This is some of the most strained, desperate spin I have ever encountered in American politics. Imagine trying to argue that Mitt Romney’s foreign adventure has been a triumphant success! Still, what I hear from my liberal friends is skepticism that any of it will matter. My answer is that of course it will matter. I received a really lame email from Paul Begala asking me to donate money to the DCCC. He told me that 96% of the electorate has already made up their mind who they are going to vote for. That is complete bullshit. People’s political opinions are nowhere near as set in stone as these analysts would like you to believe. I did a lot of canvassing in 2004 and I talked to a lot of voters in July and August of that year. I heard all kinds of crazy things. I can’t tell you how many soft Democrats I met who planned to vote for Bush because they wanted him to have to clean up the mess he created in Iraq. “Why should a Democrat have to do that job?”, they asked. People make their decisions about who to vote for in weird ways.
People do not throw out incumbents lightly. They must be convinced not only that the incumbent is doing a bad job, but that someone else will do a better job. That’s the test Romney needs to pass, and his foreign adventure was supposed to help him make that case. It did anything but.
And he won’t get another chance. Just as in 2008, a lot of Republicans took a long look at Sarah Palin and decided that they couldn’t pull the Republican trigger, Romney lost Republican votes by demonstrating total incompetence during his trip abroad.
This trip hurt him in a vital way.
96% is probably too high. But 92% probably wouldn’t be. My experience so far is that folks are fairly decided. The others are not paying attention. There will be a rehashing of these events come Fall. Don’t know yet what will convince the already unconvinced (known as undecideds but really they should be called uninteresteds). The conventions? The debates? The way the press details “the horse race.” I think these people will want to be on the winning side, and the press narrative or poll numbers will make the difference. Just a lot of effort and money to persuade a few people — and not so much about issues as image. Ugh!
You do realize that it’s anecdotal evidence that is worthless, right?
Actually, working the The Field is far from worthless. What’s worthless is listening to Paul Begala.
When you work in The Field, you find out what is persuading the persuadables. You also quickly discover that people are highly influenced by strange crap, but main;y by the last thing they heard. The part of the electorate that is up for grabs is actually huge, and the fact the Romney is a giant dick is his biggest problem. People DO NOT LIKE HIM.
And that’s really all that matters.
I never said working in the field was worthless. Field research is important.
But if the choice is forming a plan of action based on the people an individual talked to or a random sampling, the random sampling is going to be right much more than the individual’s contacts.
I received a really lame email from Paul Begala asking me to donate money to the DCCC.
Did it say that any money you give them will only support super crappy, homophobic, anti-choice ConservaDems?
Whatever you do, don’t read Brooks’s “Dullest Campaign Ever.” It’s a series of “both sides do it.” See, Obama has small and middle-sized policy proposals, and Romney has no policies. Boring, equally bad, according to Brooks.
When something really hurts Romney, it should show up in polls.
Missteps, even bad ones, do not necessarily affect the polls immediately. What happens first is a softening of support, so that someone who was not persuadable suddenly becomes persuadable, if not quite undecided. These effects accrue. We probably won’t see a big shift, if we do see one, until the conventions.
In 2008, Palin added a new equation to the contest. And initially made my January prediction that the election had been decided. Then she (sort of)sat for an interview with Bob Schieffer and that returned the race to where I’d seen it before she’d been added to the ticket. However, it took a week to ten days before the polls confirmed that.
If the public had gotten as close of a look at Romney in London and Israel as they got of Palin in that interview, his support would begin to erode now. Which is why team Obama would be wise to keep that spotlight on him.
Polls lie.
Really.
AG
nah, polls don’t lie, they just are not accurate to the 7th decimal place.
We are beginning to reach the place in time when the polls will actually mean something and will actually be used for something by the antagonists involved.
Got a problem with left-handed, Bulgarian lyric poet nationalists? The poll will spotlight what the problem is and will probably indicate how to fix it. It might even tell you how to exacerbate the issue to gain the support of the Ukrainian free-verse Royalists … a MUCH larger segment of the population.
AG, you just expect too much of the polls. But on the other hand, up until about 2 weeks from now, you are absolutely correct about Rasmussen.
Polls do lie. They are a tool of the media and the media are a tool of the Permanent Government. Just as we find over and over again in the so-called “data” presented by Big Pharma, when there is money to be made…big, big money…all bets are off as far as the accuracy of information distributed to the population. Presidential elections are about the biggest money of all. Trillions and trillions of dollars are at risk if the wrong guy wins. But never fear…the wrong guy won’t win, because they got rid of him (Ron Paul) right out of the box. Now it’s just a matter of convenience. They already have a good frontman, so why change hosts in the middle of the quiz show?
#1-A truly accurate poll is almost impossible in the U.S. today. There are demographics out there…minorities and the young, country working people and the working class in general among others…who are so far off the pollers’ radar and so mistrustful of any representative of the permaGov that even if they were polled the polls would be disastrously skewed right out front.
Add to that:
#2-Every polling system is financed by a segment of the permaGov that has its own interests at heart.
and
#3-Polling companies are in the business of selling information. They sell information that media outlets want to buy. Do you really think that in the present climate of big business criminality the polling companies are somehow miraculously to be spared, that they are beacon of honesty in a cesspool of hustle?
Please.
If you do got a bridge to sell you, and they got a candidate to sell you. By hook or by crook, they’re gonna sell him if they can.
Watch.
AG
Wrong.
However, it is not election day. So, the polls, which reflect something about today, may not reflect the election.
But only ignorami dismiss them out of hand.
Really.
Bet on it.
The ignorami, eh?
This ignoramus thinks that they are part of the fix process. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
Watch.
AG
I cannot in my life remember a candidate who has committed more major gaffes in more distinct locations in several days. It’s one unforced self-induced self-immolation after another.
What have I forgotten?
He still has Poland to visit. We can only hope for more fun.
As I said at DKos, Jerusalem IS the de facto capital of Israel. The government is basically located there, even if the embassies have to be elsewhere.
Follow much regarding the mideast and Israel? I sort of wonder….
I have to agree with you. People are confusing “is” and “should be”. One government controls both Israel and Jerusalem. That government says Israel is the Capitol. That makes Jerusalem the Capitol, whether the USA or anyone else recognizes it. If say the Russian Federation says Washington is not the Capitol and sends its embassy to Philadelphia, does that make Philadelphia the Capitol of the USA?
People should not confuse “want to be” or “should be” with “is”. That is NOT a survival trait.
I don’t think your analogy is very fitting to the situation. The question is not whether foreign countries should choose between two cities that are both recognized to be within Israel, the question is whether the international community should formally recognize Israel’s claim to have a capital city that in international law is not actually part of Israel, but is under de facto Israeli control as a result of military conquest.
A closer analogy would be if the United States conquered Quebec, and then claimed Montreal as the capital of the U.S. The question then would be whether Russia and the rest of the international community should give recognition to the U.S. claim that Montreal is its capital. For practical purposes, they might have to deal with U.S. govt departments that are based in Montreal, but the issue at hand is whether they should give diplomatic recognition to the U.S. claim of sovereignty by right of conquest.
That is much closer to the position of Jerusalem than the scenario you describe.
Even that one has some flaws since Jerusalem is on the 1967 borders, and Montreal is 20 miles inland.
It’s not a question of the 1967 borders. It goes back to 1947. Jerusalem was excepted from deliberations on what should be done with Mandate Palestine, on the grounds that it was of vital importance to people of three faiths all over the world. Jerusalem was declared to be a separate issue whose final status would be resolved by negotiation at a later date. And in the absence of a negotiated settlement, that is where the legal status of Jerusalem still stands.
As the UN does not accept the acquisition of territory by force, neither Israel’s capture of West Jerusalem in 1948 nor of East Jerusalem in 1967 changes this legal status. That is why the international community keeps its embassies in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem – not even West Jerusalem.
NO. The question is not what anyone SHOULD DO. It is what EXISTS. If Israel were not dependent on the US, they would break relations. Maybe the US should welcome that, maybe not. It is extremely insulting to tell another country what their Capitol is. We get away with it because they are totally dependent on us for arms. Yes, I know they make their own, but the arms they get from us makes the difference between survival and defeat. But I am perilously close to suggesting that we should recognize Jerusalem which puts me into the same logical trap.
Not sure how it’s insulting, considering international recognition is the difference between a state and some asshole claiming land as Uzbekibekibekistan. And since the international community has never, and will never recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it has never and will never be their capital.
And we absolutely should not recognize Jerusalem. Hell, I don’t think we should recognize Israel at all, but that’s another story.
I’m uncomfortable with rhetoric like that.
I agree that we should not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel until a peace agreement is finalized. But you are suggesting that we shouldn’t recognize Israel.
As a thought experiment, it’s reasonable to go back in time to the late-1940s and debate whether or not Harry Truman made the correct decisions regarding Israel at its inception.
But a country needs to stand by its decisions except in the most extreme circumstances.
Most of the Jews alive today live in either America or Israel, and that’s why we have a special relationship with Israel. It’s also why we have the right and the responsibility to tell Israel what to do in certain situations. And it’s why we are highly responsible for what they do.
I am very open about my criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. But I’d do anything I can to protect the Israelis from attack and to help secure their country.
I have many Jewish friends and associates, many of whom are much more critical of Israel’s government than I am. But I could never look them in the face if I started expressing a lack of support for the very existence of Israel.
The crimes they have endured are beyond measure. They tried to help themselves when no one else would help them. We have to respect that. We have to respect that while we also have to stand up for the people suffering needlessly at the hands of Israeli decisions made today.
I’m not suggesting the US government cease to recognize them, as I know that can’t happen because we already have. However, as we give aid and support, we should be doing everything in our power to end the Zionist quest of a “Jewish” state. I cannot support a state defind on those terms; it’s inherently discriminatory. That doesn’t preclude a “homeland” there where Jewish people live, mind you, and the two are totally different. I oppose the Muslim states, too, which obviously includes the Islamic Republics, but they didn’t steal land to establish their states, nor are they an occupying force (though it could be argued, perhaps, that The Taliban are occupiers of the Afghan people).
I don’t support the two-state solution for that reason, although if it’s viable I’d obviously take it as it’s better than the status quo and war.
you sound like Romney with that backtrack.
Also, the House of Saud didn’t just magically wind up in charge of Arabia. They won it by conquest. And now they deny entry to Mecca to anyone who isn’t a Muslim, mistreat the Shi’a minority, and export an intolerant form of Islam all over the world. They are much worse oppressors than Israel. But you don’t say that we shouldn’t recognize them.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but it’s important to keep some frigging perspective.
They’re a monarchy, founded in the 1930’s, which was before the current rules of “no more land via conquest.” They’re also not an Islamic State, even if other peoples don’t find it to pleasant to live there (not to mention 50% of the population in the women). We can’t go back to infinity; then no nation would exist. Of course, that doesn’t mean we should be like, “Oh yeah, let’s ignore Saudi Arabia.” If anything, our government is the grossest in this context; sucking up to both of the worst opppressers in the region.
And I’m not backtracking, at least not like Romney. Recognizing Israel and recognizing them as a “Jewish state” are two different things; I should have been clearer the first time.
you are blaming Jews for winning by conquest a couple years too late? After they were nearly wiped out in Europe during a massive land grab by Germany, you are going to get all high and mighty on them for making a minor land grab to (attempt to) ensure their survival?
That is COMPLETELY ridiculous.
While they were carving a little land in Palestine, our righteous country was occupying Hawaii.
Here is some info on current Senator Daniel Akaka, who is old enough that he was 17 when Pearl Harbor was attacked:
A land grab? Please. The Nakba was not just a land grab, it was a mass ethnic cleansing. We’re not going to agree on this any more than you or Hurria agree on this, so I’m just going to drop it.
And why not support that bill? It seems it would be similar to how we’ve established treaties with current Native American reservations.
We don’t recognize things just because they exist. If we did that, then any nation in the world with enough arms could just seize their neighbor’s land and demand recognition on the grounds that might makes right and this is what exists now. Since the establishment of the U.N., we explicitly reject the idea of acquisition of territory by force.
For 50 years, from 1940 – 1990, U.S. globes and maps of the world showed the Baltic republics as independent nations even though they were by force of conquest part of the Soviet Union. We didn’t recognize their annexation by the USSR, even though it certainly existed, and for a long time seemed permanent. Because the question of recognition wasn’t decided by what currently exists, or how permanent it seems, but by the legality of how those territories were acquired.
As for whether the Israelis are insulted that we do not recognize their right to declare a capital beyond their legal boundaries, well, if they’re insulted then they’re insulted. That shouldn’t bother us any more than we were bothered by whether the Soviets were insulted over our refusal to grant recognition to their claim to sovereignty over the Baltic republics that they had seized by force.
According to Marc Thiessen, “Advantage, Romney,” in the Post, it’s Obama who has made more gaffs abroad. He lists 5 of ’em. It’s like I’m reading about an alternate universe. Bizarre.
Classic Rove.
Because nothing exhibits one’s success more, than telling reporters to kiss your ass. AMIRITE
was hoping, however, for something funnier from Poland
I remember his father’s, “I was brainwashed” remark. The son isn’t any better with words. Whereas Obama is the Muhammad Ali of words. Can’t wait for the debates. Hang the sodium, I’m making popcorn to watch them.
OT – very nice Shelley Berkeley radio ad
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/shelley-berkley-unleashes-country-music-jingle-on-dean
I’m going to assume that as the Leader of the Corporatist Party, whose litte joke on the Rep Party is that Romney’s party sees them as nothing more than a tool that allows them to falsely control the room, that if a good amount of money was raised for their leader; if he networked more money together to use before and after the election; if the media missed what was really happening…then certainly all the public gaffes are a gift of distraction while the coins are being poured into the dowry chest.
We continue to miss the point of Romney’s true religion. He who controls the money, by whatever means, not just wins but owns. And Romney’s doing a good job keeping the money in play.
One thing that is frequently overlooked when checking the polls is strength of support. Not all polls check that, but in those polls that measure not only who someone supports but how strong that support is, Obama outperforms Romney something like 2:1 in terms of strong support. This means that a lot of Romney’s supporters are soft and possibly persuadable.
I don’t think you would see Obama’s support going down at all at this point. However, Romney can lose support. The Obama campaign has worked hard to define Romney and put a ceiling on his support level. As he becomes more known in the general population, specially after the conventions, he may well shed support and it would only take a couple percent for him to be total toast.
And that is why this trip could turn into a total disaster for him. I really don’t see how he has gained votes because of this tour, at best he has solified the real rock core base, but he had them anyway.
It was interesting to hear some Republicans accusing Obama of trying to suppress the Republican vote by running negative ads. Tells me that they are just as worried about the softness of Romney’s support.
There is no real softness of support in the classic sense. Normally, you would say what happens to the support if the guy gets hit by a bus??? Where do his voters go? There is no real question of where Romney’s votes go. If Romney got hit by a bus and they gave the nomination to Happy Gilroy, all the people voting “for” Romney would happily vote “for” Happy and against Obama.
Obama’s perceived strength in support is due to people voting FOR Obama (people like me. Poutrageous professional lefties are excluded, of course). Romney’s softness of support is due to most of Romney’s Supporters voting AGAINST Obama. You are always more solid for something you are for.
Once again, the normal rules don’t apply to this election. There won’t be much “persuading” and “persuadable” this round. I guess, if the weather were bad, they could maybe be persuaded not to vote all, tho.
Now that Canadians are richer than Americans, I guess Romney believers have to accept that Canada is culturally superior and God likes them better. Despite their monstrous insistence on having socialized medicine. How can this be?
Well worth asking Romney if he ever decides to talk to the press again.