A Romney Romp?

Romney’s team is claiming he has a sustainable permanent lead and that his horrible debate performance actually helped him!

Go to the right side of the blogosphere and you’ll find Romney supporters convinced that they are not only clearly on their way to victory, but expect a blowout.   Despite the conventional wisdom that the race is neck and neck and the next two weeks will be exciting, they say it’s all but over.   The claim is straight forward:  the first debate changed the fundamental dynamics of the race and once Romney was deemed “acceptable,” he’s moved into a slight lead.   Since late deciders almost always go to the challenger, he’s going to pad that lead going into the election and have a surprisingly easy victory.

It’s tempting to do just dismiss such talk as bravado or wishful thinking.   After all, Obama supporters like myself got fooled in September into thinking that Obama was cruising to a crushing defeat of a candidate who couldn’t do anything right.  Moreover the level of bluster has increased dramatically in the wake of the third debate, one which saw President Obama pretty soundly defeat Mitt Romney according to all post-debate polls.   Indeed, the margin of victory was such that it seemed an inverse of the first debate, with Mitt Romney subdued and lethargic while Obama was energetic and on target.    This looks like a brave attempt to try to push back against a backlash favoring Obama after that debate.

Yet their theory is plausible.  Is it likely to be accurate?

Assumptions:  The argument and assumptions they make are straight forward:  1)  Mitt Romney now has both the momentum and the lead; 2) late deciders will break overwhelmingly for the challenger; and 3) it is too late for anything to upset the dynamic of the race.

Does Mitt Romney have a clear lead and momentum?:  If you look at state and national polls the answer is no.    Since the second debate polls have been rather stagnate, with Romney slightly ahead in an average of national polls, but still behind in most of the swing states.    It appears the race has tightened with no one clearly ahead.  Remember, when there is a margin of error of 3.5%, polls showing a one point lead or a candidate one point down are essentially tied.

Despite all the hype, the most sophisticated forecasts still show Obama as the favorite

Still, if one cherry picks a couple of polls (like Gallup and the recent movement in Rasmussen to put Romney up four), and adds to that the fact that more polls show a slight Romney lead than before, one can’t dismiss the possibility that Romney has momentum, though it certainly isn’t strong.   So for assumption one: unlikely, but possible.

2) Late deciders will overwhelmingly break for Romney:   There are two problems with this assumption.  First, it’s not clear how many late deciders exist!   Still, there are 3 to 5% who aren’t for either candidate in most polls, and if those broke overwhelmingly for Romney that could be enough to push him over the top in the popular vote, as well as in important swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin.

The second problem is more esoteric.   Political junkies like to deal in generalities.   Late deciders go to the challenger, no  President since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.4%, and debates don’t change the trajectory of a race.   Yet there are so few Presidential races in modern history that it’s hard to read too much into any generalization.  Maybe late deciders usually break for the challenger, but in a race as tight and hard fought as this, it’s not clear they will.  Just as the debates did seem to change the trajectory of the campaign, heuristics may be poor guides in predicting what will happen.

Assumption two:  possibly true, but this election is unique, we don’t know.

3)  It is too late for the President to recapture the momentum.   This is the weakest assumption.   The debate that just concluded Monday has a real chance to move the numbers.   After debate one soft Obama support shifted to Romney.   Much of that is now soft Romney support.  If some shifts back to Obama it could make a big difference and essentially assure Obama of a winning electoral map.

Obama could still get a real bounce from his third debate performance

Beyond that is the impact of early voting and the Obama ground game.   Obama’s network is more extensive than in 2008.   This has to be what worries Republicans the most.   The goal of get out the vote (GOTV) efforts is to get unlikely voters to the polls (as well as assuring likely voters do vote).   The Democrats have always been dogged by the fact that their supporters don’t vote with the same regularity as do Republicans.   That’s why registered voter polls tend to show a decent Obama lead.  If team Obama can execute a winning ground game that could push the election further in their favor, especially in the swing states.

Moreover, in two weeks there can be small and large things that create slight shifts.   There are a number of “soft supporters” for Romney, the idea they can’t break back for Obama is simply wrong.   So while time is short, assumption three is weak.

The Romney campaign has always tried to create a sense of inevitability that they’d win — in the summer they worked hard to try to define Obama as a “failed President.”  It didn’t take.   Yet this has been part and parcel of their strategy since the primaries – exuding confidence that they’re cruising and the other side is choking.   It’s not surprising this is the spin coming out of debate three, especially after Romney fared so poorly.

How effective will Obama’s ground game be?

Many Romney supporters truly believe this.   What they’ve done is take a plausible scenario and in their mind make it likely, even near certain.   I can sympathize.   I did the same last month when it appeared Obama was cruising to victory. Obama supporters were wrong then, Romney supporters might be wrong now.

After all, most objective analyses show the polls tight and give Obama a slight edge in the swing states.  Add that to a commanding debate performance and it’s hard to conclude that the race is anywhere close to over.   Two weeks is a life time in politics, anything can happen.

If in the next few days the polls shift more to Romney, or Obama gets no bump from the debate, the “Romney romps” scenario becomes more likely.    Note that the tracking polls will take awhile to register an Obama bump — especially the seven day ones like Gallup.    RAND is an interesting poll to watch for trends.   The state polls will be key, especially Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Florida.    Also watch for news on early voting and the Obama ground game.  It’s hard to judge what’s happening, but there might be hints.

To be sure, Romney’s supporters may be right, and by November 6th the polls could have swung decisively in his favor, even in the swing states.   In two weeks instead of celebrating, Democrats might be planning the fight for 2014 with a renewed urgency.    But the effort to exude Romney inevitability is bravado and bluster, it’s still too early to know for sure.  We still have a long way to go.

UPDATE:  An added tidbit – Ezra Klein of the Washington Posts note that traders have been putting massive Romney bets in intrade to try to manipulate the market and make it appear Romney is rising.   Usually those upswings are short term as real investors recognize the chance for some ‘easy money’ off the manipulators.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by List of X on October 23, 2012 - 22:41

    I would rather have the conservatives confident that Romney will win. Maybe then they won’t bother showing up to vote.

  2. #2 by SShiell on October 24, 2012 - 00:21

    How things can change in just a month. Back on 22 September, in a Blog entry titled, “2012: A Democratic Wave Election?” you wrote the following:

    “Conventional wisdom says that this election is destined to be close, if only because so many people have already made up their mind and are unlikely to be persuaded to change it.”

    “I think the conventional wisdom is wrong. I’ve been keeping track of daily polls on my 2012 Polls! page, and what I’m seeing causes me to think that the electorate may be tipping to the Democratic side in a level not unlike how the GOP scored in 2010. That would mean a Democratic wave, not only securing a second term for President Obama, but also keeping the Democrats in charge of the Senate and perhaps endangering the GOP House majority.”

    I questioned the rationale given and gave a pretty complete comment as to my sense of the ultimate result. Later, in the comments section (Comment # 48) you wrote:

    “I take back my claim I don’t expect 53%. The polls are showing the gap increasing, and Romney is proving an especially inept candidate. When the “blame the media” bit is played over a month before the election, it’s sounds like panic. More telling – there is a move to discredit the polls by saying they are all skewed. When it gets so desperate that they claim a conspiracy of pollsters (or a level of mass incompetence), then they’re sinking and don’t know how to right the ship. I’m starting to think Obama will out perform 2008 . . . . I doubt this election will be close.”

    And now you are trying to deflect any talk of a Romney romp!!! I would like to remind you of my own statement (Comment #4):

    “My own sense is that it will be one of three outcomes:
    1) Close win for Obama
    2) Close win for Romney
    3) Runaway win for Romney”

    I still stand by that assessment but today, if i had to rank order the probability I would say 2, 3, and then 1. And as far as X’s comment (#1), I think he should be far more worried about Obama supporters staying home than any lack of enthusiasm on the right side of the political spectrum.

    • #3 by Scott Erb on October 24, 2012 - 12:02

      I think those who expect a Romney blowout are making the same mistake I made when Obama had a good September. But note that as soon as the first debate was over I was quick (even before the polls changed) to note that Romney by finally shifting to the center had fundamentally recast the race. I disagreed with colleagues on the left who said debates don’t change elections — I knew right away the first debate had. It wasn’t Obama’s failure, it was Romney’s shift to the center and abandonment of the “red meat” rhetoric he’d been using. I think your choices of 1 and 2 are most likely. Obama could ride the third debate and GOTV efforts to a big win, and Romney could have momentum, but I think both are unlikely.

  3. #4 by Norbrook on October 24, 2012 - 06:39

    One of the things to keep an eye on is the electoral college figures. There, Romney has more ground to make up than Obama. The ground game in in those swing states is what is going to be a major factor, and one of the problems for Republicans – surprisingly, since they used to be good at it – is that they really haven’t been investing in it. While the media has been focusing on the big campaign rallies, because, let’s face it, they’re good visuals, they haven’t been talking about the ground level efforts. When you look at the phone banking operations, and local offices in place, you get a better feel for where the campaigns think they have a chance.

  4. #5 by lbwoodgate on October 24, 2012 - 07:59

    “Yet this has been part and parcel of their strategy since the primaries – exuding confidence that they’re cruising and the other side is choking”

    I think this element by far is what the GOP is pushing. It has a double edge sword effect. It could indeed motivate more GOPers to go vote and diminish those leads in swing states OR it could serve as a catalyst to elicit rage if it turns out Obama wins when everyone was sure Romney had it in the bag. Their argument will be that Obama didn’t win, he somehow stole the election. They will in fact become the same type of people that they berated when the Florida vote went to Bush in 2000 by just 635 votes, though I’m not sure they’ll have as solid an argument as the Dems did back then.

    • #6 by Scott Erb on October 24, 2012 - 12:05

      Yes – if Obama loses I think Democrats will be very disappointed, but accept it. A Romney loss could well ignite real rage. Ultimately, whatever the result, it simply sets the table for 2014 and 2016…

    • #7 by dirtnrocksnomo on October 24, 2012 - 12:54

      I think you’re spot on with this. If Obama wins the right will continue to try and paint President Obama as somehow illegitimate and continue with their plan of obstruction just as has been done over the last for 4years. Our country is in serious trouble when one of our two parties will not allow the other to govern after a free and fair election.

  5. #8 by Jeff Fordham on October 24, 2012 - 10:07

    Karl Rove…..if anyone remembers,……spouted the very same nonsense a week before Obama’s victory in 2008. He stated McCain would win hands down, and the GOP would regain the house from their 2006 loss. He also stated that the polls were skewed and favoring the Democrats on purpose……the only pollsters even close to the Rove narative …was of course Rasmussen.

    I’ve seen this before…as I remember wanting to through a brick through my TV at the fat white boy who has spent his whole life reducing our electoral process into the dog and pony show it has become.

    This race will indeed be close, but I sense it will be a clear victory for Obama.

    Even if Obama loses……I will still relish the day Obama was sworn in ….. as a complete and direct repudiation of the tragedy of the Bush years. Americans wanted a leader and were tired of the lies and corruption…………..and most of all, the imcompetance of Bush who allowed Dick Cheney to step all over his presidency. The last minute action of Cheney in the wheel chair on inauguration day just proved what a piece of human trash he really is.

    That wheel chair stint was a fraud….pure and simple.

    • #9 by Scott Erb on October 24, 2012 - 11:59

      I agree that Obama’s victory is something to savor, even if he loses his re-election bid. I suspect this talk from the Romney camp is bluster and bravado. The thing is that in 2008 no one believed Rove. Now I think enough on the right really hate Obama — I mean, they still can’t believe he’s President and have utter disdain for him — that they are convinced others must be seeing the same thing and thus they grab on to this and believe it. When Obama wins (which I agree is the most likely outcome), they’ll be beside themselves with anger, convinced America is being destroyed. That will be, well, interesting…

  6. #10 by dirtnrocksnomo on October 24, 2012 - 12:59

    Even though republican love to say that the government doesn’t create jobs and I don’t put too much stock in the notion of “undecided voters” there is such a narrow margin that I think the October jobs report will sway some votes. Not that it matters I believe Obama wins and comes close to 300 EVs

  7. #11 by Scott Erb on October 24, 2012 - 14:15

    I hurried to post this about a “Romney Romp” yesterday in part because I expected the polls to start moving towards Obama quickly (and I wanted to post this before they did). Today Gallup tightened by two more points. Romney is still up 3, but a few days ago he was up 7 in Gallup. In most other polls (except Rasmussen) Obama’s lead has grown. It’s early, but if this continues the third debate may be the wind Obama needed to propel him to a clear victory.

