Advantage: Romney

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on October 19, 2012

Despite the fact that Barack Obama had a better second debate, Mitt Romney still has the momentum. Consider:

  • Romney is competitive in Pennsylvania. Granted, the poll was taken before the second debate, so perhaps President Obama has regained the lead, but the fact that Pennsylvania is even in play ought to shock the Romney camp. And a poll that shows Pennsylvania in play may well encourage fence-sitters to believe that it is acceptable to vote for Romney
  • Romney is just a point behind in Ohio, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points. This poll was taken after the second debate.
  • Romney is behind in Michigan, but within the margin of error. This poll was conducted before the vice presidential debate and the second presidential debate, but it shows that Republicans are increasingly enthusiastic about Romney. I doubt anything happened in the last two debates to diminish Republican enthusiasm, though to be fair, the last two debates may have increased Democratic enthusiasm.
  • Romney has all but erased an 11 point Obama lead in Wisconsin.
  • Even if Romney loses Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the president now has to devote more resources to winning those states–states which he believed that he had won. This allows Romney to focus on more winnable states like Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada (I do not for one moment believe that Romney ought to concede Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania; at the very least, he ought to make the president fight for those states).

Of course, part of the reason why Romney is doing well is because the president’s campaign is back to blundering.

The Obamaphiles were once quite sanguine about their candidate’s prospects. I don’t think that is the case anymore.

  • DemosthenesVW

    Advantage Romney? How can that be? We all know that Barack Obama is going to win this election 53-47. Here’s a reliable source that told me so only last month.

    • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

      “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

      • DemosthenesVW

        I told you a month ago that your projection of Obama by 6 was preposterous. And it was…for the reasons I already laid out a month ago.

        Granted, it looks even crazier today, in part due to Romney’s above-average debate performances and the various meltdowns from the Obama/Biden camp — events that actually make this headline of yours accurate. And I’m glad those events have given you cause to bring your attitude about the election more closely in line with reality. But you were wrong the first time, and I’d appreciate it if you might at last admit that.

        I don’t expect it, especially not after you relied on Keynesian glibness to defend yourself against your Keynes-level misassessment of the situation on the ground in September. But I would appreciate it.

        • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

          First of all, I am happy to be wrong, and I said that I would be glad to be wrong when I wrote my post. Secondly, I wasn’t being glib; my policy is to change my mind when the facts change–Keynesian or not, it’s a good policy to follow. And thirdly, the finger-wagging is both unnecessary and bizarre to witness.

          • DemosthenesVW

            Sigh. First, the facts on which I based my challenge to you a month ago haven’t changed. They’ve been added to. That these additions have caused you to abandon your hyper-pessimism is wonderful, but the fact that they are additions also makes your initial retort inapplicable.

            And second, whether you think it’s necessary or not, I see some purpose in the “finger-wagging” (which would not be my choice of phrase). Bluntly, it serves as a useful corrective. You can regard that as bizarre if you like; that’s fine by me.

          • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

            It seems like you are writing to gloat “I TOLD YOU SO!!!!” Fine. Have fun with that. I made a call, and stated from the beginning that I hoped I was wrong. That doesn’t seem to be enough for you, and I am officially going to stop caring.

Previous post:

Next post: