jeff2sf wrote:But Nate Silver had a pretty reasonable take on it specifically and gaffes in general. They just don't matter as much as people who follow this stuff think they do.

jeff2sf wrote:The liberals here live in an echo chamber. They do not talk politics with people who might challenge them beyond writing off the conservatives. The conservatives are worse. I had 1210 on today and had the pleasure of listening to Chris Stigall try to tell me that some unearthed clip 14 years ago about redistribution somehow was on par/worse than what Romney said.

Grotewold wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But Nate Silver had a pretty reasonable take on it specifically and gaffes in general. They just don't matter as much as people who follow this stuff think they do.

Even ones affirming negative perceptions of the candidate?

jeff2sf wrote:Fellas, if you want to take issue with Nate Silver's research, that's on you. I didn't conduct the research. I'm not going to speak in absolutes. I'm sure there was one person in America who had not decided that is now going to vote for Obama, but I'd be real surprised if there were 1000.

jeff2sf wrote:Fellas, if you want to take issue with Nate Silver's research, that's on you.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Fellas, if you want to take issue with Nate Silver's research, that's on you. I didn't conduct the research. I'm not going to speak in absolutes. I'm sure there was one person in America who had not decided that is now going to vote for Obama, but I'd be real surprised if there were 1000.

I don't know how to say it more clearly... Mitt is courting the Hispanic vote, which is crucial to his success in some battleground states. He was incredibly condescending to Latinos in his comments. Is that going to assist or impede his efforts with that segment of the population?

I do not mean to suggest that campaign controversies like this one never matter to voters. But I do think that reporters in Washington or New York, myself included, are not always the best judges of which are the exceptional cases. Furthermore, these judgments are likely to be influenced by the recent polls, meaning that analyses anticipating future reaction among voters may really be lagging indicators.

I have my own instincts about Mr. Romney’s remarks, which are roughly as follows: even if his outlook is a bit less negative than it seemed a week ago, he is nevertheless the underdog in the race, and not in a position where he can afford to alienate any voters who might allow him to climb to 50 percent of the vote. His coalition may already be drawn too narrowly, and this won’t help him with that.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Fellas, if you want to take issue with Nate Silver's research, that's on you. I didn't conduct the research. I'm not going to speak in absolutes. I'm sure there was one person in America who had not decided that is now going to vote for Obama, but I'd be real surprised if there were 1000.

I don't know how to say it more clearly... Mitt is courting the Hispanic vote, which is crucial to his success in some battleground states. He was incredibly condescending to Latinos in his comments. Is that going to assist or impede his efforts with that segment of the population?

jeff2sf wrote:I was speaking to the 47% thing which is separate from the from the Latino thing.

JFLNYC wrote:I think you have to be careful not to view each of Mitt's gaffes and mistakes in isolation. Starting with his convention speech, through Libya, Iran, 47%, the Palestinian question, etc., there has been one misstep after another. One Monday he didn't even have enough time to initialize his new strategy before things blew up. It's as though he's having his own equivalent of bimbo eruptions.

The cumulative effect of these missteps is to confirm his worst characteristics, the result of which is twofold: First, although there's no question that the vast, vast majority of voters are already calcified in their choice, the ones who are still undecided will decide the election. Continued reinforcement of the worst of Mitt is not going to bring them into his camp. Second, the continued hand-wringing and hair-pulling from the conservatives pundits is a reflection of the disenchantment of Mitt's base. That base is not going to vote for Obama but, if enough of them aren't sufficiently energized to vote, that alone could cause his defeat.

JFLNYC wrote:I think you have to be careful not to view each of Mitt's gaffes and mistakes in isolation. Starting with his convention speech, through Libya, Iran, 47%, the Palestinian question, etc., there has been one misstep after another. On Monday he didn't even have enough time to initialize his new strategy before things blew up. It's as though he's having his own equivalent of bimbo eruptions.

The cumulative effect of these missteps is to confirm his worst characteristics, the result of which is twofold: First, although there's no question that the vast, vast majority of voters are already calcified in their choice, the ones who are still undecided will decide the election. Continued reinforcement of the worst of Mitt is not going to bring them into his camp. Second, the continued hand-wringing and hair-pulling from the conservatives pundits is a reflection of the disenchantment of Mitt's base. That base is not going to vote for Obama but, if enough of them aren't sufficiently energized to vote, that alone could cause his defeat.

MoBettle wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wonder how long it's going to take the CW to catch back up to the fact that Obama's bounce is gone and we're back to a 1-2 point race in spite of everything that's happened the past three weeks

Are these polls reflecting response to the video yet?

jeff2sf wrote:I don't disagree with any of that. He should be wiping the floor with Obama and he isn't.

What my mangled point was that those decisions by voters were made a while ago and those who haven't decided aren't going to be influenced by those particular gaffes because they're not offensive enough/gaffe-ish enough.