  8. #12 by Jeff Fordham on October 24, 2012 - 19:03

    If Obama wins and the house stays locked in Republican hands and the senate barely stays in Democratic control………………of course there will be rage and more of the constant rant to try and delegitimize Barak Obama as our president. This time though, I think Obama should take his case directly to the American people and pound away on a daily basis on TV and in the print media and educate America on the need to move forward……..and expose the Republicans for what they are……..obstructionists ! I would take no quarter, and call a bi weekly news conference, if I had to, and pick away at individuals in congress and point out stances that are contrary to the betterment of our nation.I believe even Republican moderates who may not like him will appreciate a good ass kicking. People favor a strong leader and Obama spent too much time trying to compromise and meet the Republicans half way during his first term. He has nothing to lose this time….as I see it………and I myself would rather go down as a fighter in my second term than just motoring along at the same level. His fight will have to be very vocal and visual……and not leave policy points or comments up the the media or press secretary Gibbs………….He needs to take them on tooth and nail and not let up…….and throw everything at them.

    The days of trying to deal like adults with Republicans are over… they are not adults……its time to go to the woodshed …or yank their drawers down and expose them for their hypocrisy. Example……when so many Republican house members and governors quietly asked for stimulus funds for their states or districts……after decrying the recovery act…. and even using anti stimulus talk to get re-elected…………Obama should have stood up and exposed them every time a request came in………and I mean expose them…………call a 4 minute press conference and layout the case.

    The game must be pure hardball from here out………trust me…people will respect a fighter who only wants the country to move forward.

    • #13 by SShiell on October 24, 2012 - 22:41

      “This time though, I think Obama should take his case directly to the American people and pound away on a daily basis on TV and in the print media and educate America on the need to move forward……..and expose the Republicans for what they are……..obstructionists!”

      Yeah, like he has spent so much time reaching out to those nasty, mean, dirty, rotten, foul, stupid, ignorant,etc., etc. Republicans all this time. Heh!

      • #14 by Scott Erb on October 24, 2012 - 22:53

        If Obama wins, if the Senate races turn out as they appear to – with the Democrats not only keeping the Senate but maybe adding some seats (even Nebraska looks competitive in a poll released today), then the message to the GOP is clear. After 2010 they were pressured by the tea party. After this election the tea party could be weakened and the GOP will release they are hurt not helped by not reaching a compromise. Boehner will want to compromise; he and Obama will reach a grand compromise.

      • #15 by SShiell on October 24, 2012 - 23:32

        First, it appears both houses will remain basically status quo, plus or minus a seat or two – no “wave election” result.

        Second, I have heard a lot of noise about the death of the Tea Party now for the last 2 years – far more telling than mere words or wishful thinking will be how many TP house members lose their seats. If they don’t lose in any number, you are just whistling past the graveyard if you think they will just drop their trou for any Obama deal.

        Last, should Obama win, after he has spent hundreds of millions of $$ demonizing the Republican standard bearer, reviling the world with tales of the horrible Republicans who will rip social security checks out of the hands of seniors and stooping even to call Romney a wife-killer – all of a sudden you think Obama will turn to Boehner and McConnell and say, “I won, let’s make a deal, oh by the way on my terms!” and the Right will fall to their knees before him?

        Where I come from, that kind of Kum-By-Ya crap don’t float unless you have beaten your opponent to death and this election is way too close to say anything like that. Obama may want everyone to think he will be able to manage some kind of grand deal, but unless he is willing to come down off his “tax the rich – take it or leave it” high horse, I am willing to bet my next paycheck otherwise -and I will win!

        Cheers.

      • #16 by Jeff Fordham on October 25, 2012 - 10:10

        Alan: ” You ‘ can ‘ be against handouts and still demand your share . You can know that such pork will bankrupt the country and still grab your share and not be a hypocrite . Once the vote buying pork is approved , you can’t stop it . You have to then compete for your State’s share of the booty . Counter intuitive, yes . Hypocritical, no .”

        Thats the biggest crock of shit I have read to date…….some of them even stated they will “refuse” recovery act cash because It was bankrupting the nation ……and then quielty cut ribbons on stimulus project openings etc, Rick Perry being one of the worst offenders.

        To take funds from a bill you opposed vehemently( to garner votes) just so you can grease your district or state with pork ……is the surest sign that you lack any principles. Exposing the hypocrisy by informing the public as to their lack of integrity is needed. Just like the time the business owner who became part of Mittens “you didn’t build that” add on TV …..was exposed for taking over a million dollars in federal loans and contracts to supply the navy with widgets. …Or like Michelle Bachmann’s husband recieving federal funds galore to help with his counseling business…or the Bachmanns taking some nice ripe farm subsidy money for the family farm.

