ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

2012 Electoral Math -- Mixed Pictures

[ Posted Wednesday, July 18th, 2012 – 17:23 PDT ]

Welcome back once again to our quadrennial column series examining the state-by-state polling in the electoral race. I should mention I've gotten one question from many folks about this series: "When will the next one be?" The answer is "When I get around to doing one," which is not, admittedly, very informative. Unlike my other two column series (one of which is weekly, the other monthly), the Electoral Math columns are on what I'd call an "increasing frequency" schedule. This far out, expect one about every three or four weeks. As we get closer, and as the state-level polling activity increases, we'll start doing them more often, until (just before the election) we'll probably have one every week. The first column in our 2012 series ran on June 25, and I'm going to start listing an archive of all these columns at the bottom, in the data section, so you can go back and read what came before.

OK, enough of that. For this installment of the series, we've got even more charts and graphics! Woo hoo! The first of these is a fairly blunt assessment of the state of the race. It adds all states for each candidate, no matter how solid they are, and puts all the data into a single chart, which also (unlike the breakdown charts) shows the tied states where the polling is exactly even. How to read this chart: Romney starts from the top (in red), Obama starts from the bottom (in blue). Ties are any white gap in between the two. If the blue section is above the green line, Obama has the advantage. If the red section is below the green line, Romney has the edge. The scale (which really is only accurate for Obama, sorry about that) is in percent of the total Electoral College. Here's the current "all in one" chart:

Electoral Math By Percent

As you can see, Obama started with an edge and has, for the most part, steadily maintained this edge. Currently, Obama has 56.3 percent of the Electoral Votes (henceforth "EV"), and Romney has 43.7 percent, with no ties at all. Obama has stayed roughly between 50 and 60 percent, with one dip slightly below the midpoint, since we started keeping data. Romney has stayed mostly in the 40 to 45 percent range, although he has dipped below this as well.

One thing worth pointing out is that because all of these charts measure votes in the Electoral College, one state's swing can be either a tiny blip or a large spike on the graphs, due to the size of their House delegation. For the past few weeks, we've had almost no states completely tied, except for one brief white spike (above). That spike is due to one state -- Florida -- going from barely being in Romney's column to being tied, and then back again. Because Florida has 29 EV, the switch is much more noticeable than, say, if New Hampshire flipped.

Since the last time we checked in, two states have moved towards Romney, two states have moved towards Obama, and three states have mixed news. Arizona was Romney's best news, as it firmed up significantly for Romney. Colorado got weaker for Obama as well. Alabama posted its first poll of the season, and stayed where everyone assumed it would be -- strongly for Romney. Two states firmed up for Obama, Virginia and Wisconsin. The three mixed states are Iowa, which flipped from Obama to Romney and then back to Obama; Ohio, which weakened for Obama, then strengthened back up again, and Florida, which is so close it went from Obama to Romney to being tied, and then settling on Romney. More on the state-by-state situation in a moment. First, let's look at each candidate in more detail.

Romney Electoral Math

I should mention a few technical points before I begin. First, if these charts are too tiny to easily see, click on any of them and you'll get a larger version. Second, definition of terms: "Strong" means leading in the polls by 10 points or better, "Weak" means leading by at least five points (but less than 10), and "Barely" means leading by fewer than five points. And lastly, I've added a feature, so let me know if you love it or hate it or whatever: the vertical line in this chart (and Obama's, below) marks the point in time of our last column. This should help when I talk about "since last time, here's what has happened," hopefully. Let me know what you think.

OK, let's take a look at Mitt Romney's status. Well, Mitt's lines have improved since last time, but he's still got a long way to go. The day after we wrote the last column, Arizona moved all the way from "Barely" to "Strong" for Romney, which gave him an 11 EV boost that he's held ever since. Iowa moved from Barely Obama to Barely Romney at almost the same time, but just recently has moved back into Obama's column. The big fluctuation in Romney's "Barely" numbers was Florida, though. Florida moved from Obama to Barely Romney, then briefly to a tie, then back to Barely Romney. Again, because it is so big, you can really see the movement in the chart.

In numeric terms, Romney started this period with an overall total of 206 EV, and ended (thanks to Florida) at a total of 235 EV. But what I find is more helpful to track, in terms of evaluating a candidate's real standing, is the "Strong Plus Weak" numbers -- states with at least an advantage of five points. Romney's Strong Plus Weak total moved up, from 180 to 191 EV, thanks to Arizona. What is notable is how steady Romney's numbers are in this respect. Those are pretty flat lines for the bottom two sections of the graph -- much flatter than John McCain was posting last time around, by comparison.

Moving right along (or maybe that should be "moving left along"... heh), let's look at the numbers Obama has been charting.

Obama 2012 Electoral Math

President Obama's overall numbers were down this time around, but his underlying numbers got better. He lost Iowa for most of this period to Romney, but recently gained it back. The big loss, of course, was Florida, which is reflected in his overall total, which is down from the previous 332 EV to now only 303 EV. Still over 300, though, which is a pretty good place to be right now. There was much more activity for Obama between the Weak and Barely categories than in the overall number, though. During this period, Obama lost one state from Weak to Barely (Colorado), but gained two others who moved up from Barely to Weak (Wisconsin and Virginia). Ohio moved from Barely to Weak, but dropped back to Barely in the end. Iowa went from Barely over to Romney's column, then firmed up to Weak Obama in the end. Obama's total for Strong Plus Weak started at 236 EV, climbed to a high of 277 EV, and then fell back to 256 EV towards the end -- 20 votes above where they had begun. When comparing Strong Plus Weak, Obama now has a 65 EV lead over Romney -- up from a 56 EV lead last time.

The interesting thing about Obama's chart, when compared to 2008 (see my previous column for 2008 graphs for both Obama and McCain) are the lines which have already crossed 270 -- one bad milestone, and one good. At the beginning of June, Obama's overall total slipped briefly below the winning 270 EV mark. This is disconcerting because in 2008 Obama only slipped below 270 twice: in mid-August (when Reverend Wright was all over the airwaves), and during the Republican convention. Both were much later than the dip we see this year. But the good news is that Obama has already (again, briefly) charted a significant milestone -- where his Strong Plus Weak number climbed above the 270 EV needed to win. For five days, Obama was at 277 EV in this critical measurement -- a feat he did not manage back in 2008 until the beginning of October. So, all around, Obama's numbers are a bit mixed this time, but still pretty comfortable.

We're going to check in, during each of these columns, with Samuel Minter (@abulsme on Twitter), as we did during the 2008 Electoral Math column series. He keeps pretty close track on the election on his Electoral College Prediction page, which allows a check on my analysis from someone who has a much wider range of source material. For now, let's take a look at his current map:

Abulsme.com map

So far, this is a pretty (small-c) conservative estimate of which states are battlegrounds, I have to say. We'll be getting more analysis from Minter in later columns, I promise.

 

My Picks

Finally, we come to the part where I toss darts at the wall to create my own take on the state of the race. Full data on my picks (with complete lists of where I'm placing each state in each category) can be found at the bottom of this article, for easy reference. At the very bottom is an archive list for the column series, to see how these picks have changed over time.

The categories here are labeled differently, as an indication that this is more of a gut-feel analysis than just looking solely at the current state of the polls. The above is the objective part of the column, this is the subjective, to put it another way. We have three categories, complete with their own sub-categories. "Likely" states for each candidate consist of subgroups of "Safe" and "Probable." Then there is the "Tossup" category, broken down into "Leaning" for each candidate, and the truly "Too Close To Call." Got all that? Then here we go....

 

Likely States -- Obama

Safe Obama (16 states, 194 EV)
No movement here, Obama holds onto the same 16 states as he held last time around (again, see data below for a list of states and their EV totals).

Probable Obama (4 states, 49 EV)
Obama loses one state downwards (New Hampshire), and adds one state moving upwards (Nevada). New Hampshire has seemed weak, so we really can't call it "probable" anymore. Countering this move, Nevada seems to be firming up for Obama -- possibly due to his announced change in immigration policy (although that's just speculation on my part). So while the number of probable states stays the same, Obama gains two electoral votes here.

 

Likely States -- Romney

Safe Romney (19 states, 156 EV)
Like the president, Mitt Romney showed absolutely no movement (good or bad) in this category.

Probable Romney (4 states, 35 EV)
Romney added one state here, Arizona. Earlier polls showed Arizona might be within reach for the Obama team, but Romney charted a solid-red poll here, which all but blew this pipe dream away for the Obama side. For now, we're moving Arizona to "probable." Which could change, of course, either way, but for now we feel Arizona is a pretty likely win for Romney.

 

Tossup States

Lean Obama (5 states, 54 EV)
This was the subcategory with the most movement during this period. Nevada moved up to Probable Obama, while New Hampshire moved down here from the same category. The good news is that two states moved up to this category from Too Close To Call. Virginia is looking (astonishingly) like a much more solid blue state these days. While I'm not confident enough of Obama's chances here to move the state to Probable Obama, I do think it's safe to say it's now at least leaning towards Obama. I'm not as confident about Ohio, which (more than Virginia) seems like it may swing wildly for the whole election, but Obama has been holding on to the state with strong enough numbers that, for now, we have to judge it a leaner for Obama.

Lean Romney (1 state, 15 EV)
Romney loses a state here this time around, but it's actually good news for him, as Arizona firms up for him.

Too Close To Call (2 states, 35 EV)
At this point, there are really only two states that are so close and have flip-flopped so regularly between the two candidates that they are anybody's guess. Iowa is going to be a tough challenge for Obama, and Florida is truly up in the air. Florida is the more important of these, and has to be seen as a must-win state for Romney. To put this another way: Obama could win without Florida, but it's hard to see how Romney puts together 270 without Florida's 29 EV.

 

Final Tally

The race has tightened somewhat, but within Obama's states he appears to be firming up his support generally. Mitt Romney's numbers seem more stable, with the exception of Florida's outsized influence on them.

Counting no leaning or tossup states, Obama has a total of 243 EV -- up two from last time around. Mitt Romney's likely easy-win states improved to 191 EV -- up 11 from last time around. This gives Obama a lead of 52 EV, smaller than last time's 60 EV lead. But Obama is a lot closer to the goal than Romney overall, as he only needs 27 more electoral votes from the eight tossup states, whereas Romney needs 79 EV to cross the finish line.

 

[Electoral Vote Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state)

Barack Obama Likely Easy Wins -- 20 States -- 243 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 16 States -- 194 Electoral Votes
California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)

Probable States -- 4 States -- 49 Electoral Votes
Michigan (16), Nevada (6), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (20)

 

Mitt Romney Likely Easy Wins -- 23 States -- 191 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 19 States -- 156 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 4 States -- 35 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Indiana (11), Missouri (10), Montana (3)

 

Tossup States -- 8 States -- 104 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Obama -- 5 States -- 54 Electoral Votes
Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10)

Tossup States Leaning Romney -- 1 State -- 15 Electoral Votes
North Carolina (15)

Too Close To Call -- 2 States -- 35 Electoral Votes
Florida (29), Iowa (6)

 

No polling data yet: (states which have not been polled so far this year)

Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Washington D.C., Wyoming

 

Electoral Math Column Series Archive:

[Jun25]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

106 Comments on “2012 Electoral Math -- Mixed Pictures”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: Barack Obama Likely Easy Wins -- 20 States -- 243 Electoral Votes:

    Safe States -- 16 States -- 194 Electoral Votes
    California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5)

    Err, not so fast on New Mexico, there, fella. I was saying to Michale, in another thread, that some interesting activity is suddenly going on:

    "Could President Barack Obama be vulnerable all of a sudden in New Mexico, a state he took by a landslide in 2008 and seemed likely to hold without much strain in November?

    Polls going back to February in New Mexico have shown Mr. Obama up consistently by double digits over his presumptive GOP rival, Mitt Romney. But a new Public Policy Poll of the state finds the president ahead by just five percentage points, 49% to 44%..." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/18/presidential-race-appears-to-tighten-in-new-mexico/

    What do you make of that? Five points (especially when you factor in the MoE) is not exactly outside striking distance for Romney. What do you attribute this to?

    In fact, have you seen the latest national polls? After all those millions of dollars Team-O has spent, beating up on Romney/Bain, Romney's leading by a point. Granted, a point means a dead heat. But after all those millions, O's numbers have gone down. Not exactly the direction they should be going in, after a media investment of that magnitude. Thoughts?

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    "Barely" means leading by fewer than five points.

    I prefer "less" in this context. Fewer is for discrete objects (how many), whereas poll results are on a continuous scale (how much). "Barely" includes 4.288 ± .004 and such-like, not just 1, 2, 3, 4.

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "The presidential election remains effectively tied nationwide, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll released on Wednesday that shows Mitt Romney at 47 percent and President Obama at 46 percent.

    For the last several weeks, Democrats have attacked Romney over his experience at Bain Capital and his foreign investment holdings, most notably his Swiss bank account. Although the left has seen this as a bruising argument, the poll shows that 60 percent of voters don’t think the issue will make a difference in their decision for president. Similarly, 73 percent say that Romney’s wealth is not a factor in their vote. Those who consider it a major issue, however, said it would make them less likely to support the Republican...."
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-race-between-obama-romney-remains-close-20120718

    73%??? I hate to be the one to break it to Team-O, but I think they and their assorted PACs just spent $100M singing to the choir. These attacks are not cutting through. Certainly not $100K's worth of cut-through.

    I could be completely wrong, but just for the sake of argument, let's say that I'm not. If these Bain/outsourcing/offshoring/swiss-account attacks don't move the needle, where does that leave O for the rest of the campaign season? What does he have left to attack Romney with?

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    Dang it, I changed that during editing PRECISELY because I knew someone was going to nitpick about "less than 5 pts"... and now your reverse-picking the nit against "fewer"??

    Hey, you know what? I just got a Chicago Style Guide for the first time, so I will look this up and see what they say...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TO EVERYONE:

    Major announcement coming tomorrow.

    No hints, but I will say this -- it's good news!

    Watch this space...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Kevin wrote:

    You're going to limit per person comments to 10 per post? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) :)

  7. [7] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You got a new vintage car to tinker with?

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kevin -

    BWAH hah hah!

    OK, that was funny...

    Nope, not even close.

    Chris1962 -

    I wish. The wife has imposed limits on non-functioning cars on the property... sigh...

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're going to limit per person comments to 10 per post? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) :)

    Ouch!!!

    "And the ref takes a point away"
    -Jim Carrey

    Kudos, Kevin... THAT was funny.. :D

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And now VA is a dead heat:

    "...The pollsters note that this signals a sizable shift in Romney's direction: "This compares to a 50 - 42 percent lead for President Obama in a March 20 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 47 - 42 percent Obama lead June 7...."
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tied-virginia-romney-44-obama-44_648745.html

    Yeah, that $100M Chicago-style knife fight sure didn't help O out any. The question is, NOW what do they hit him with?

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, that $100M Chicago-style knife fight sure didn't help O out any. The question is, NOW what do they hit him with?

    THAT is the question.. Most candidates keep their powder dry til at LEAST September...

    Obama has shot his wad already and he ain't got nuthin left..

    "YER OLD MOTHER HUBBARD AND ONLY VAUGHN'S IN THE CUPBOARD!!!"
    -Randy Quaid, MAJOR LEAGUE II

    :D

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ah I remember it was this post last month that brought me to this site in the first place!

    Again another excellent post. I love the collegial EV statistic, that might be the best, most geeky way of presenting an electoral analysis I've seen!

    Chris W:- a lot of talk in the comments so far is about the 'most recent polls showing X,Y,Z'. My view is that one poll should never be taken to mean anything on it's own and I tend to stick to the Real Clear Politics averages when I look at numbers. Obviously trends are important too. What's your opinion on this?

    So people are jumping on the Virginia 'tie' today when every other poll in July showed Obama had a 1-2 point lead. Given the sample size error I'd equate this to it leaning Obama and not 'tied'.

    Similarly I see 2 polls for New Mexico in July, one Obama +5, the other Obama +11 - so my interpretation of this is he probably has a 7-8 point lead so it is still a pretty safe State...

    One other thing. If you are interested in doing more statistical analysis (and you are clearly better at it than me) I'd like to see some sort of study for the 2 candidates showing how close their actual results are to what they poll. The reason for this is that I remember quite clearly Romney performing considerably worse than he polled in almost every Primary (a lot of analysts attributed this to his Mormonism, but you'd think the polls would reflect this?). Anyway I'd be interested to see for say the battleground states how Obama and Romney perform in relation to how they have previously polled in these States... Thoughts?

  13. [13] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So people are jumping on the Virginia 'tie' today when every other poll in July showed Obama had a 1-2 point lead.

    Anything inside the margin of error is a dead heat.

  14. [14] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    THAT is the question.. Most candidates keep their powder dry til at LEAST September...

    Obama has shot his wad already and he ain't got nuthin left..

    Well, since O has a track record for resurrecting his same failed policies, maybe the master plan is to drag the dead horse back into the arena in September. Either that or start World War III in the hopes that'll switch the focus off the economy. They're running out of switcheroo options.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either that or start World War III in the hopes that'll switch the focus off the economy. They're running out of switcheroo options.

    Actually, that's my theory.. Obama is going to spend July and August catering to his base with things like Bain, Amnesty For Illegals, Gay Marriage, etc etc..

    Then come Sep, Obama's going to pivot and start being more Bush than Bush in hopes to win over Independents and NPAs...

    I don't think it will fly.. Independents and NPAs are smarter than Obama thinks they are...

    Considering we know nothing about Obama's intelligence, it's likely that Independents and NPAs are the ones who are actually smarter than Obama...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[13]
    There have been 3 polls: tie, Obama +1, Obama +2. I would say the correct classification of this is what I said 'leaning Obama'. But we're talking semantics anyway.

    You guys mis-underestimate how poisonous Romney not releasing his tax returns is. The last time a candidate made this a HUGE issue close to a vote here is what happened:

    Newt Gingrich 40.4%
    Mitt Romney 27.8%

    Guess what happened right after this awful South Carolina primary result? LITERALLY the day after the result Romney put out a press release saying that he would finally release his tax return lol.

  17. [17] 
    michty6 wrote:

    (For reference in 16, Romney admitted (the day after) not releasing the return was a huge mistake that cost him the Primary: http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/222535.html)

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I hope your good news announcement has something to do with a television appearance or, better yet, a multi-appearance contract for reality-based political commentary!

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Guess what happened right after this awful South Carolina primary result?

    Gingrich went on to become the presumptive Republican nominee. Oh, wait...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    You guys mis-underestimate how poisonous Romney not releasing his tax returns is. The last time a candidate made this a HUGE issue close to a vote here is what happened:

    The American people don't care about Romney's Tax Returns... They NOW he's the better man to turn the economy around. They know that Team Obama and the Hysterical Left just want cannon fodder to use against Romney...

    THAT is what it all boils down to..

    Poll after poll after poll after poll says that the vast majority of Americans prefer Romney to Obama when it comes to fixing the economy...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    They NOW he's the better man to turn the economy around.

    Grrrrrrrrr

    They KNOW he's the better man to turn the economy around.

    :D

    Michale....

  22. [22] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[19] Nope, because Romney released his tax returns lol. That's the whole point

    @[20] This is why Obama is trying to show people that Romney has no economic record unless you count 'screwing lots of people over and killing jobs to make a lot of money' as an economic record...

    I would guess there would STILL be a gap in the polls between 'better to handle the economy' come election day. Obama will want to make that gap as small as possible; Romney will want to expand that gap. Aside from this on EVERY OTHER ISSUE Obama is ahead and Romney isn't really going to gain much elsewhere because of his flaws as a candidate. So this gap will probably decide the election.

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Don't worry I said mis-underestimate instead of underestimate. I think that's just as bad as know/now.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't worry I said mis-underestimate instead of underestimate. I think that's just as bad as know/now.

    Don'tcha hate it when that happens!

    Here I am trying to make an intelligent argument and I can't spell fer sheet! :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    There have been 3 polls: tie, Obama +1, Obama +2. I would say the correct classification of this is what I said 'leaning Obama'. But we're talking semantics anyway.

    No, we're talking "dead heat." Polls have margins of error. That's why anything within the margin of error (usually three percent) is a statistical tie, otherwise known as a dead heat. Like so:

    "There are two campaigns for president happening simultaneously right now. One is being staged inside Washington — and President Obama is winning that one resoundingly. The other is set in the rest of the country — and that one is a dead heat between Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney...."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/a-tale-of-two-campaigns/2012/07/19/gJQAP6kxvW_blog.html

    Nope, because Romney released his tax returns lol. That's the whole point

    And? So? His tax returns are out there. So what point are you trying to make?

  26. [26] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @ [25]

    You know margin of errors go both ways??

    So when they say Obama +1 with a margin of error of 3% they mean it could be anything from:
    Romney +2% to Obama +5%.
    Hence they call it +1.
    Hence I call it leaning Obama since the range clearly indicates this!

    My point is that Romney underestimated the impact of not releasing his tax returns - it had such an impact that he lost embarrassingly to Gingrich.

    So my point is that the 'he's not released his tax returns' is a poisonous political weapon (I repeat: it got people to vote en masse for Gingrich lol). The same poison will be used against him for the next 4 months (there is no way ever he will release his tax returns - it seems pretty clear now).

  27. [27] 
    michty6 wrote:

    (Sorry I clearly can't add 1+3 - I meant ...to Obama 4%. This site should let you edit your comments)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Romney will release his tax returns when Obama releases his school records...

    What could be more simpler??

    We, as American voters have the right to ask for ANYTHING from the persons who are wanting to be our employee...

    As such, there is no UNFAIR request... If enough people demand the disclosure, the candidate must acquiesce...

    If said candidate DOESN'T disclose the requested disclosure then those who are doing the demanding are free to speculate as to WHY said candidate won't disclose requested items..

    That's how our system works...

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[28]
    Lol don't make me beat you down in this argument again!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what one cannot do is sit in judgement and say, "This request is valid and THAT request is not valid"..

    Given the circumstances, I think it's perfectly valid to want to see Obama's school records...

    Gods know he hasn't shown much intelligence in the last 3+ years.... He needs to PROVE to me that he is as smart as he claimed to be...

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Start posting this argument again in the other thread. Let's not clog up this one with this nonsense.

  32. [32] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You know margin of errors go both ways??

    Uh-huh. And after you're all done spinning yourself, it's still a dead heat.

    My point is that Romney underestimated the impact of not releasing his tax returns - it had such an impact that he lost embarrassingly to Gingrich.

    Yeah, see, this isn't then; this is now. You keep leaping into the WayBack Machine, trying to make some kind of point. Only we're not in the past; we're in the here and now. And in the here and now, Romney's tax returns are already out there.

    So my point is that the 'he's not released his tax returns' is a poisonous political weapon

    Only if the American people are demanding to see his tax returns. Are you seeing an outcry from the majority of Americans, demanding to see more of Romney's tax returns? Because I'm seeing a post-$100M-blitzkreig poll that says the American people don't care about that stuff; they care about the economy.

  33. [33] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[33]
    "Only if the American people are demanding to see his tax returns. Are you seeing an outcry from the majority of Americans, demanding to see more of Romney's tax returns?"

    Once again: facts to the rescue! Every single poll on this has shown a majority of Americans want him to release more tax returns. Overwhelmingly yes. Heck one even showed 1/3 of REPUBLICANS want him to.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Start posting this argument again in the other thread. Let's not clog up this one with this nonsense.

    What argument??

    It's not your place to sit in judgement of what is "appropriate" for people to ask to see and what isn't..

    If a majority of Americans want to see Romney's Tax Returns, then Romney better fess them up. If not, he deals with the consequences..

    The same goes for Obama.. If a majority of Americans want to see Obama's School Records, then Obama better fess them up. If not, he deals with the consequences..

    Where's the argument???

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again: facts to the rescue! Every single poll on this has shown a majority of Americans want him to release more tax returns. Overwhelmingly yes. Heck one even showed 1/3 of REPUBLICANS want him to.

    You are on record as saying that only the Poll Of Polls is relevant..

    Where is the Poll Of Polls that show Americans want Romney to show more Tax Records than he already has??

    Michale....

  36. [36] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The argument where you demand a DIFFERENT standard of evidence from one candidate (the black guy - surprise, surprise) than the other - even when this candidate has provided MORE information already than the other!

  37. [37] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[35] If EVERY SINGLE POLL says he should show more tax returns, then the poll of polls (being an average of every single poll) also will lol.

  38. [38] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Once again: facts to the rescue! Every single poll on this has shown a majority of Americans want him to release more tax returns.

    Are we in the WayBack Machine again? I can't tell, since you've neglected to link to any polls.

  39. [39] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[38]
    "Are we in the WayBack Machine again? I can't tell, since you've neglected to link to any polls."

    Lol seriously? Ok here you go:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=polls+on+should+romney+release+more+tax+returns

  40. [40] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You could have just said "Gallup," michty. I know how to find my way over there, even without a direct link to the article. It's just hard to tell if you're referring to the past or present, is all, since you spend so much time in that WayBack Machine.

    So 54% think he should release them (though that's not the same as demanding it, or insisting upon it, but whatever). And of those 54%, it's a dead heat as to whether they think the returns would contain anything that would hurt him, or not.

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Technical Announcement

    I posted this on the other thread, too.

    The spam filter was a little too zealous, hopefully the problem has been fixed. I'll be keeping an eye on it, and apologies to all whose comments got stopped.

    If you post only one link per comment, you should be fine now (hopefully). Let me know if the problems resume.

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    The argument where you demand a DIFFERENT standard of evidence from one candidate (the black guy - surprise, surprise)

    WOW..

    Did you REALLY just go there!??

    I don't care if Obama is black white green purple or pink..

    He claimed he was an intelligent person. Back in 2008, I took him at his word and voted for him..

    I have seen NOTHING that justifies his claim that he is intelligent..

