rated the speech as excellent or good is the lowest rating of any of the eight speeches Gallup has tested since Bob Dole's GOP acceptance speech in 1996.
To get a sense of just how bad a 38 percent positive rating is, the second-lowest mark recorded by Gallup came from John McCain in 2008 ... and it was nearly ten points higher. McCain's speech got positive marks from 47 percent of voters that year.

With such a poorly-received convention and nomination speech, it's no wonder that Romney is seeing basically no bounce from his convention. Gallup's own survey now puts Obama ahead of Romney—even though Romney was leading before the convention. So while Romney was looking for a bounce, it appears all he got was a thud.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Eric Fehernstrom addresses the press (20+ / 0-)

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:28:03 AM PDT

  •  Not a bounce, a dip. (17+ / 0-)

    Another first for Romney!

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

    by nailbender on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:29:57 AM PDT

  •  well, there's always Rasmussen (16+ / 0-)

    also figure in the PPP polling for NC and FL, and Romney got little momentum from his waste of time RNC.

    As my friend fladem reminds me, no VP bounce either.

    Note how the press will try and make up for it. Instead of writing about this, there will be oodles of stories about problems at the DNC, starting with the inevitable "can anyone control Bill Clinton?"  crap.

    In truth, tribal voting and few undecideds mean small bounces.  That's true for Obama as well, but this is only good news for John McCain (he had a better speech).

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:31:11 AM PDT

  •  An example of a bad polling question (17+ / 0-)

    "Does XXXX make you XXXX likely to vote for XXX?"

    It's a silly question, for a lot of people. Take me, for example. I'm voting Obama. Romney's speech did not make me more likely to vote for Obama. Nor will Obama's speech.

    You can't increase past 100%.

    This question should only be asked of people who are undecided.

  •  I missed the entire convention (28+ / 0-)

    Mostly intentionally- I can think of few things worse than listening to a bunch of republicans spew their nonsense.

    But I did tune in for a brief moment when Romney was speaking. It was more boring than I imagined it would be. Then came the ridiculous non sequitur "Women are more likely to start up a small business, and as president I'll protect the sanctity of life and defend traditional marriage."

    Like women are starting up businesses and thinking "Gosh, this business would really thrive if women weren't having abortions and gays weren't getting married."

    Anyway, that's about all I watched of the speech. I tuned out feeling pretty confident that if that's the best he can do, we're going to be okay. I mean, he has all the charisma of a tube sock, and that's about the only thing he has to offer. "I'm boring and white." So it doesn't surprise me that everyone else was just as unmoved as I was by his speech.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:33:51 AM PDT

  •  It couldn't happen to a nicer guy nt. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Rose

    Everybody knows it already

    by redstella on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:35:05 AM PDT

  •  I've also noticed that talk among Republicans (8+ / 0-)

    on twitter hasn't been about Romney's speech at all.  They're either chattering on about how great Rubio was or how the media and pundits were much more critical about Eastwood's "speech" than the people were.

    But no one mentioned Mitt.  

    Live with intention. Walk to the edge. Listen hard. Practice wellness. Laugh. Appreciate your friends. Do what you love. ~MARadmacher

    by zoebear on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:37:29 AM PDT

  •  Well, Romney is WAY ahead in billionaire $$$ (6+ / 0-)

    support. And donors at yacht parties really like him. And as goes Utah so goes Wyoming.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:38:43 AM PDT

  •  Made my day! Thanks!!! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlyoshaKaramazov

    Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed...

    by langstonhughesfan on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:43:49 AM PDT

  •  It was a 'solid' speech........whatever the heck (4+ / 0-)

    that means.

  •  cool but let's not count chickens...phone bank, (8+ / 0-)

    contribute, rally, begborrow and steal and then if we get obama back in let's move him left, left , left....so we can build a decent world for future generations.

  •  It looks a lot like Republicans are going to (13+ / 0-)

    lose this election even if Dems do nothing at all, but if you've seen Barack Obama lately, you know he's bringing his A game. He making Romney look like a dead fish. And, I'm seeing his surrogates coming up with some good answers to the hard questions, too.

    Are we better off today than we were four years ago? YES! President Obama pulled us back from the Republican abyss, 29 straight months of private sector job growth, 4.5 million private sector jobs, the stock market is revived, millions of people can get health care who couldn't before, the middle man has been taken out of student loans, we're almost completely out of Iraq, Osama bin Ladin is gone....

    There's probably more. What else? Let's talk it UP.

    Eliminate tax breaks that stimulate the offshoring of jobs.

    by RJDixon74135 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:52:35 AM PDT

    •  there's something about being president, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean

      over time, that makes them more..................themselves.

      Maybe the pressure and responsibility make it difficult to hide who you really are.

      So, Bush II became who he really is..............a snide prick.

      And Obama has become who he is.


      "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:39:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mitt Romney == Dead Fish? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      One does not need one's "A Game" to make Mitt McPuke look like a dead fish. He IS a dead fish. Or a robot? I forget which but he is absolutely the perfect non-candidate that only a party that is far past its expiry date would think to nominate.

      a) From Massachusetts (check)
      b) Personally Boring (check)
      c) Governor who OK the model for ACA (check)
      d) Who comes from a bizarre all white religion
      e) Was for and now against abortion under almost any circumstances and is willing to let SCOTUS "decide" (check)
      f) Picks a lunatic for VP (check and props to Ryan for lying about his marathon time)
      g) Rich in the time of recession
      h) Wanted to kill GM and Chrysler
      i) etc, etc

      Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

      by TerryDarc on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:01:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Checking other sites (7+ / 0-)

    and the headlines are really trying to help Mitt out, with words like modest and tight race.

    Politico article cracked me up - the Floridians apparently need a few days to bask in the glory before they throw all of their support to Romney/Ryan

    The caveat here is that it can take time for developments like the convention to sink in. What's more, the fact that the head-to-head numbers haven't changed between Obama and Romney doesn't mean that there haven't been changes in the underlying dynamics of the race
  •  It baffles me as to why the Romneys... (16+ / 0-)

    just don't embrace the fact that they're way beyond rich.

    They're wealthy. It's generational. It's not NFL player rich. It's forever rich. The Romney grandchildren will never have to work an honest day in their lives, living off their trust funds.

    Now, honestly, I don't begrudge the Romneys their wealth. But please, Ann and Mitt, quit trying to act like you're reg'lar folk. You ain't. You didn't struggle in your early marriage, Ann. Your father-in-law was president of American Motors. It's not like he owned a local Chevy dealership.

    JFK and FDR never pretended to be regular guys. They were who they were, and they succeeded, in part, because of it.

    So, it comes as no surprise that Romney's speech was a flop. Whoever thought that a State of the Union entrance was a good idea should have been fired on the spot. Romney walked up the aisle, smiling and pointing to no one in particular and came across as a glad-handing, straight-out-of-the-movies jackass politician.

    And the speech itself conjured memories of the George W. Bush presidency -- tax cuts for the rich and unprovoked war! -- that damn near made me break out in hives.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:13:21 AM PDT

    •  100% right (6+ / 0-)

      I get your point about the President of American Motors would be wealthier than the owner of a local Chevy dealership.  

      But owners of dealerships are for the most part...rich.  

      I think a better comparison might be it wasn't like Mitt's dad worked the parts counter.

      Of course had Mitt's dad been only an owner of a dealership, or God forbid been an hourly worker behind the parts counter, Ann would not have met Mitt at their prep school cotillion.  And certainly she would never have married such a commoner.

      It would be soooooo beneath her.

  •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

    It needed to be said

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:26:48 AM PDT

  •  I know these are positive numbers for our side (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pythonS, glorificus, Nimbus

    but I expect a similar impact from the Dem convention...

    Biden is going up against the NFL Kickoff and President Obama is going up against the MTV music awards and other various items.

    Clinton's speech could be more watched than the other two, and that could be open to media spinning.

    Really, I just think the cake is baked.  There are limited undecided or people without their mind made up.

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:38:23 AM PDT

    •  Btw-I doubt Clinton will be more watched....but (0+ / 0-)

      it is possible due to circumstances...especially with Biden...so I wouldn't live and die on ratings...