        I recently largley printed, laminated, and posted this map in my business….from the age old tax non partisan Tax Policy Center which shows the top 10 states who have the highest rates of people who had NO TAX LIABILITY……you know………..the people who the Republicans like to say pay no taxes. And the response is astonishment……………(to rage from less informed tea partiers) that every state is from the rock solid Republican held southern states…….RED STATES…..always voting Republican. Yes, they are the people..the 47% that have no stake in the game according to Mittens, but here they are holding up the party and keeping it in office. I wonder how the Republicans will be able to keep the dance going with those states when the supposed cuts begin? here is a link to the map which points to either stupidity or hypocrisy….or both

  9. #17 by Scott Erb on October 25, 2012 - 07:37

    The Senate elections will likely be an overwhelming victory for the Democrats, given they’re defending 23 seats vs. 10 for the GOP. A year ago it was not a question of if the GOP would take control of the Senate, but how big their majority would be. The GOP is also running away from tea party rhetoric and being hurt by people like Akin and Mourdock who associate with the tea party. I think it was Politico that ran an article about how Republicans are seeing the tea party as poison. Will the GOP keep the house? Probably, but it’s not in the bag.

    Campaign rhetoric is irrelevant after the debate. Nobody is going to whine “you said bad things about me in the campaign so we’ll not do what needs to be done for America.” Politicians understand that attacks and rhetoric are part of the way the campaign game is played. They aren’t like the partisans, they don’t take it personally. Those that do tend to fail. If they see that Obama got re-elected, the Senate was held by the Democrats (or even had their majority padded) in a year the Republicans should have done great, they’ll look towards 2014 and 2016 and realize that the GOP needs to shift gears to win. They’ll also see that they need to deal on the fiscal cliff, entitlement reform, and debt reform.

    Unless you think the Republicans put their feelings about being attacked in a campaign season ahead of their rational thought about future elections and what’s good for America, they’ll deal. They’ll have to. (And, of course, given how Obama’s been demonized and attacked, it’s funny you should make it sound like one side has been worse!)

    • #18 by SShiell on October 25, 2012 - 08:27

      First: i never stated or implied one side is worse than the other. “A pox upon both of their houses” sums it up for me.

      Second: It’s funny how you can call aq Status quo Senate “an overwhelming victory for the Democrats”! When a football tem overcomes the odds you call it an upset, not an overwhelming victory!

      Third: Campaign rhetoric aside, the key here is going to be Obama’s attitude toward the Republicans in any “Grand Bargain” he thinks he can manage. If he walks in the door with, as I state, a “I won, let’s make a deal, and oh by the way – on my terms!” attitude along the lines of his “I won” negotiations during the health care debate, then he will alienate the very ones he needs to get to a grand bargain. And, whereas you see far more in this man than I do, I do not expect such magnamity from him.

      And lastly: There’s a huge difference in “What’s good for America” and caving in to Obama (see previous point) – and that’s a whole ‘nother topic of discussion.

      PS: And all of this is predicated on the assumption (good, bad or indifferent) that Obama will win. We’ll see.

      • #19 by Scott Erb on October 25, 2012 - 09:47

        SShiell, the Democrats are defending 23 seats, the GOP 10. That lopsided total meant that a year ago Republicans were certain to gain, especially given Democratic retirements. The idea that the Democrats could maintain the status quo seemed inconceivable given how many seats they were defending. The idea they could add to that would have been seen as laughable. It’s possible the GOP could pull out some close ones, but given the economy and the mood of 2010, it’s a pretty big victory for the Democrats that they look like they can hold the Senate. (Accordingly, they were lucky in 2010 that the GOP was defending more seats — the Senate is tricky that way).

        I agree that neither side can impose terms on the other, a compromise is just that – a compromise.

      • #20 by SShiell on October 25, 2012 - 11:02

        Maybe we are getting bogged sown here in semantics but I will try and explain:

        An “overwhelming victory” is when vou have crushed your opponent. Period. You now can dictate terms. A mandate in political terminology. Put simply you can Dictate!

        2008 could be viewed as such – not simply from the Presidential perspective (53-46%) but from the legislative and overall perspective. It was a crushing defeat visited upon the Republicans. Not an upset because the Democrats were expected to win but to take complete control of both houses crushed the Republicans. And the democrats, led by Obama basically dictated terms for the next two years, or as long as they could hold 60 votes in the Senate.

