Was Bill Clinton Trying to Put The House Back in Play?

[mshan]

"The Presidential race is largely determined. The national media is correct that this year’s Presidential race is close. And voters are polarized: as few as 1-2% of voters are persuadable. However, the media have failed to clearly spell out the logical consequence that the Presidential race is also very stable. President Obama has kept an electoral lead every single day since May. Based on the statistical behavior of polls in past re-election races, his November re-elect probability is 88%. Conversely, the probability of unusual movement or a black-swan event is 12%.

Both Senate and House control are on a knife edge. We have an unusual situation this year: control of both houses of Congress is up in the air. This recalls the elections of 1994 (GOP takeover during Clinton’s first term) and 2006 (Democratic takeover in GW Bush’s 2nd term). What’s different is that 2012 is a Presidential election year, so voter attention is higher. This will have profound consequences for Obama’s probable second term (and for Romney’s less probable first term).

Campaign funding will affect Congress more than the Presidency. This year the Citizens United ruling will have a major impact. Because money is most effective in marginal cases, spending will be most effective in Senate/House races – not at the Presidential level. This is true whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. It is why Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS is not focused on the Presidential race. And it is why I have set up the ActBlue page at left. Republicans can use the NRSC.

Now, a few words about the methods by which I reached these conclusions."


http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/06/general-overview-sept-2012/

And yes, only Mitt the Twit can produce a negative convention bounce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Although I have not seen Tuesday’s data yet (and can’t for some time because of a speaking engagement), enough is known to allow some advance comments.

Bottom line: not only is there no bounce so far, the data suggest the possibility of a negative bounce.

Update, 12:35pm: yep, there it is. ~10 EV and counting…"


http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/04/the-incredible-shrinking-bounce/

 

[Blackjack200]

And yes, only Mitt the Twit can produce a negative convention bounce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Actually, you can probably thank Lyin' Ryan for that one.

That guy tells lies faster than he runs marathons.

Ohh snap!

 

[mshan]

That pollster said that Ryan produced a 3 point bounce (http://election.princeton.edu/2012/08/26/ryan-2012-v-palin-2008/), which masked the Romney negative convention bounce:

My gut impression is that Romney was about to go into freefall in national polls vs. Obama, but Ryan nomination pulled him out of tail spin, stabilized race by energizing wing-nuts, and put national numbers probably about where they should have been, if Romney were likeable and his campaign apparatus competent.

But now Bill Clinton, in simple terms and on national tv, has exposed all of the lies a billion plus dollars of attack ads was supposed to make true in minds of some voters.

 

[hal2kilo]

One can only hope. Country can't take much more of this do nothing congress. Maybe the teabagger fad is fading and even if the Democrats don't regain control of the House there might be some sane Republicans to deal with.

Nah!