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

      by justmy2 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:40:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  all true (5+ / 0-)

      still, three points:

      1. Obama is slightly ahead so a wash does not help Romney
      2. Poli sci folks paint the conventions as more important than the debates, so the five month stability we have seen may never change.
      3. if so, see 1.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 06:02:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Conventions More Important Than Debates? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean

        Are you sure about that? I'm thinking Nixon/Kennedy where Nixon (I believe) was generally thought to have lost the race after the 1st debate - he was quite grim and uncomfortable looking, Kennedy was full of Camelot.

        And Geo. W.'s performance against Gore was quite good and exceeded all expectations.

        I personally don't much care for conventions but do follow the debates. Hugely more relevant in terms of political p.o.v.'s and how a person carries her/himself.

        Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

        by TerryDarc on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:11:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes I am sure about that ;-) (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TerryDarc, pamelabrown, MadEye

          seems counterintuitive, no? And yet... the political science data seems pretty solid on that, which is why I like to get the poli sci guys into the debate and not just pay attention to reporters.

          One reason is that conventions generate a larger “dose” of information than is provided by the daily ebb and flow of news coverage.  Thomas Holbrook’s study of campaigns from 1984-92 found that front-page coverage of each presidential candidate rose sharply during his party’s convention.

          A second reason is that the news coverage during the convention favors the candidate being nominated. There are typically no increases in the coverage of the Republican candidate during the Democratic National Convention, and vice versa. Thus, unlike the later debates, a convention allows the candidate to present himself, Mr. Holbrook writes, “in a relatively uncontested format.”  So conventions typically generate not just news, but favorable news for the candidates.

          http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/...

          and

          Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?

          Remember all the famous moments in past debates that changed the outcome of those elections? Well, they didn’t.

          That presidential debates can be “game changers” is a belief almost universally held by political pundits and strategists. Political scientists, however, aren’t so sure. Indeed, scholars who have looked most carefully at the data have found that, when it comes to shifting enough votes to decide the outcome of the election, presidential debates have rarely, if ever, mattered

          by John Sides.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:20:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Counterintuitive, Indeed (0+ / 0-)

            But that's why I asked someone who knew! ;-)

            Stimson writes, “There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” At best, debates provide a “nudge” in very close elections like 1960,1980, or 2000. An even more comprehensive study, by political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, which includes every publicly available poll from the presidential elections between 1952 and 2008, comes to a similar conclusion: excluding the 1976 election, which saw Carter’s lead drop steadily throughout the fall
            -Sides Article

            Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

            by TerryDarc on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:44:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I think a better explanation (0+ / 0-)

          is that debates don't matter unless the race is very close, as it now is.  

          Conventions are an introduction, so they normally have a larger effect, but as voters have become more polarized, the number of undecideds has dwindled.  A strong debate performance, or a gross mismatch in performances, can now tip the election.  It happened in 2008:  the media like to say it was the economic collapse that helped Obama, they like that because it makes Obama the passive benefactor of events beyond his control.  But the truth is he eviscerated McCain in the debates, especially on foreign policy, supposedly McCain's strong point.  That's when the public decided on Obama.  The media don't want to say "Obama won the debates" or that he "beat McCain" because from their corporatist perspective, McCain is the one who won.  But the public disagreed.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 10:59:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Concise summary. (0+ / 0-)

        I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

        by Wildthumb on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:22:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thought Clinton was speaking (0+ / 0-)

      on Wed., the night of the NFL kickoff?

      And Biden was speaking Thurs., before Obama.

      Did they change it?

      I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

      by rennert on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:12:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no...I actually just saw that (0+ / 0-)

        you are right...

        Is Castro enough on the uncontested evening?

        “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

        by justmy2 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know that the MTV music (0+ / 0-)

      awards are much of a threat. The venn diagram of people who feel a dilemma—should I watch the Democratic National Convention or the MTV Music Awards?—is pretty small.

      You're not being "oppressed" when another group gains rights you've always enjoyed.

      by Scott Wooledge on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:22:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And they're on MTV (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scott Wooledge

        No diss to MTV, but MTV is a cable network with a modest viewership compared to the people who will be watching the convention on the three over-the-air networks. Football is probably more of a distraction, but I don't know how it runs up against the convention.

        You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children's children what it was once like in America when 25% of the population was batshit insane.

        by Omir the Storyteller on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 11:14:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly, MTV is doing cartwheels (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Omir the Storyteller

          When their best ratings match a middling performance of just one broadcast network.

          And the convention will be on all three broadcasts.

          There is no comparison of households reached.

          Beside Obama is touring campuses and I am sure will have a "Clinton plays the sax on Arsenio" moment before the election to shore up that vote.

          And Romney really can't compete at all by making MTV and Jimmy Fallon appearances. It isn't at all believable he is young, cool and down with the kids. Obama does well in such environments.

          You're not being "oppressed" when another group gains rights you've always enjoyed.

          by Scott Wooledge on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 11:24:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  ORLY? Not according to Drudge (0+ / 0-)

    Drudge always makes me laugh…. if you just read that, you'd think Romney was doing great.   Oh wow, Rass has Romney up 48-44 -- and what's this, Obama's approval rating is DOWN AGAIN to 43% according to Gallup.   (Funny how he never mentions when it goes up a point or two)

    Also, the approval rating is garbage. If someone asked me if I approve of the job Obama is doing, I'd say no.   But I'm still going to vote for him.

  •  Thats The Mittmentum meets Ryanmentum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shademar

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 06:39:38 AM PDT

    •  Randslide!! (2+ / 0-)

      I've been trying to think of a good phrase to describe the RR landslide all the right wing blogs are predicting. Romslide just doen't roll off the tongue I'm afraid. In honor of Ayn Rand, I nominate Randslide..

    •  Nate Silverback Has Romney/Ryan Losing WI (0+ / 0-)

      Percentage chance of winning 23%. Looks like the weaselly little liar isn't going to help the ticket there after all.

      Maureen Dowd absolutely nails it.

      Given the president’s lackluster performance and the listless economy, Romney should be killing it. But he’s an odd duck running with a dissimulating striver. Ryan’s harsh stances toward women, the old and the poor are on record, so he set a new standard for gall when he intoned, “The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.”

      Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

      by TerryDarc on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:25:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Romney spoke at the convention? (6+ / 0-)

    Romney/Lyin' - 2012

    by kitebro on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 06:55:05 AM PDT

  •  the interesting thing here (0+ / 0-)

    is that of all the Convention speeches, Dems ALWAYS do at least as well as GOPers, and usually MUCH better at grabbing votes with their speeches.

    I wonder why?

    Perhaps people feel like the Dems are taking them forward, and the R's are taking them back.

    Who wants to go back?


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:21:50 AM PDT

  •  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA , to quote bubbanomics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:25:40 AM PDT

  •  liars convention (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    susanWAstate, satrap, Nimbus, TerryDarc

    you know in advance that they would be lying.  why would anyone pay any attention to the liars convention?  Now I that I think about it Eastwood's empty chair routine was a perfect allegory for this convention ... one that was devoid of truth.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:47:23 AM PDT

  •  Romney has the scent of a loser (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, TerryDarc, pamelabrown, fou, a2nite, askew

    and we can all smell it

    •  Blob Dull all over again. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aaraujo

      Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

      by J Edward on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:57:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  DNC selling copies of Obama's birth certificate (6+ / 0-)
    •  Obama For America Store Has It (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pamelabrown

      Birth Certificate Coffee Mug

      The OFA store also has a clever pin with Barack/Birth Cert. and "Made In The USA" logo.

      I didn't see it in the DNC store but it does have a Which Mitt coffee mug which I don't think I'd be putting to MY lips.

      Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

      by TerryDarc on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:35:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  and I'm going to guess (0+ / 0-)

    That this isn't going to matter as much as this might have in the past because they have so much money for attack ads. I don't think enough people watched that train wreck of a convention, but I sure wish they had.

    Using my free speech while I still have it. http://www.ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

    by ebgill on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:37:22 AM PDT

  •  BUWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, vcmvo2

    ok sorry that's hysterical. By the time Obama is done campaigning Romney will be in the 20s. People hate Romney plain and simple.

  •  I still think Betty White should be asked (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, fou

    to speak to an empty suit hanging on a portable clothes rack situated behind the lectern.

    I would pay money to see that...

  •  An inherently stiff and cold individual (3+ / 0-)

    has to have great difficulty in faking warmth.  Romney tries to fake it with the constant smile and gallows laugh, which i find intensely grating.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:56:24 AM PDT

  •  Romney is just weird but no one will say it (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, Lovepolitics2008, vcmvo2, JNSD, askew

    For one thing, he had a really bad makeup job for the speech. He looked like he had makeup on. That is not a good thing. For another thing, he gets weird looks on his face, particularly when he is trying to seem compassionate. It is WEIRD. He comes across as completely phony. He just doesn't connect to people because he is robotic and phony.

    •  And mocking global warming (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnie

      with the President wanting to "heal the planet?" Yeah, that was a laugh riot. He's just got a 12 year old's sense of humor and he insists on inflicting it on us.

      I just do not find his "humor" anything but stupid and that look he gets on his face when he tells a joke makes him look like a used car salesman.

      Yuck! Weird, very weird....

      In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

      by vcmvo2 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:16:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Romney's speech lacked energy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap

    Convention speeches are meant to deliver a clear message and fire up the faithful. Romney's speech did neither, and it feeds into my belief (in my diary that made the Rec List) that Romney is trailing by 4-5 points nationally and in most of the swing states

  •  love it when a plan comes together (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, pamelabrown

    Don't roof rack me bro', Now the brown's comin' down; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:02:31 AM PDT

  •  We should all wait to hear what the inebrious (0+ / 0-)

    Jan Brewer, Governor of AZ, has to say about the rpug convention when she sobers up.  Who knows, she may start wagging her bony finger in Romney's face.

  •  As the old vaudevillians used to say, Romney's (0+ / 0-)

    show was a big turkey.

    I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

    by Wildthumb on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:20:05 AM PDT

  •  Almost puzzlingly bad (0+ / 0-)

    From a theatrical perspective Bush and Cheney Put on an excellent show in 2004, though I think that the Democratic convention was superior with many standout speeches and a great, coordinated message, especially with Kerry as war hero.

    The Republican convention of 2008 was an unmitigated disaster disaster from start, (with the aborted attempt to make it a 'we-are-the world' hurricane relief fund), to end (when the hurricane didn't pan out, they were left with what was one of the worst speeches I've ever heard, McCain's acceptance speech, which showcased all of his worst rhetorical shortcomings, a terrible speeching voice, crotchety-sess, and general impairment caused by advanced age.)

    This year's convention I thought was quite a bit better, with more visual appeal, some really quite decent speeches, and semi-cohesive (if not reality based) message.  The Eastwood debacle leading up to Romney's speech (which while being just ok was still far Superior to McCain's) was a disaster, it's true, but one that should have easily been dispatched -- Eastwood's not running for office after-all, nor is he even an issue activist like Charlton Heston.

    But it's telling that the Romney anti-charisma cast such a poll over the event.  It really is a wonder that Republicans permitted a man with such a lack of telegenic presence or appeal step onto the top of their ticket.  In the olden days political candidates without the common touch could still run effective national campaigns from the Newspaper OP ED pages and through surrogates.  One wonders if the Romney campaign might have had better luck, instead of spending their time, talent and considerable resources building a thermo-nuclear reality distortion field for their candidate, instead worked on updating such a campaign style for the modern age.

    Δε φοβάμαι τίποτα.

    by Porphyreos on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:24:59 AM PDT

  •  More a splat than a thud. (0+ / 0-)

    Is it too late to bring back Rick Perry?

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:26:59 AM PDT

  •  This is nice, but (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans have already telegraphed that they are betting on a weak jobs report on Friday to wipe out any Obama gains from the DNC.

    Personally, I would rather see a major offensive now - in addition to the DNC. I don't think Democrats should rely on the convention to give them a bounce.

    Set-up what Obama has done for the middle class and what Republicans have not done. Repeat Republican obstruction of the American Jobs Act. Show that Republicans are looking out for the wealthy, not the average person. BIG contrast between Obama=Forward and Romney/Ryan/Republicans=Backward.

    As we learned from the RNC, media coverage of conventions can be more about who speaks and what they did not say, not the message that the speakers are trying to deliver.

  •  The only way left now is intimidation and fraud (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    For the GOP, arriving past the Labor Day weekend with little if any bounce in all opinion polls, and before the Democratic Convention can reestablish their momentum, it is, indeed, all over but the shouting.  With the electorate, the election is now effectively over.

    However, as was the case in 2000 and in 2004, one must always remain vigilant.  Both of those Presidential election cycle popular totals were badly skewered by both voter intimidation and outright fraud by GOP handlers, aided and abetted by a compliant media.  Gore easily won the 2000 election, but with the aid of brother Jeb Bush and an ideologically bent US Supreme Court, the "will of the people" was nullified.  The 2004 race would well have gone to Kerry, but for the fact that Ohio's GOP found scores of votes in their column that never were and deliberately attempted to disenfranchise the other side.  

    As a lifelong Ohio resident, we in this state know only too well that Presidential elections often come down to what emerges in the results from this classic bell-weather.  Whatever their misgivings about the state of the economy and spending concerns, there is simply no way that the majority of Ohio's elderly, who vote routinely without fail, are going to cast votes for a Romney/Ryan ticket that would even possibly "end Medicare as we know it."  No, not even if slightly lost in all the white noise created by the one hundred million dollars or more in attack ads that will continue to permeate viewing on all Ohio commercial stations through election day.

    Thus, look once more to the intimidation tactics; to making certain that the leaning Democrats do not have an opportunity to vote in a decent time within their work schedules.  Look to wide scale misplacement of Democratic leaning votes right on through election day.  Look to the most egregious shenanigans imaginable by the state's GOP controlled Governor and state house to undermine a legitimate reelection of a President.

    The media knows only too well, that despite a middling economy, at this stage of the game, the Romney/Ryan internals are far too weak to make possible a victory come November.  But billions from plutocrats may still be enough to steal it and then to render to it some effort at legitimacy.

    But this time, should they steal it, my prayers are that President Barack Obama not become the namby-pamby that did then Vice President Al Gore in 2000 and concede the race, bowing to a Supreme Court decision.  

    Were it Bill Clinton running for a third term and facing those same circumstances, there is no doubt he would most assuredly not have abided by a partisan decision by the Supreme Court.  He would have cogently made the claim that the "people's choice" trumps any and all decisions by High Justices.  That, in effect, the popular majority of the electorate itself every four years represents the popular will, and cannot be abrogated by any act rendered by any institution within which that electorate functions.

    There is no doubt in my mind that if Bill Clinton were thus challenged, he would have remained Chief Executive, for he would not have ceded to obvious fraud, even if legitimized by a plutocrat bought and paid for media elite.

    This is my prayer for President Barack Obama, now very obviously heading toward a second term.  Keep your backbone steeled for the absolute rape of the electoral process come November.  Be prepared to take on even the Supreme Court if necessary.  

    Your Democratic predecessors, the elected Jimmy Carter, and the de facto elected Al Gore are both great statesman and like you, Nobel Peace Prize winners, but they are not, alas, great politicians.  When dealing with the egregious aspects of the minority interest plutocrats, quiet dignity simply will not do.

    Bill Clinton is the platinum politician of our time, and he will be nominating you to a second term.  Let the one quality he possesses that even his greatest adversaries acknowledge guide you to accept your reelection regardless of election cycle shenanigans.  Be the unabashed, doggedly determined and unrestrained politician that is William Jefferson Clinton--for it is that aspect of his persona you will need most when the institutions of power, bought and paid for by the plutocracy, attempt to keep you from a legitimate second term.

    For truly this race is over--all but for the stealing.

  •  Results show that people lie (0+ / 0-)

    The way things are today, if Democrats and Republicans were honest, 90% would have told the people polling that the convention "made no difference."

    Because it doesn't.

    Republicans are not going to vote for Obama; Democrats are not going to vote for Romney.

    Claiming it made you less/more likely to vote is just phony boosterism for your own guy.

    It's only the Independents (and, if they are self-defined, even that title is misleading) who would be swayed, if at all.

  •  The point should be made (0+ / 0-)

    that, even with a pretty lackluster convention in 2094, Bush still won. And that may be because Kerry was an unfortunate choice for the Democrats. This time, however, the weak convention will cost Romney dearly because he is challenging an incumbent President with massive political skills, an enormously - almost a defining trait - competitive spirit, and a fierce ground game full of intensely committed troops. Pretty tough to beat that even with a good convention at your back. I would say that the recent Convention was probably the worst since the anti-Mason Party Convention in Baltimore in 1831 (learned that yesterday on CNN GPS).

    The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

    by Anne Elk on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:57:16 AM PDT

  •  We can expect lots of reports from alt universe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, EcosseNJ, askew
    Was Mitt Romney's convention speech really a dud?

    Well, we’ve got a couple of comments here. The first is that one poll does not a trend make, even if it’s from a pollster as respected as Gallup. Other surveys indicate that Romney got at least a modest bounce out of his nominating convention in Tampa, Fla. Rasmussen Reports’ daily tracking poll now gives Romney a 48 percent to 44 percent lead over President Obama. That’s about a six-point gain for the GOP nominee over the past week.

    Second, self-reported voting intentions – saying something will make you more or less likely to cast your ballot a certain way – is an imprecise measure of election outcomes. Lots of things affect an individual’s vote. In retrospect, it’s often hard to single out a particular event as the moment that pushed a voter one way or another. Events that seemed important at the time can fade by November.

    Third, the real effect of the GOP convention can’t be measured until after this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. It’s possible that Obama may not get even a modest boost from the event – and it’s possible that he’ll end up with polls showing him a consensus leader.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/...

    Seriously Christian Science Monitor?

    Mitt Romney sucks. In the history of presidential candidate suckage, Mitt Romney is untouchable.

    You know that, we know that, Republican rivals and voters know that, his wife, his VP and his campaign know that he sucks. That is why they spent $2.5 million on staging and scenery to unsuckify him. Even after all of that, a chair still generated more charisma and coherence than him.

    It's an unscientific survery, but every headline I have seen so far about the Democrats convention has been a pre-buttal.

    The New York Times started it by saying the DNC must repeat the excitement of the once-in-a-lifetime 2008 convention. Yahoo! (AP) is reporting tension between unions and the DNC (when in fact unions are concentrating are skipping the convention to focus on Get Out the Vote efforts in an era of voter purging.) More than a few reports about OWS protestors and others arriving in North Carolina.

    No matter how much Mitt and Ryan suck we can expect the media to find a cloud in Democrats silver linings.

    Our ratings are likely to be lower than the unprecedented 2008 convention. We don't have to match the singular euphoria of 2008.

    We have to beat Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. That's it.

    The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

    by FiredUpInCA on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 10:12:20 AM PDT

  •  Of course, Gallup's headline is: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, PALiberal1

    "Romney Speech Evoke Lukewarm Reactions"

    even though the numbers sounds closer to "ice cold" than "lukewarm".

    Anything to keep this horse race Galluping along...

  •  Liars (0+ / 0-)

    The vast majority of respondents in this poll are liars.

    83% of Republicans are not more likely to vote for Romney, because 90% of them were certain to vote for Romney at the beginning of the convention. And 74% of Democrats are not less likely to vote for Romney, because 90% of them were certain not to vote for Romney at the beginning. If people gave an honest answer, about 85% would have said that the convention made them neither more nor less likely to vote for Romney.

    Polls like this show how a large percentage of voters see themselves as being on a "team", and give a pollster the answer that they know is best for their team, even if it doesn't honestly reflect their views.

  •  Not Surprised (0+ / 0-)

    He always does something to make a fool out of himself, its not hard for him to do so because that is exactly what he is...a FOOL.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site