Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ripley, Nov 5, 2012.
Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 08:21 PM ET
Yup. Thatâs right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obamaâs against McCain. Thatâs my prediction.
On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, weâll change our president.
Romney will win the states McCain carried in 2008, plus: Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points.
The Obama campaign made the following key mistakes:
â¢ It bet the farm on negative ads in swing states. It didnât realize that Mittâs convention speech and the three debates would give him the chance to live down the charges and demonstrate â through facts and his demeanor â that they were baseless.
â¢ Obama had no Plan B if the negatives didnât work. He never really laid in a convincing defense of his record, except to recall the mess that he inherited and to try to make people believe things were better. He had no vision for his second term, except more of same. He never moved to the center â the shift that reelected Bill Clinton.
â¢ Obama drew his list of swing states too narrowly. He did not contemplate that he would be forced to defend Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota and squandered his money contesting unwinnable states like North Carolina. When Romney bypassed Obamaâs âfirewallâ states (like the Germans did the French Maginot Line in World War II), the president had not laid in the necessary prophylactic irradiation of negative ads, and three of the states embraced Romney.
â¢ By focusing on the negative, Obama sacrificed first his personal popularity and then his dignity and presidentiality. No longer was he the hope and the change. He became nothing more than a nasty partisan, throwing epithets at his rival. A president does not let himself be quoted as saying that his opponent is a âbullsh--terâ or that voting is the best ârevenge.â Even his dress was wrong. Instead of appearing in a dark suit, he dressed in an open-neck white shirt, trying to be everyman but succeeding only in not looking like a president.
â¢ Since he offered nothing more than a negative campaign and a grab-bag of special-interest pleadings for single women, unions, college kids and minorities, Obama failed to inspire the turnout that he needed. Against Santorum and Gingrich, Obama could have made the case that their prospective presidencies were sufficiently dangerous that liberals and Democrats must rush to the polls to stop them. But against the congenial Romney, the warnings rang hollow.
â¢ In the first debate, Obama was terrible. Weâll likely find out what his excuses are after the polls close. Did he have the flu? Was it the altitude? Had he, as Bob Woodward suggested, just received a dose of bad news? Why did he appear distracted?
â¢ Obama should have gotten the facts out quickly about Benghazi rather than let them drip, drip, drip out over six weeks. He could then have handled the crisis and won points for determination and toughness. Instead, to the very end, he looked like he was covering up the fact of a terrorist attack. Because he was.
â¢ After Sandy, Obama visited New Jersey and surveyed the damage with Gov. Chris Christie (R). He should have stayed on the storm, superintending relief efforts, urging FEMA on, absorbing the lessons of Bushâs failure to cope well with Katrina. Instead, he returned to the partisan wars and the strident speeches in swing states.
None of this should take away from Romneyâs brilliant campaign. By staying on the economy and not being tempted into side issues like Libya, Mitt kept the focus where it needed to be and never let up. His campaignâs foray into Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin was vital to his chances of victory. More about what Mitt did right in my post-election column on Thursday. But for now, letâs celebrate the new president we are about to elect.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author including 2010: Take Back America â A Battle Plan and Outrage, Fleeced and Catastrophe.
It seems possible that Romney wins in a landslide. I made the observation in '08 that Obama's views, when broken down into thirty or so categories of political issues, were so out of synch with so many people on both sides of the aisle that over time he would gore everybody's ox. That is why he speaks in glittering generalities so much.
The Dems used a lot of negative advertising against Reagan and when the public finally saw what he really was like, in the debates, they switched sides of the aisle.
Maybe we've gotten closure at last... on the Jimmy Carter era that is. It's Jimmy Carter's second term, it was a wonder we survived the first one and it's a bigger wonder we've survived the second one.
wow . . . intrade has Obama at 72%.
Is Dick Morris the world's worst political pundit?
On this evidence, the answer is a clear and unambiguous yes!
We all make silly statements. We all make poor predictions. Indeed most Washington pundits are right as often as they are wrong. One Washington prognosticator, however, stands above the rest.
Step up, Dick Morris.
Morris was at one time a top political operative. From his guiding of now Congressman Jerry Nadler's student government campaign to his work for Bill Clinton, Morris was a winner. He was running another Bill Clinton campaign, in 1996, when he found himself embroiled in a sex scandal.
That imbroglio marked a turning point. Morris was no longer to work for Clinton. Instead, he reinvented himself as a writer and television pundit. It is this work that we celebrate here today.
Morris' ability to make statements and predictions that are often so, so wrong is exceptional. He has been called the "worst pundit in America". The more cynical among us might argue that the word "America" should be replaced with "world". Indeed, to recall all of Morris's spectacular failures would require more space than Santa is allotted for his Christmas list.
It's a lobsta, either way.
Welcome to dumbfuckistan.
I will explain the stupid predictions:
If it is a given, that Romney is behind by 70 electorates, Reps might stay home and not vote for a clear loser. And what is a clearly stupid and unscientific prediction between pundits? Nothing. Nobody will remember it in 2 days.
Also, anybody ever heard of abnyone predicting their candidate's loss???
This might have worked in the past. But most republicans now distrust the media greatly, and the polls they have put out. People here in Tampa stood out in the rain for 2 hours today just to vote, and there wasn't a single Obama sign in view. My wife gave up counting after she got to 100 signs with Romney on them, including people in rain jackets. Even on the 20 min drive back to work, the only Obama sign I saw was "FIRE OBAMA" in ginormous letters on 301 and 75. No republicans are discouraged. None.
You can tell yourself they are, however, if it makes you feel better.
Way to go DICK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not really sure what was your point. The obvious point was, that according to scientific predictions of the EC, the race was NEVER close. Read the 538 blog.
But you guys have been repeatedly told in the last 2 months how close the race is and Mittens had a chance and blah-blah-blah. Sure, there are counties with dominantly reps voters, but a few counties don't win elections...
Next time trust Nate Silver, global warming and such. It is called science for a reason...
Separate names with a comma.