Just what WAS Romney thinking? Selective perceptions in the Republican bubble zone
Original post made by Oliver Towne on Nov 9, 2012
Whence Romney's confidence? Do he and his staffers not read? Of course they do, but only selective sources that belong to the right wing echo machine. Objective sources -- credible pollsters, Nate Silver and Princeton Election Consortium, among others -- gave ample evidence that Romney was going to lose by over 100 electoral votes. Silver gave Obama a 92% chance of victory; Princeton gave Obama a 100% chance of victory. The latter projected 332 electoral votes for Obama, and a 2.4% victory among the popular vote.
Silver and Princeton are well respected. They do science and have no identifiable political bias. Prior to the election approx 1/2 million people were clicking onto Princeton's site each day. We must assume some of Romney's staff were familiar with the sites and their scientifically based projections of a resounding Obama victory, a victory that would ring out even truer than his first of 2008, as voters now were going to elect him based upon his record, not simply his soaring rhetoric.
So? What were Romney, Ryan, their wives and their staff thinking? What was Rove thinking? What were optimistic Republicans, some who had donated tens of millions to Romney's cause, thinking?
Well, they weren't thinking very well at all. Just as so many Republicans deny the science of evolution, the science behind warnings of global warming, so here they denied the science of defeat that was projected confidently, with scientific backing (Princeton feeds over a quadrillion variables into its computer scheme), by qualified scientists who have spent decades perfecting their science. But rather than heed the science, they chose to believe Rasmussen instead, unable to recognize that over the entire election cycle Rasmussen, ARG, and several other partisan pollsters were lying with statistics in order to create the illusion of Romney momentum and victory. Both Silver and Princeton took Rasmussen's polls into account, but in so doing, both automatically subtracted 3-4 pts from Romney and added 3-4 points for Obama. You see, those who really think about these things, objectively, know that Rasmussen systematically skews its results and has done so for years. (What would you expect from a pollster who also writes opinion pieces in rightwing rags about 'Obama's disasterous policies and how the American public must reject them'.)
In short, the Romney team and its supporters chose to deny science, deny math, deny reality. They chose instead to believe the spinmeisters at Fox, and their own propagandists such as Krauthammer, Coulter, Rasmussen. (George Will predicted a victory for Romney ... in MINNESOTA.) Increasingly they have come to live in their own bubble, which permits them to exclude considerations of science, math, reality. (See George Will above.) And so, in this election, the American public not only resoundingly rejected a Republican presidential candidate, but rejected a deficient way of thinking that has increasingly over the years proved disasterous for those who continue to cling to it in the face of fact, in the face of a glaring reality that they cannot come to acknowledge. The election was a great victory for Obama. It was a great victory for the American people. It was a great victory for rational thought.
on Nov 9, 2012 at 7:12 am
Oliver, you hit the nail squarly on the head. Good job.
on Nov 9, 2012 at 8:46 am
liberalism is a disease is a registered user.
Clearly, Romney was counting on a better turnout amongst Republicans and Independents--at least as many voters as McCain counted on.
As far as extending your missive to scientific theory, etc., you can't even get a group of scientists to reach concensus on a subject, why would you expect all politicians of a certain stripe to agree on the same theory? Even you on the left are not all lemmings to the global warming religion.....many dems think the earth is going through yet another cycle and that man cannot impact those natural fluctuations one iota.
When Al Gore lost his bid for the White House, I'm sure you must have whined about how so many voters ignored man-bear-pigs global warming hysteria.
As long as govt grants are forthcoming, the institutions benefitting from the influx of cash will be beholden to their masters.
on Nov 9, 2012 at 9:44 am
Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.If you want to talk about the validity of the electoral college process, that's an entirely different argument...
I refuse to be distracted by idiotic strawmen arguments like the ones you've put forth, "liberalism". This isn't about political ideology; it's about seeing the numbers for what they are. Interpretations will vary, the methodology for collecting data might be erroneous, but there aren't TWO sides to reality! Statisticians like Nate Silver are so successful in their jobs because they refuse to let personal beliefs cloud their interpretations, which is what any true scientist/ scholar should do in their work.
If it were about government handouts, why aren't the folks in Mississippi, Alabama, etc. voting for the Democrats in droves? You see the highest rates of poverty in those areas. Indeed, many who voted for Obama wouldn't have benefitted from those programs personally.