NYT Editorial: Why Romney Is Slipping

[cali]

Mitt Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday that his campaign “doesn’t need a turnaround.” He told CBS News’s “60 Minutes” that he is tied with President Obama; he has a “very effective campaign; it’s doing a very good job;” and all he needs to do to win is keep repeating his plan to restore economic freedom.


That’s an outright denial of political reality, but Mr. Romney’s willingness to stray from the truth is at the root of what’s really going on. His campaign has been losing ground since the two political conventions. All the reliable national polls now show Mr. Obama ahead, and in two cases substantially so — beyond the margin of error. A variety of polls also shows Mr. Obama with growing leads in most of the important swing states.

To some extent, Mr. Romney’s diminishing stature is because of two recent statements that revealed his deficiencies to a newly interested audience. He falsely suggested that the Obama administration was sympathetic to the violent Muslim protests in Libya and Egypt, illustrating his ignorant and opportunistic critique of foreign policy. And he was caught on video belittling nearly half the country for an overreliance on government handouts.

These moments, though, were not fumbles or gaffes. They were entirely consistent with the dismissive attitude Mr. Romney has routinely shown toward non-Americans or the nonrich. Now even long-undecided voters are starting to catch on and dismiss him.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/why-mitt-romney-is-slipping.html?_r=0


SMACK.

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Kick & Rec

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

2. "all he needs to do to win is keep repeating his plan to restore economic freedom"

What plan? He merely says he wants freedom but he won't say what that means. He won't give an example of any tax loopholes he will propose be eliminated. It's not just his dismissive attitude that's turning off the voters; it's his refusal to be specific about anything. Voters still don't know who he is or why he's running.

[tclambert]

3. Shh! It's secret.

[lunatica]

4. Voters don't have a clue from him about what he'll do as President either

For my part I think he won't be any more consistent as President than he is now. If there's one thing we know for sure it's that we don't have any idea what will come out of his mouth next. That scares the crap out of me.

[cheezmaka]

5. It's hard to relate to people...

when you're born in PRIVILEGE and never worked a day in your life except behind a desk... Even Ann Romney admitted that("This is hard...&quot

[nxylas]

6. But he *is* tied in the polls, more or less

Obama has opened up a slight lead in the last few days, taking him outside the margin of error, but the Real Clear Politics poll averages had been in a statistical dead heat for months before that. It seems to me that the people talking about an Obama victory as if it were a done deal are the ones denying reality. That sort of complacency would be dangerous enough if he were 20 points ahead, it could be fatal with the polls as they stand.

[DemzRock]

7. So consistently ahead at realclearpolitics = tied? n/t

[nxylas]

10. If he's ahead by less than 3%, then yes

Anything within the margin of error is considered a statistical dead heat. Obama is about 3.7% ahead now, but until recently he was only ahead by 1 or 2 percentage points.

[BootinUp]

11. Not exactly

One or two polls within the margin of error cannot be used to determine who is leading, but if many polls show a lead then you can deduce that it is not a tie. A tie would be represented by a roughly even split of leads in the individual polls.

[morningfog]

9. Not really. Look at the state polling and the national trends.

Obama is opening up a respectable lead.

[pampango]

8. Related-Reich: The Two Major Views About Why Romney is Losing, and Why the Second is More Convincing

There are two major theories about why Romney is dropping in the polls. One is Romney is a lousy candidate, unable to connect with people or make his case.

The second is that Americans are finally beginning to see how radical the GOP has become, and are repudiating it.

Many Republicans — including some of the right-wingers I’ve been debating — hold to the first view, for obvious reasons. If Romney fails to make a comeback this week, I expect even more complaints from this crowd about Romney’s personal failings, as well as the inadequacies of his campaign staff.

But the second explanation strikes me as more compelling. The Republican primaries, and then the Republican convention, have shown America a party far removed from the “compassionate conservatism” the GOP tried to sell in 2000. Instead, we have a party that’s been taken over by Tea Partiers, nativists, social Darwinists, homophobes, right-wing evangelicals, and a few rich people whose only interest is to become even wealthier.

http://robertreich.org/post/32216700600

[speedoo]

12. I'll never forgive the Times for Judith Miller, but this editorial is a positive step. Nt