    If he wants my vote again (the possibility IS slight, granted, but not impossible) then he is going to have to prove that his bona fides..

    And, in that, I think I am fairly representative of Independents and NPAs across the country..

    If Obama chooses NOT to release his school records, then he will suffer the consequences..

    I really don't understand why you have a problem with that.

    You don't think school records are necessary? That's your right and it's fine with me..

    I don't think Tax Records are necessary either.. But I don't question (much) your desire to see Romney's..

    Would that you could do me the same courtesy...

    Michale....

  43. [43] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[40]

    There is more than just the gallup poll. Dig deeper - I know that's against your spirit but you can do it!

    The idea of whether or not there is something in there that could hurt him is speculation. And I don't engage in that.

    I don't say
    'Romney is not releasing his tax returns, therefore he must be hiding something!' (like you and Mr Michale like to)

    I say 'Romney is failing to follow the precedent set by his own father, followed by Obama and is therefore being less transparent on this. The fact he is refusing to do something that the other candidate has done, as started by his father, badly damages his character.'
    This is based on facts, not speculation.

  44. [44] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[42]

    The problem is that it's the same pattern on every issue with (some) people on the right and it STINKS of racism:

    2008/2012 Elections (applies equally to both):
    - Obama let's see your birth certificate! The old, white man running against you? No, we don't want to see it for him.
    - Obama that wasn't enough, lets see your long-form birth certificate! The old, white man running against you? No, we don't want to see it for him.
    - Obama let's see your school records! The old, white man running against you? No, we don't want to see it for him.
    - Obama let's see your tax... oh. You already released them. Well that's good. The old, white man running against you? No, we don't want to see it for him.

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Looks like I moved VA too soon -- that poll wasn't out when I wrote this.

    Michale and Chris1962 -

    I will remind the two of you that the Obama team never got distracted by the other clowns in the primary, and spent all their time on oppo researching Mitt. My guess is they've got plenty of ammo left. But that's just a gut feeling.

    michty6 [12] -

    I've always wondered why more people don't chart things over time, instead of just giving you snapshots. A snapshot is good, but doesn't give you any perspective of how things have been moving. I started these charts actually for my OWN use, in 2008, because I couldn't find anyone tracking data over time. It was only later that I thought "hey maybe others would like to see this data, too" and the column series was born.

    I have one other graphical column series, which tracks Obama's job approval rate monthly. For those numbers, I use RealClearPolitics' "poll of polls" rolling average. For this series, I use Electoral-Vote.com, mostly because that's who I used in 2008. Their numbers jump around a lot more, but that does tend to make the chart more interesting.

    You are right -- one poll does not a trend make. It could be what's called an "outlier" where they just got (for whatever reason) skewed data for that poll. You have to look at other polls, over time, to see a true trend emerge. Chris1962 actually knows this, she's just toying with you here.

    When I wrote the last installment of this column, I put up the final 2008 charts, but did not at the time go back and see how the vote actually turned out. I should do that in a future column. We won't be able to tell with Romney/Obama until after the election's over, though.

    Michale and Chris1962 -

    Don't forget there are conventions in August. That's why both Romney and Obama are holding back on their plans for the future -- because if they announced them now, there'd be no news out of the conventions. Note I said "both" -- not a partisan thing, just a political strategy/tactics thing.

    LizM [18] -

    Watch this space!

    Michale [21] -

    How about "They NOW KNOW..."? Heh.

    michty6 [27] -

    It's too hard to program, and I am too lazy to do so.

    :-)

    Michale [28] -

    This is a silly argument. Obama: "here are my six apples" Romney: "here is one apple." Obama: "what about your other apples?" Romney: "I'll show you my apples when you show me your oranges."

    C'mon, you're more creative that this. Deep down, you KNOW how silly an argument this is, I bet.

    Chris1962 [32] -

    in the here and now, Romney's tax returns are already out there.

    Actually, that's the point. You're wrong. Romney's tax return (singular) is out there. NOT his "returns."

    The whole issue goes to trust. If the voters think Romney is untrustworthy, they'll be less inclined to vote for him. And, yes, Americans do indeed care about trustworthiness.

    I'm interested, what do you and Michale have to say about the numerous REPUBLICANS who are telling Mitt to release his returns? Are they just being "partisan"? Or are they offering their own candidate valuable advice?

    OK, that's it for now.

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    There is more than just the gallup poll. Dig deeper

    Unless it's a poll more recent than Gallup's, I'm not particularly interested.

    The idea of whether or not there is something in there that could hurt him is speculation. And I don't engage in that.

    It's also part of the poll, which is why I mentioned it. I'm not seeing a demand that he release more tax records, however; just an opinion that he should. And of those who hold that opinion, they're evenly divided as to whether they think there would even be anything damaging. So it pretty much a waste of polling, IMO. If Gallup had asked respondents if they WANT to see more tax returns released, that would've been another story. Instead, there's this:

    "Americans are split when asked a general question concerning the importance of a presidential candidate's tax returns in providing voters with useful information to consider in their vote choice. Forty-seven percent say tax returns are largely irrelevant and 44% say they provide voters with legitimate information.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    That came out a bit too harsh.. It wasn't meant to be the way it sounded...

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: I'm interested, what do you and Michale have to say about the numerous REPUBLICANS who are telling Mitt to release his returns? Are they just being "partisan"? Or are they offering their own candidate valuable advice?

    I think it's probably stemming from Nervous-Nelliness more than anything. And at the end of the day, I think Romney's internal polling will be his deciding factor. The latest public Gallup poll doesn't seem to give any indication of an American outcry for more tax returns. And, strategically, Team-Romney has nothing to gain by handing O the fodder to "change the subject" away from the economy. So I think Romney's probably gonna stay on that straight-n-narrow economy-economy-economy path unless and until something in his internal polling indicates that it'll hurt his numbers if he doesn't hand over more tax returns. I'm not seeing it Gallup's polling, so I doubt the campaign's internal polling is screaming for it.

    But, hey, tomorrow is Friday — a politician's favorite dump night. So maybe we'll all get a surprise.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    C'mon, you're more creative that this. Deep down, you KNOW how silly an argument this is, I bet.

    You would lose that bet.. :D

    It's not OUR place to sit in judgement of what is a valid request for transparency and what isn't..

    If enough Americans want to know whether Obama prefers missionary over 69 and he doesn't want to disclose that and he loses the election because of his lack of transparency, then so be it... He had his chance to answer the voters questions and he blew it... er.... No pun intended...

    I think it's absolutely SILLY to ask for tax returns. What will they show?? Could the average American even UNDERSTAND them!?? I doubt it..

    But hay.. If you and mitchy want to see Romney's tax returns, then that is your right and it's not my place to judge that..

    The same holds true for people who want to see Obama's school records.

    IT'S THEIR RIGHT...

    If Obama doesn't like it, then don't run for President...

    I'm interested, what do you and Michale have to say about the numerous REPUBLICANS who are telling Mitt to release his returns? Are they just being "partisan"? Or are they offering their own candidate valuable advice?

    That is their right to ask...

    I still think it's silly as it doesn't say anything about anything..

    But that's just me...

    I want to know if Obama is as smart as he claimed to be..

    Because he sure hasn't much shown it in the last three years..

    But if he's got straight As at Harvard, Columbia and where ever else he attended, then I would have to accept that..

    But until he shows it, I won't...

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I guess I'll have to catch CW's announcement in the AM.. It's time to spend time with the lovely wife...

    See ya'all tomorrow. Bright and early... :D

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[49]

    "I think it's absolutely SILLY to ask for tax returns. What will they show?? Could the average American even UNDERSTAND them!?? I doubt it.."

    You're kidding right? You don't think that a Presidential candidate hiding money out the country, paying taxes to OTHER countries (instead of the USA) or avoiding taxes with massive tax avoidance schemes is a big deal in a candidate?

    I mean I would think you wanted to elect a President who has the best interests of America at heart and contributes his fair share, not one who says 'screw you America, I'm not paying my fair share and I'm moving my money to Switzerland'...

    You think a birth certificate to prove you're born in America is REALLY important but moving your money out of America and giving your money to other countries isn't??

  52. [52] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    That is their right to ask...

    I still think it's silly as it doesn't say anything about anything..

    But that's just me...

    Same here. I've never had any desire or need to see a candidate's tax return. I could care less how much they make, or how or where they invest it. Now, if there's some legitimate reason to believe that a presidential candidate has broken the law, THEN I would be interested. But innuendo that's rooted in political spin, backed by zippo evidence, and deemed bogus by newspapers does not qualify as legitimate, in my book. It boils down to nothing more than what it is: a political ploy to get more fodder with which to spin — and, in O's case, all in a desperate bid to deflect away from his own dismal record.

  53. [53] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes Obama's record is so bad...
    BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND HIS SCHOOL RECORDS.

    You guys are funny.

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Folks, folks, folks... you are all missing the key question:

    What do you think of the little lines in the two graphs?

    Heh. No, seriously, what do you think? Are they worth the effort or not? For the next graph, should it have two lines or only one (most recent column)?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't think you should change any of the graphs. I think they're pretty good.

  56. [56] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Folks, folks, folks... you are all missing the key question:

    What do you think of the little lines in the two graphs?

    I'm a map person, so I don't know if I'm the right one to ask. But as graphs go, I'm liking the two lines.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    mitchy,

    Yes Obama's record is so bad...
    BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND HIS SCHOOL RECORDS.

    What's so illogical about that??

    Everyone already KNOWS that Obama's record is so bad. Even OBAMA knows this, which is why he's not running on his record..

    So, since we all agree that Obama's record is in the toilet, let's discuss something we DON'T agree on..

    And that is who has the right to sit in judgment of other people's transparency requests??

    CW,

    Heh. No, seriously, what do you think? Are they worth the effort or not? For the next graph, should it have two lines or only one (most recent column)?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    There are lines??? :D

    Keep them just the way they are.. :D

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[57]

    "And that is who has the right to sit in judgment of other people's transparency requests??"

    Well unlike you I am a man of logic and reason. I would say that the transparency requirements of a President should be dictated by:

    1. Prior precedent
    2. Consistency with your opponent (i.e. opponents requesting you to release important information that they have released, but you haven't)
    3. Public requests and polls, when overwhelming
    4. Legal requirements (statutory, not precedent)

    On (1), (2) and (3) Romney is miles behind Obama. Like not even close. Miles behind. Stuck a couple of hours behind in traffic.

    On (4) they are both the same (I would highly doubt anyone wouldn't release info they were legally required to by statute though...)

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well unlike you I am a man of logic and reason.

    I find that hard to believe, considering your support for Obama..

    I would say that the transparency requirements of a President should be dictated by:

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    Unfortunately your opinion do not the rules make..

    However, let's look at YOUR "requirements"

    1. Prior precedent

    The Left made "school records" an issue in 2004... Therefore precedent is established..

    2. Consistency with your opponent (i.e. opponents requesting you to release important information that they have released, but you haven't)

    I would have to disagree with this one. It's really moronic for one candidate to let another candidate dictate the first candidate's actions..

    3. Public requests and polls, when overwhelming

    Too ambiguous.. Who decides what is "overwhelming" and what isn't??

    4. Legal requirements (statutory, not precedent)

    So, if all states made the LEGAL REQUIREMENT that all candidates must provide a birth certificate, you wouldn't have a problem?? :D

    Your "requirement" list is simply to account for the here and now and leans too much towards Obama. It's not fair by any stretch..

    My "requirement" is a lot simpler. If an American voter wants to see a candidates records from whatever source, they have the right to ask the candidate. If said Candidate refuses, then the American voter HAS THE RIGHT to take that into account when casting their vote..

    See?? Very simple...

    :D

    What can I say... I'm a simple guy...

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Heh. No, seriously, what do you think? Are they worth the effort or not? For the next graph, should it have two lines or only one (most recent column)?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    i tend to prefer two lines over one.

  61. [61] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[59]

    "I find that hard to believe, considering your support for Obama.."

    I don't support Obama. If you voted for Obama in 2008, you have voted for him exactly 1 time more than me.

    Let's measure your consistency:
    The Left made "school records" an issue in 2004... Therefore precedent is established.

    Then you said
    It's really moronic for one candidate to let another candidate dictate the first candidate's actions.."

    Well once again facts are going to shove your argument right back in your face. Bush only released his records because Kerry did so first and applied pressure this way. Not because the 'left' forced him too - because of the exact reason I pointed out and agree with. This 'left forced him to' is just your complete bias and inability to see things rationally and logically. As stated, I fully believe if 1 candidate releases important information, the other should follow.

    There has never been any precedent ever to release school records in any Presidential campaign - other than this precedent set by John Kerry.

    If Romney releases his school records tomorrow, then I am right there 100% behind you all the way in pressuring Obama to release his. I seriously doubt this will happen though, as it's not an avenue Romney wants to go down (otherwise he would've already done so lol).

    Unlike you, I apply my principles equally to both candidates - I am not racist or even partisan.

    "Too ambiguous.. Who decides what is "overwhelming" and what isn't??

    I agree this is a little ambiguous - many things in politics are. It's really up to the candidates to debate it out. But if one says 'I have released 12 years and all these public polls show many people want you to release 12 years' and the other candidate still won't release them then that tells you a lot about this candidates character.

    "So, if all states made the LEGAL REQUIREMENT that all candidates must provide a birth certificate, you wouldn't have a problem??"

    YES! Absolutely I would not have a problem! LOL. The birth certificate only became an issue when you had a black guy running for President as opposed to an old, white guy (the usual)! If BOTH were legally required to release their birth certificate I would have no issue.

    Like I said I'm a man of reason and logic. But you are completely blinded by your bias and you can't see how ASKING ONE PERSON TO RELEASE MORE THAN THE OTHER IS NOT REASONABLE OR LOGICAL. Especially when it's the first ever black candidate/President.

    "My "requirement" is a lot simpler. If an American voter wants to see a candidates records from whatever source, they have the right to ask the candidate. If said Candidate refuses, then the American voter HAS THE RIGHT to take that into account when casting their vote..

    I mean I get your point. But this is completely irrational, unreasonable and illogical. You are saying that ANYTHING anyone of the 311 million population of the USA request must be supplied or you'll hold it against them? Also by the way you're only going to request it from one of the candidates (the black one)?

    This sums you up perfectly. You are pretending to be reasonable and logical but you are actually being biased, irrational and (sorry to say) stupid about the whole thing.

    Anyone making REASONABLE, RATIONAL and LOGICAL requests from two candidates would:

    1. Request the same information from both
    2. Use guidance from precedent and the law to guide them as to what information is appropriate to release.
    3. Not be guided by bias, partisan views, race or religion (etc) in their requests.

    You FAIL in all 3 of these because you are not reasonable, neutral or logical. You are so biased in your views so far against Obama that you are borderline subconsciously racist.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't support Obama. If you voted for Obama in 2008, you have voted for him exactly 1 time more than me.

    I am not talking about the 2008 vote (although I am quite surprised)....

    I am talking about here and now...

    Bush only released his records because Kerry did so first and applied pressure this way.

    So, Bush is a moron... Regardless, precedent HAS been established...

    If Romney releases his school records tomorrow, then I am right there 100% behind you all the way in pressuring Obama to release his. I seriously doubt this will happen though, as it's not an avenue Romney wants to go down (otherwise he would've already done so lol)

    The Left has already dragged Romney's school days into the election..

    Once again, the Left sets the precedent.. :D

    I agree this is a little ambiguous - many things in politics are. It's really up to the candidates to debate it out. But if one says 'I have released 12 years and all these public polls show many people want you to release 12 years' and the other candidate still won't release them then that tells you a lot about this candidates character.

    I respect that opinion.. I simply disagree with it.

    YES! Absolutely I would not have a problem! LOL. The birth certificate only became an issue when you had a black guy running for President as opposed to an old, white guy (the usual)! If BOTH were legally required to release their birth certificate I would have no issue.

    What IS it about the Left that always has to drag RACE into everything...

    I tell you what, Obama has done more than any other single person in history to set race relations back 50 years..

    Now, with Democrats, EVERYTHING is about race.. Even things that have nothing to do with race.

    Like this conversation...

    But this is completely irrational, unreasonable and illogical.

    In YOUR opinion...

    You are so biased in your views so far against Obama that you are borderline subconsciously racist.

    I guess this conversation is over..

    Michale.....

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess this conversation is over.....

    ...except to say that any person that drags race into conversations have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with race are the REAL racists...

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[62]

    "Bush is a moron"

    Finally, something we agree on!

    Regardless, precedent HAS been established

    Nope, he released them not because of precedent but because of point (2) on my list.

    I agree there is some precedent here though and if Romney agrees to I have no problem with both Romney and Obama releasing their school records.

    Personally I don't really care about them, but if that's what reasonable, logical people want to see (BOTH their records) then go for it.

    To quote myself:
    "Anyone making REASONABLE, RATIONAL and LOGICAL requests from two candidates would:

    1. Request the same information from both
    2. Use guidance from precedent and the law to guide them as to what information is appropriate to release.
    3. Not be guided by bias, partisan views, race or religion (etc) in their requests."

    Tell me why you don't think my list is not representative of reasonable, rational and logical thought? And tell me why you think (if you do) that you are reasonable and rational yet all 3 of these do not apply to you...?

    Again quoting myself:
    "subconsciously racist."