        2010 was a Victory for the Republicans. 63 seats in the house changed hands – That was a victory. And there was the hint of an upset because many people, yourself included (We can see your declarations of same at a site we both are familiar with), did not think it possible. But a Crushing Victory, not so much because they could not dictate terms.

        If the Democrats maintain their hold on the senate, I will give you that would qualify as an upset – a Victory, yes – a Crushing Victory for which you would be able to dictate terms (DICTATE), not so much.

        And that is what I was talking about.

    • #21 by SShiell on October 25, 2012 - 09:39

      To further clarify my “A pox upon both of their houses” comment. I do not feel there is a need for me to recount on this forum the many ills and misdeeds of the right or the Republican Party. You have plenty of ready and more than willing volunteers for that task. But little or no (very heavy emphasis on the no) adverse verbiage is provided for the actions of the left or the Democratic Party. So, strictly for the sake of balance and “diversity” of thought, I am more than willing to provide such a service.

      Cheers.

  10. #22 by Alan Scott on October 25, 2012 - 07:52

    Let’s deal with the argument that Republican politicians seeking government handouts are hypocrites . You ‘ can ‘ be against handouts and still demand your share . You can know that such pork will bankrupt the country and still grab your share and not be a hypocrite . Once the vote buying pork is approved , you can’t stop it . You have to then compete for your State’s share of the booty . Counter intuitive, yes . Hypocritical, no .

    • #23 by Jeff Fordham on October 25, 2012 - 10:13

      Alan: ” You ‘ can ‘ be against handouts and still demand your share . You can know that such pork will bankrupt the country and still grab your share and not be a hypocrite . Once the vote buying pork is approved , you can’t stop it . You have to then compete for your State’s share of the booty . Counter intuitive, yes . Hypocritical, no .”

      Thats the biggest crock of shit I have read to date…….some of them even stated they will “refuse” recovery act cash because It was bankrupting the nation ……and then quielty cut ribbons on stimulus project openings etc, Rick Perry being one of the worst offenders.

      To take funds from a bill you opposed vehemently( to garner votes) just so you can grease your district or state with pork ……is the surest sign that you lack any principles. Exposing the hypocrisy by informing the public as to their lack of integrity is needed. Just like the time the business owner who became part of Mittens “you didn’t build that” add on TV …..was exposed for taking over a million dollars in federal loans and contracts to supply the navy with widgets. …Or like Michelle Bachmann’s husband recieving federal funds galore to help with his counseling business…or the Bachmanns taking some nice ripe farm subsidy money for the family farm.

      I recently largley printed, laminated, and posted this map in my business….from the age old tax non partisan Tax Policy Center which shows the top 10 states who have the highest rates of people who had NO TAX LIABILITY……you know………..the people who the Republicans like to say pay no taxes. And the response is astonishment……………(to rage from less informed tea partiers) that every state is from the rock solid Republican held southern states…….RED STATES…..always voting Republican. Yes, they are the people..the 47% that have no stake in the game according to Mittens, but here they are holding up the party and keeping it in office. I wonder how the Republicans will be able to keep the dance going with those states when the supposed cuts begin? here is a link to the map which points to either stupidity or hypocrisy….or both

      • #24 by Norbrook on October 27, 2012 - 06:05

        As an example of hypocrisy, Ron Paul has made a career based on being “against pork” and voting against “wasteful spending.” Except that if you look at the spending bills, he’s managed to insert his share of the pork barrel into the spending bills he then votes against in the final version – which are guaranteed to pass.

      • #25 by Jeff Fordham on October 27, 2012 - 07:49

        That type of quiet up front insertion into a bill and back end voting has been going on for years….Mitch McConnell and Robert Byrd were exposed doing just that back in the 90s…….they would slip in tons of pork…up front….then vote against it….with lots of public fanfare …..or they would overload the pork knowing they would take half of the pork out in bill revisions with lots of press coverage on it………then they would end up with their original target projects fully funded while appearing to be fiscally responsible. Its one of the reasons the line item veto legislation got thrown to the supreme court and killed back in the late 90s……….

  11. #26 by Gary DeWaay on October 26, 2012 - 18:40

    I can remember pinning my hopes of Kerry winning because of the “undecideds always break for the challenger” mantra… especially after Kerry beat the Shrub in their first debate.

    Sound familiar?

  1. Romney Rising | Tarheel Red

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: