General Discussion

WI_DEM

(33,497 posts) Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:04 PM Sep 2012

Why Team Obama is Confident that Romney Can't win

Greg Sargent writes up some fascinating tidbits from an interview with Obama adviser David Plouffe.

"The Romney camp seems to be hoping for a big, late break of undecided voters his way. But Dems remain convinced they understand who these voters are and what motivates them better than the Romney team does -- and don't see a way that these voters break to Romney in large enough numbers to overcome a two or three point deficit in the key battlegrounds."

Said Plouffe: "The question is, Is Romney going to get enough of the undecided vote to overcome a two or three point deficit in the battle ground states? Most assuredly not."

Also interesting: "When I asked Plouffe to respond to the Romney argument about Obama's failure to reach 50 percent, he claimed this is still premised on a faulty assumption -- that this signals that Romney will capture an unduly large share of the remaining undecided voters. If Obama heads into early voting with 48 or 49 percent in the key battlegrounds, and a small lead, Romney will not be able to make up that deficit, Plouffe argued."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/04/why_team_obama_is_confident_romney_cant_win.html

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Team Obama is Confident that Romney Can't win (Original Post) WI_DEM Sep 2012 OP

Did Mr. Sargent ask Mr. Plouffe about voter suppression in key swing states? sadbear Sep 2012 #1

except that the rmoney campaign appears to be banking on base turnout, not so much independents. unblock Sep 2012 #2

One problem Andy823 Sep 2012 #4

we're in agreement there. i'm just saying what his strategy is, not that it's a good one. unblock Sep 2012 #7

I hope somewhere in their plan they've accounted for the fact that the GOP will cheat. phantom power Sep 2012 #3

I predict President Obama will get a bounce coming out of the DNC catbyte Sep 2012 #5

Me too, but they can cheat. Cleita Sep 2012 #6

sadbear

(4,340 posts)

1. Did Mr. Sargent ask Mr. Plouffe about voter suppression in key swing states?

Reply to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:06 PM

Sep 2012

unblock

(52,277 posts)

2. except that the rmoney campaign appears to be banking on base turnout, not so much independents.

Reply to WI_DEM (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:08 PM

Sep 2012

motivating the hard-core republicans to vote and suppressing/disenfranchising the democratic vote look like the pillars of the republican strategery.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)

4. One problem

Reply to unblock (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:04 PM

Sep 2012

He has pissed off enough people in his own party that simply relying on his crazy far right wing "base" isn't going to work. Even some of the far right religious crazies are not going to vote for him because of his religion and the fact they consider it to be a cult, not a christian religion. He also has pissed off the Ron Paul supporters at the convention, and that isn't going to help him get "them" out to vote for him. He has gone so far to the right he has done himself more damage than anything else. Women are not happy with him, seniors are not happy with him, first responders are not happy with him, Hispanics are not happy with him, and I am sure there a plenty more groups he has alienated that I have not mentioned.

I just don't see any way that the GOP "base" are going to provide him with a win.

unblock

(52,277 posts)

7. we're in agreement there. i'm just saying what his strategy is, not that it's a good one.

Reply to Andy823 (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:10 PM

Sep 2012

then again, maybe it is the best strategy available to him. i don't see rmoney winning over many democrats, and there aren't enough true swing voters left to go after; so turnout, based mostly on outrageous and mostly racial fear, may be the only card he has left to play.

but you're right, he has nothing like the appeal shrub had (gack!) to the republican base. he's mainly running as the non-black candidate.

what's really amazing to me is that this is the campaign i expected 4 years ago, against a FIRST TIME black presidential major party nominee. running as an incumbent, a known quantity, the world's-gonna-end-thousand-years-of-darkness crap seems particularly silly. i mean, the sky didn't fall in his first 4 years, why should we think his second 4 years would be a disaster?