    I don't think you are racist but there might be something there subconsciously. I mean I can see no other reasonable or rational reason why you would:

    1. Request a birth certificate from the only black President ever running before and go nuts on a crusade that he wasn't born here when every single factual piece of evidence supports this. Oh and only request it from the black candidate - no crusade against the other guy (who also happens to have a father not born in the USA...).
    2. Request school records from one candidate who also happens to be the black candidate, whilst completely ignoring the school records of the other (white) candidate EVEN THOUGH HE WENT TO THE SAME SCHOOL.

    It could just be you are incredibly biased against Obama, I can accept that. But I believe there is some racial issue there, even if it is subconscious. To be clear: I am not calling you racist but subconsciously there might be something there (you can't control your subconscious though).

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Everyone already KNOWS that Obama's record is so bad. Even OBAMA knows this, which is why he's not running on his record..

    So, since we all agree that Obama's record is in the toilet, let's discuss something we DON'T agree on..

    And that is who has the right to sit in judgment of other people's transparency requests??

    in this election campaign, obama is doing exactly what he has done in every other arena; namely, follow the standard set by george w. bush. in that regard, i think you'll find the following comparison illuminating:

    http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/22/obama_s_re_election_model_bush_04.html

    as to the equivalency of apples-to-apples transparency requests, to be honest i think it's a losing issue for romney. i have no idea whether or not people genuinely care about romney's tax returns, or whether (as CW suggests) that reflects upon his trustworthiness. either way, the issue has no potential to help romney, only hurt him maybe. in all likelihood, the tax records would tell us more of what we already know, that he's very rich and pays lower taxes than you and me. delaying or refusing the release of such information seems to me an unwelcome distraction from his central economic message.

    obama, on the other hand, could potentially benefit from the transparency issue, while it's highly unlikely to be worse than a wash for him. regardless of whether his academic records are or aren't meaningful (i'd wager good quatloos that they are mostly A's), the die has already been cast in the birther controversy. the right has already cried wolf on obama's records too many times for the public to care. the more they shout about it, the better it is for him, because every attack on his transparency is an attack that could have been focused on his policies.

    ~joshua

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Romney releases his school records tomorrow, then I am right there 100% behind you all the way in pressuring Obama to release his. I seriously doubt this will happen though, as it's not an avenue Romney wants to go down (otherwise he would've already done so lol).

    which goes to my overall point; this is a losing issue for romney. of course he doesn't want to go there. if he did, he would have already released his own academic records to get obama to do the same. as a deflection of his own refusal to answer requests for his tax records, regardless of whether or not it's rational or logical, the bigger issue is that it doesn't work.

    It could just be you are incredibly biased against Obama, I can accept that. But I believe there is some racial issue there, even if it is subconscious. To be clear: I am not calling you racist but subconsciously there might be something there (you can't control your subconscious though).

    as to michale's anti-obama bias, i think even he would agree, although he'd likely say his bias was completely rational given the president's policies. however, racism issues i HIGHLY doubt, and that comment does skirt the border of unfounded accusation. i have a fair amount of expertise in psychology, and i would say that's not a valid explanation.

  67. [67] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[66] My accusation is not unfounded.

    If you like I can give you an example of Michale's underlying racism from a comment on these boards? Like I said I don't believe Michale is consciously racist but there is definitely something there subconsciously that I can prove...

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale,

    as an aside, this issue is NOT completely divorced from racism. the birthers made sure of that, so much so that ANY hint of double-standard on transparency from the right, no matter how innocuous it might otherwise be, will still be perceived in that vein. which again is one of many reasons why it continues to be a losing issue for romney and the GOP.

    ~joshua

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you like I can give you an example of Michale's underlying racism from a comment on these boards?

    michty,

    i'm sure you could probably do the same for many people; that's not the point. i have no problem with you refuting michale's point of view on the matter, and certainly use his prior comments to support said refutation; i would do the same. however, your argument was ad hominem and therefore invalid. in the commentary section of other blogs that might fly, but not this one.

    ~joshua

  70. [70] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[69]

    "i have no problem with you refuting michale's point of view on the matter, and certainly use his prior comments to support said refutation; i would do the same. however, your argument was ad hominem and therefore invalid. in the commentary section of other blogs that might fly, but not this one."

    Sure you are right. In the context of my post, I took the argument to a logical conclusion that it did not merit. I should've said something like (bold added for emphasis):

    "It could just be you are incredibly biased against Obama, I can accept that. But I believe - based on some of your posts here and elsewhere on this comments board - there is some racial element to your views of Obama and transparency, even if it is subconscious. To be clear: I am not calling you racist but subconsciously there might be something there (you can't control your subconscious though)."

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a typical tactic of the Left..

    Drag the accusation of racism into the debate, no matter how sublimely, to intimidate.. It's a tried and true method the Left has been using with surprising success since 2007...

    While I am certain YOU can find racist connotations in my discussions, that simply shows who the racist is...

    None of my comments have ever had, nor WILL ever have any connotation to race-based viewpoints..

    My comments are 1000% unequivocally color-blind..

    If you CHOOSE to see racism in my comments, then I would suggest you analyze your own values...

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    While I am certain YOU can find racist connotations in my discussions, that simply shows who the racist is...

    michale, just as michty's statements vis-a-vis your viewpoint are uninformed by years of reading the underpinnings of your underlying philosophy (which i'm sure you yourself would admit is quite apart from most strains of conventional wisdom), your response is a knee-jerk retort that doesn't leave room to educate. speaking as the resident educator in the room, this is what we call a "teachable moment." you're both obviously highly intelligent and highly opinionated, now let's take a step back and explain our views on racism in the electoral math a bit more coolly.

    thanks,

    ~joshua

  73. [73] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[71]

    Well to be honest I was willing to let it slide as I'm sure it just slipped out. But you are absolutely maniacal in your view of the birth certificate in the face of every single fact being incorrect. You are completely unwilling to listen to the opinion of anyone else on here, often simply changing the subject when people point out massive flaws in your arguments. There is some underlying hatred towards Obama that seems to escape from you in the face of overwhelming facts proving your conspiracy theories false.

    "None of my comments have ever had, nor WILL ever have any connotation to race-based viewpoints..

    My comments are 1000% unequivocally color-blind.."

    Oh really?

    Here was your response to my stating that the fact Obama was President of Harvard Review attests to his intelligence - after I said 'I mean the guy was President of the Harvard Law Review' here was your response (bold added for evidence):

    Which could have been simply the result of Affirmative Action.. You don't KNOW it was because of his grades, because he refuses to release his records...

    What you are saying here is that a black guy who was made President of Harvard Law Review may not have deserve it on merit but because of ‘Affirmative Action’ - whatever that’s supposed to mean. This definitely indicates an element of racism in your comments due to the fact that you thought it necessary to even bring up race as an issue in this particular argument - almost trying to use race to prove your point.

    This coupled with the fact that you make no similar requests of Romney (or anyone else for that matter) to release school records leads me to believe there is an underlying, probably subconscious, element of racism in your posts: Romney doesn’t have to prove his education (even though he went to the same Law School) but Obama MUST prove it because he might have just got there by being black (I assume by ‘affirmative action’ this is what you mean). You DEMAND Obama show his school records but make absolutely no demands or requests of Romney at any time, flippantly throwing off any comments that point this out by calling it 'leftist nonsense' or something on those lines.

    In addition to this, in the same thread you go through a massive crusade with facts (that I easily shown to be false) as to why Obama's birth certificate is fake. Once again no reference to Romney's birth certificate. No care for the true facts, logic, argument or debating in a reasonable manner. You are completely emotional, refusing to budge from your pre-set opinion.

    This brings me back to my original comments in [64]:
    “It could just be you are incredibly biased against Obama, I can accept that. But I believe there is some racial issue there, even if it is subconscious. To be clear: I am not calling you racist but subconsciously there might be something there (you can't control your subconscious though).”

    It was on the backdrop of all this that I made this post. In [69] nypoet correctly pointed out that my post was out of line in the context. I agree. So you can now see more of the context above in which I was making this post.

    Here is the link where you make the affirmative action comment: Link: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/07/16/team-obama-should-thank-karl-rove/#comment-23470

    If you read the whole thing you can see the path that led me to believe there is underlying racism from both this linked comment, the thread in full and this thread in which I now write.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    your response is a knee-jerk retort that doesn't leave room to educate.

    Damn skippy... :D

    The problem here is that racism has become a political blunt-force weapon that ideologues wield when they have no logical or rational counter to the facts being presented..

    I said above that Obama's election has set the cause of fighting racism back 50 years and this is a perfect example of that..

    People these days no longer recoil in horror when the charge of racism is spewed.. That's because it's become such a common accusation, so common place, in discussions and events that have absolutely NOTHING to do with race..

    Leftists scream, "HE'S A RACIST!!!" and the American people are like, "yea, ho hum.. Another racist. What's for dinner tonight, honey?"

    It's almost a badge of honor for the Right to be accused of being a racist by the Left. It means that the Left is so angry and irrational that they spew out without thinking...

    And, of course, the Right just LOVES it when that happens...

    Institutionalized racism is dead... Let me clarify that..

    Institutionalized racism against any race except for the caucasian race is dead...

    It died the day this country elected a black president..

    But, apparently, there are many MANY people who simply cannot let go of the old ways. Whose very existence is defined by the race war..

    It's like creating a special breed of rats to destroy a lizard population... What are the rats going to do when there are no more lizards...

    (As an aside, I was going to use the example from ST:TNG about the super soldiers that were created to fight a war, but then were abandoned when the war was won. Then I figured that such a description was MUCH too honorable for the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakahn, et al.. Rats was a MUCH more appropriate analogy)

    That's the problem facing so-called Civil Rights {{sic}}} "leaders" these days..

    There time has passed and they are grasping at straws to try and maintain relevance in a society that is sick and tired of the likes of them...

    How's THAT for a teachable moment?? :D

    Michale......

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    What you are saying here is that a black guy who was made President of Harvard Law Review may not have deserve it on merit but because of ‘Affirmative Action’ - whatever that’s supposed to mean. This definitely indicates an element of racism in your comments due to the fact that you thought it necessary to even bring up race as an issue in this particular argument - almost trying to use race to prove your point.

    Not even close...

    You seem to think that I am saying that no black person could POSSIBLY be Harvard Review President...

    I never said that, never even intimated that...

    You are projecting YOUR racism on my statements and it is coloring your judgment..

    What I am saying is that President Obama has NOT displayed the intelligence of a person who could have earned such a prestigious position on his merits...

    Since, he won't reveal his transcripts and I don't think he is smart enough to be give that position...

    What's left???

    Affirmative Action..

    THAT is the most logical possibility given the current data available..

    It's a logical supposition, logically arrived and and has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY other black person EXCEPT Obama..

    Therefore your claim of racism is so far out in left field as to be on a different planet...

    This coupled with the fact that you make no similar requests of Romney (or anyone else for that matter) to release school records leads me to believe there is an underlying, probably subconscious, element of racism in your posts:

    Romney has never made the claim he is a genius.. Romney has never been said to play 12-Dimensional Chess...

    I don't care about Romney's school records because he has given me absolutely NO REASON to doubt his intelligence...

    Obama has, time and time again. It has NOTHING to do with Obama being black and EVERYTHING to do with Obama being a liar and an asshole...

    You seem to think that just because a black person is the target of derogatory comments that it MUST be racism...

    That's the entire Left's schtick...

    Anyone who is against Obama MUST be a racist...

    Well, it looks like the Left is going to be in for a rude awakening in few months.. Because all those "racists" are going to fire Obama and hire Romney..

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[75]

    Wow.

    You are really digging yourself in a giant hole here.

    "What I am saying is that President Obama has NOT displayed the intelligence of a person who could have earned such a prestigious position on his merits... Since, he won't reveal his transcripts and I don't think he is smart enough to be give that position...What's left???
    Affirmative Action..
    THAT is the most logical possibility given the current data available.."

    You just made the EXACT argument that I apparently 'projected' on to you lol.

    Well at least you cleared that issue up for everyone to see. Definitely not a racist.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I don't know who "75" is, but I have to ask...

    How, EXACTLY is saying that Obama may have been given the job based on Affirmative Action, racist???

    Basically, I am saying is that I think Obama is not very bright or smart and, since he got a job that SHOULD go to the brightest and the smartest, obviously other factors were present..

    Affirmative Action is the only other logical candidate..

    I spose I COULD have said he slept with the Dean's son, but then I guess you would accuse me of being homophobic, right???

    Jeeeezzzus, do you see the kind of world you are trying to create??? No one can say shit because SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE might think it discriminatory...

    Get a clue, dood....

    Michale..

  78. [78] 
    michty6 wrote:

    nypoet22 - now you see what I mean?

  79. [79] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "How, EXACTLY is saying that Obama may have been given the job based on Affirmative Action, racist?"

    This is why I called you 'subconsciously racist'. Because you don't know why, so it isn't conscious.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why I called you 'subconsciously racist'. Because you don't know why, so it isn't conscious.

    No.. I don't know "why" because there is absolutely NO WAY it COULD be racist... and you have yet to explain why you THINK it's racist....

    Michale.....

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Basically, I am saying is that I think Obama is not very bright or smart and, since he got a job that SHOULD go to the brightest and the smartest, obviously other factors were present..

    Affirmative Action is the only other logical candidate..

    michale,

    are you sure you weren't accidentally referring to george w. bush?

    michty,

    if one believes (as i do) that affirmative action is a legitimate policy to address social inequalities that still exist, then criticizing it could be construed as racist. if someone (like michale, for example) believes the policy gives some people an unfair advantage over others for reasons that no longer adequately apply, then it takes on a different meaning. i think you're right that it COULD be a racist comment, but i'm not interpreting it that way because i know the speaker, and because of that i know that's not the context in which it was intended.

    ~joshua

  82. [82] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Someone (who is black) appears to be kind of stupid (to you) so the only way he could've made something of himself must have been due to Affirmative Action - you honestly don't see how this is racist? Try thinking about what the logical conclusion of your statement is...

  83. [83] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I'm posting this comment on both threads that are spinning out of control, here.

    315 Comments? Really? Birtherism? Racism?

    Sigh.

    OK, guys, I'm going to call a halt here. I'll turn off the thread if you don't settle down, as we're so far off the thread it's not even six degrees from Kevin Bacon anymore.

    Michale -

    You are disproving your own argument. If Obama isn't "intelligent" then how did he mastermind the fake birth certificate, convince dozens of people (some Republican officeholders, I believe) to lie for him in a giant conspiracy, and plot his own election to the presidency from his cradle? Or, perhaps, build a time machine and go back in time to insert notices in contemporary Hawaiian papers?

    ANY answer you give to that question other than "Birtherism is nonsense" disproves your other point, because if it were true, then Obama would be an evil genius.

    Seriously, though, I don't want to hear the answer to that question. That horse just ain't dead, it has fully decomposed.

    michty6 -

    OK, you're new here, so I'll try to clarify things a bit. Michale lives to argue with Lefties. He might not admit it, but it is his one true joy in life (other than his fine wife, who must put up with a bazillion times more stress than he ever causes here).

    He will take outrageous positions just to get under your skin. It's a given.

    Now, I understand perfectly what you're saying. The only presidential candidate (as far as I know) in ALL of US history who is asked to prove his Americanness by showing the world his birth certificate happens to be black. That's probably no accident, to put it mildly, when you consider just two Republicans who have run in my lifetime, one of whom was born outside any US State, and one of whom was actually born in Mexico (John McCain and George Romney). The question briefly came up for both of them. In McCain's place, Congress agreed -- during the election, mind you -- that McCain was OK to serve. Romney (elder) is a more interesting case, because his ancestors fled the US to avoid US law. But because George's parents (Mitt's grandparents) were US citizens, he was deemed to be a "natural born" citizen as well. The term has never been legally defined in a court of law. By US law, you are automatically a US citizen if ONE parent is also a US citizen NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH YOU WERE BORN. So even if the birthers were right IT WOULD NOT MATTER because his mom was a US Citizen -- same as George Romney's. Making both of them "natural born."

    And yet, Obama's the only one who bred conspiracy theories. So I do understand perfectly what you're saying.

    But leaping from there to charges of racism is a bigger leap, and one that crosses the line into ad hominem attack. So, you've been warned.

    So, to everyone -

    Take a deep breath. Calm down. Don't make me start turning off comment threads -- I've never had to do so before, so let's all remember to respect each other's opinions a bit more.

    Michale, don't play so innocent. You know full well that if you make a completely unsubstantiated charge that affirmative action helped out Obama because he's just so stupid, that people are (1) going to think you're stupid yourself, and (2) going to respond to the racial component of what you are saying (yes, "affirmative action" has a racial component... duh). I know the right has almost perfected the whole "playing the reverse racism card" but we all know that's not who you really are.

    michty6 -

    You're never going to get the "last word" with Michale. I don't know that it's ever happened (anyone? anyone remember achieving this feat?) here. The best you can hope for is to get to the point where you just dismiss him and refuse to rise to his taunts. Don't worry, while Michale often posts the most comments, most readers of this blog are actually seeing things from your point of view. We've just all learned the point to start ignoring Michale, that's all.

    OK, that's it, I've got to write today's column. Play nice, everyone.

    -CW

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[81] Nypoet22

    I know you are trying to defend Michale. But here is Michale's own chain of thought (as demonstrated in post [77]:

    - Guy becomes President of Harvard Law Review
    - Michale doesn't think guy is very smart (based on no evidence, I would add)
    - Therefore, in Michale's world, the guy must've got the job because he is black - this 'the only logical conclusion'.

    You are arguing that saying 'Affirmative Action' (i.e. because he is black) is the 'only logical conclusion' is not racist?

    It doesn't really matter what your views on Affirmative Action are - to jump to this conclusion immediately without considering ANYTHING ELSE (or that your logic might be inherently flawed). And you don't see anything wrong with this?

  85. [85] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW - nice post. I will take your points into account in future posting. I'd imagine my posting frequency will decrease when I get busier at work any way ;)

    Michale - I apologise if you were offended by my comments. I didn't mean them as a personal attack and I tried to make it very clear I wasn't calling you racist at any point - just that some of your comments could come across as unintentionally so (I should have used 'unintentionally' rather than 'subconsciously' - I apologise for this).

    I guess could draw the line and say that you consider race much more than I do to be a factor in how Obama got to where he is? If this is the case, I completely disagree with this notion but will be happy to agree to disagree on this issue rather than discussing race further.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    are you sure you weren't accidentally referring to george w. bush?

    Bush was never lauded as playing 12-Dimensional Chess...

    On the other hand, based on available evidence, Bush is a LOT smarter than Obama..

    Who do you think Obama is copying in the CT field??? :D

    believes the policy gives some people an unfair advantage over others for reasons that no longer adequately apply,

    No matter HOW you slice it, Affirmative Action is racism for the purposes of addressing racism in the truest definition of racism...

    mitchy,

    Someone (who is black) appears to be kind of stupid (to you) so the only way he could've made something of himself must have been due to Affirmative Action -

    So, JUST because I call a black person stupid, that means I am racist??

    What if he really IS stupid??

    Am I still a racist???

    Or just a great judge of intelligence???

    Accidentally (I am sure) you have just stumbled on the BIGGEST problem with race relations today..

    People (mostly, if not entirely, from the Left) seem to think that, JUST because there is a black person involved, then race ***HAS*** to be a factor...

    I say, "I think Obama is not very smart."

    You see, "Black people are not very smart."

    I say, "Obama is a liar"

    You see, "Black people are all liars."

    You see, the problem is NOT what I am saying. The problem is you have convinced yourself that anyone who can't see Obama's way about things, anyone who attacks Obama's policies MUST be racist..

    Which is ironic, because it's actually the opposite...

    Obama took almost NINETY EIGHT percent of the black vote in 2008...

    This, from a guy who had absolutely NO qualifications for office, who'se personal paperwork trail was horrendous and didn't have a LICK of practical experience for the job..

    Yet, 98% of black people voted for him..

    Now.. You tell me...

    Was race a factor???

    Of course it was...

    And wouldn't THAT be considered racism???

    Damn skippy it would...

    So, yes.. There is definitely racism in the here and now..

    But practically all of it comes from ONE side of the political spectrum... And you would be surprised as to WHICH side it is...

    Michale.....

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Forget everything I just posted right above..

    I am thru as well...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    - Guy becomes President of Harvard Law Review
    - Michale doesn't think guy is very smart (based on no evidence, I would add)

    The Harvard Law Review presidency is a popularity contest, michty. Grades have nothing to do with the selection process. So O's HLR presidency is not a testament of O's intelligence. All it says it that he was just as good at bullshooting his way into the presidency back then as he was in the 2008 race.

  89. [89] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I might not respond to all of your rhetoric, but I will respond to blatant lies:

    "The Harvard Law Review presidency is a popularity contest, michty. Grades have nothing to do with the selection process.

    From wikipedia: 'Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.'

  90. [90] 
    Kevin wrote:

    michty6: Don't worry about Michale's echo chamber. Everything Chris W. said about Michale applies to her, but Michale's been here a long time; we're more-or-less used to him, and he has flashes of extremely clever humour. Chris1962 has recently reappeared after a blessedly long absence. Just consider her a remora attached to the Great White Michale :)

  91. [91] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Hey, Kev? If you'd like to hurl personal attacks, either have the guts to say them directly TO me or the class to put them in a private email to michty. And since personal attacks are not welcome on this board, I'd advise you to go with the latter. Because if I see it again, I'll take the matter to Chris, who personally invited me to join this board. As I understand it, commentary is welcome from BOTH sides of the aisle around here, even if you don't personally appreciate what the other side has to say.

  92. [92] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    From wikipedia: 'Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.'

    And no mention of how the president is selected. Real fascinating, michty. Instead of wiki, try the Harvard Law Review site.

  93. [93] 
    Kevin wrote:

    OK, Chris, since referring to you as an echo chamber and a remora so hurts your feelings; I think you are an even bigger nitwit now than you were when you first showed up here. That's my OPINION, although the "logic" you use in your posts, personally for me it is also a fact. Happy now? The quantity of your posts doesn't make up for the lack of compelling quality.

  94. [94] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think you are an even bigger nitwit now than you were when you first showed up here.

    Not quite sure which part of "personal attacks" you don't understand, Kev, but I'll direct this matter to Chris. Maybe he can encourage you to stay within the posting guidelines.

  95. [95] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Go ahead. You ASKED me to tell you what I thought directly, so I did. I was initially just commiserating with michty and suggested he follow CW's advice to not waste his time. You'll be pleased to know I've spent what little time I care to squander on you...feel free to mass spout your thoughts; I really don't care. Good Nite and Happy Paranoia.

  96. [96] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Go ahead.

    Done.

    You ASKED me to tell you what I thought directly, so I did.

    I also advised you to choose the latter suggestion, since personal attacks are not welcome on this board. In any event, I've contacted Chris, and this off-topic discussion is over.

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and this off-topic discussion is over.

    not a moment too soon.

  98. [98] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Just found that realclear has this new (?) feature where you can compare positions between the polls just now and the 2008/2004 elections.

    In terms of incumbent Presidents (which I'm sure everyone agrees are a totally different election than 2 newbes) here is 2012 vs 2004 just now: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/election_2012_vs_election_2004_eight_years_ago_today.html

    Interesting that Bush was actually behind at this point in 2004. However, this is countered by the fact that Romney is a full point higher than Bush...

  99. [99] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Interesting that Bush was actually behind at this point in 2004. However, this is countered by the fact that Romney is a full point higher than Bush...

    Yesteryear elections have nothing to do with the here and now. The Left seriously needs to hang up its keys to the WayBack Machine.

  100. [100] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes, historical data and trends are absolutely useless in predicting the future. They should fire all statisticians now.

    It's also not surprising that you only reference 'yesteryear' as 'useless' when the argument is against you.

  101. [101] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    We're not in 2004's economy, michty. And "it's the economy, stupid" that voters are concerned about, first, foremost and well beyond any other issue.

  102. [102] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Poll: Romney preferred over Obama to handle the economy
    Despite concerted Democratic attacks on his business record, Republican challenger Mitt Romney scores a significant advantage over President Obama when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs, a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

    By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years.

    The findings raise questions about Obama's strategy of targeting Bain's record in outsourcing jobs and hammering Romney for refusing to commit to releasing more than two years of his tax returns. Instead, Americans seem focused on the economy, where disappointment with the fragile recovery and the 8.2% unemployment rate are costing the president...."

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-23/poll-romney-obama-economy/56439758/1

    That's what the $100K campaign bought. And that's likely why Romney isn't taking the bait to release more tax returns.

    So what's O's next strategic move?

  103. [103] 
    michty6 wrote:

    @[102] You did read the sentence you bolded? Basically the survey said 'Would Romney make good decisions on the economy' and 63% said yes. Lol hardly ground breaking! I would guess Obama would poll around the same mark on the same question...

    Fresh Out Today! Poll: Bain Attacks Working
    "More than a third of voters who are registered to a party or as an independent said in the online survey that what they had heard about Romney's taxes and his time at Bain Capital private equity firm had given them a less favorable impression of the Republican candidate.

    And particularly worrying for Romney is that a large slice of independent voters -- whom he needs to win the November 6 election -- are also buying into the Obama campaign's portrayal of him as a ruthless businessman who may be hiding something in his taxes."

    "on..."plan, policy or approach" to the country's economy.
    The margin was... 22 to 19 in favor of Obama among independents."

    "independents, by a margin of 54 to 46, saw Romney's taxes as important in the fight for the White House."

  104. [104] 
    michty6 wrote:
  105. [105] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I've focussed on the independent voter numbers, not good news for Romney at all...

  106. [106] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I've focussed on the independent voter numbers, not good news for Romney at all...

    "The precision of Reuters/Ipsos online surveys are measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points for all Americans. For registered voters it was plus or minus 3.7, and for independents it was plus or minus 8.7."

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]