Gay Patriot Header Image

There Are Two Paths

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:17 pm - October 9, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Breitbart Lives!

I’ve been wanting to blog something today…. but everything seems to have been said.  Until I saw this video.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Mitt Romney’s Rope-a-Dope Strategy?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:44 pm - October 9, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Wikipedia offers a nice definition of the “rope-a-dope” boxing style:

The maneuver is most commonly associated with the match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, known as the Rumble in the Jungle. Foreman was considered by many observers to be the favored to win the fight due to his superior punching power. During the match Ali purposely angered Foreman, provoking the latter to attack and force him back on the ropes. At the time some observers thought that Ali was being horribly beaten and worried that they might see him get killed in the ring. Writer George Plimpton described Ali’s stance as like “a man leaning out his window trying to see something on his roof.” However, far from being brutalized, Ali was relatively protected from Foreman’s blows. Ironically, Ali’s preparation for the fight, which involved toughening himself up by allowing his sparring partners to pummel him, contributed to observers’ sense that Ali was outmatched. When Foreman became tired from the beating he was delivering, Ali regrouped and ended up winning the match.

Emphasis added to bring me to the 2012 presidential campaign.  Barack Obama and the various outfits backing his campaign have spent tens, if not hundreds of millions, pummeling Mitt Romney, but instead of tiring themselves out with the attacks, they have desensitized the American people to their tired tropes.

So, by my (speculative) theory, the Romney team, knowing that they were at a cash disadvantage all summer, would just stand back and take the pummeling, then, certain there would be a large audience for the first debate, Romney would start punching back, presenting an image of a man at odds with the Obama attack ads, making it more difficult, if not impossible, for the old strategy to be effective:  the people would be tired of the attacks and more ready to question their accuracy.

Now, maybe I’m wrong.  Hugh Hewitt today alerts us to the Politico story by Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei on “the Romney rebellion.” which suggests there was a “family-led shake-up of the Romney team”, indicating a shift in strategy.   (more…)

Rasmussen: Romney holds big leads among swing-state independents (& those “certain” of their vote)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - October 9, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Blogging

Ed Morrissey just makes a conservative blogger’s job easier, particularly if that conservative blogger lives on the West Coast. By the time you get to your morning blog read, it’s sometimes early afternoon on the East Coast — or mid-day in Morrissey’s Minnesota. And he has already teased out the important details in the latest polls.

This morning, he cites two numbers in Rasmussen’s tracking poll which may well be more significant than the top line number showing Romney up 3:

The internals look pretty good for Romney, too, in this latest iteration. He has a 10-point lead among independents at 49/39, the latter a disastrous number for an incumbent just four weeks out from the election.

. . . .

Moreover, Romney now leads by six among those “certain” of their vote, at 46/40. The soft numbers for Obama may be a real problem if he can’t dent Romney’s polling surge, as a preference cascade may wipe out the 7% that are leaning towards him now in these swing states. Romney does even better among independents in this measure, leading 43/31 among those “certain” of their choice. Romney has a 14-point lead among “certain” men (and a majority at 50/36), and only a three-point deficit among “certain” women, 41/44.

Once again, we see Romney up big-time among independents (and we can expect the remaining 12% to break his way).  And the fact that fewer Obama supporters are certain of their vote means they could still change their mind, particularly if the president doesn’t substantially improve his performance in the remaining debates.

Legacy media beginning to see through Obama’s appeal?

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds linked a post that I first read on my iPhone, then read again after I had returned to LA (when a reader e-mailed me the piece as it fit in nicely with a conversation we were having.

That piece is Stacy McCain’s reflection on Chris Cilizza’s piece asking whether Obama is overrated as a candidate where the Washington Post reporter duly notes that “Four years ago, that question would have been unimaginable.”  “That the question ‘would have been unimaginable’ in 2008”, Stacy offers

. . . is likely a result of Cillizza having his head inside the liberal media echo chamber where never was heard a discouraging word about Obama. Democrats were pumped up and eager for action after eight years of Bush, and having a completely untested candidate allowed them to project onto Obama whatever they wished to see there. If you bought into that hype (as Cillizza evidently did), then it was easy to imagine Obama the Light-Bringer riding to glory astride a flying unicorn, eating Magic Peace Flakes for breakfast and farting rainbows all day long.

Read the whole thing.  It is fascinating to see so many folks in the legacy media saying what conservatives have been saying at least since Obama started racking up victories in Democratic primaries and cauci in 2008.  Our reader Kurt shared with me this image that Dr. Sanity posted on February 14, 2008: