Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Mitt Romney's team was unskewing its own internal polls, genuinely believed it was going to win

You have to be shitting me.

-

Mitt Romney’s campaign got its first hint something was wrong on the afternoon of Election Day, when state campaign workers on the ground began reporting huge turnout in areas favorable to President Obama: northeastern Ohio, northern Virginia, central Florida and Miami-Dade.

Then came the early exit polls that also were favorable to the president.

But it wasn’t until the polls closed that concern turned into alarm. They expected North Carolina to be called early. It wasn’t. They expected Pennsylvania to be up in the air all night; it went early for the President.

After Ohio went for Mr. Obama, it was over, but senior advisers say no one could process it.

“We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory,” said one senior adviser. “I don’t think there was one person who saw this coming.”

They just couldn’t believe they had been so wrong. And maybe they weren’t: There was Karl Rove on Fox saying Ohio wasn’t settled, so campaign aides decided to wait. They didn’t want to have to withdraw their concession, like Al Gore did in 2000, and they thought maybe the suburbs of Columbus and Cincinnati, which hadn’t been reported, could make a difference.

But then came Colorado for the president and Florida also was looking tougher than anyone had imagined.

“We just felt, ‘where’s our path?’” said a senior adviser. “There wasn’t one.”

Romney then said what they knew: it was over.

His personal assistant, Garrett Jackson, called his counterpart on Mr. Obama’s staff, Marvin Nicholson. “Is your boss available?” Jackson asked.

Romney was stoic as he talked the president, an aide said, but his wife Ann cried. Running mate Paul Ryan seemed genuinely shocked, the adviser said. Ryan’s wife Janna also was shaken and cried softly.

“There’s nothing worse than when you think you’re going to win, and you don’t,” said another adviser. “It was like a sucker punch.”

Their emotion was visible on their faces when they walked on stage after Romney finished his remarks, which Romney had hastily composed, knowing he had to say something.

Both wives looked stricken, and Ryan himself seemed grim. They all were thrust on that stage without understanding what had just happened.

“He was shellshocked,” one adviser said of Romney.

Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.

They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.

by Anonymousreply 1611/09/2012

As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn’t reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.

Those assumptions drove their campaign strategy: their internal polling showed them leading in key states, so they decided to make a play for a broad victory: go to places like Pennsylvania while also playing it safe in the last two weeks.

Those assessments were wrong.

They made three key miscalculations, in part because this race bucked historical trends:

1. They misread turnout. They expected it to be between 2004 and 2008 levels, with a plus-2 or plus-3 Democratic electorate, instead of plus-7 as it was in 2008. Their assumptions were wrong on both sides: The president’s base turned out and Romney’s did not. More African-Americans voted in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida than in 2008. And fewer Republicans did: Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.

2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. Historically, any candidate polling that well among independents wins. But as it turned out, many of those independents were former Republicans who now self-identify as independents. The state polls weren’t oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren’t as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.

3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.

The campaign before the election had expressed confidence in its calculations, and insisted the Obama campaign, with its own confidence and a completely different analysis, was wrong. In the end, it the other way around.

“They were right,” a Romney campaign senior adviser said of the Obama campaign’s assessments. “And if they were right, we lose.”

by Anonymousreply 111/08/2012

"his wife Ann cried"

How delicious.

by Anonymousreply 211/08/2012

[quote]Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. Historically, any candidate polling that well among independents wins. But as it turned out, many of those independents were former Republicans who now self-identify as independents. The state polls weren’t oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren’t as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.

Nate Silver and others kept writing this over and over. The tea party had alienated many Republicans who no longer called themselves Republicans but were most likely to vote Republican. Those were the independents that he was winning. I can't believe none of them read this, thought of this or believed this.

by Anonymousreply 311/08/2012

This is shocking to me. I figured it was all bluster and an effort to help his down-ticket repugs.

But now that I think about it, I should have known that he wouldn't waste so much energy trying to help others, even others in his own party.

by Anonymousreply 411/08/2012

I'm looking forward to the HBO movie

by Anonymousreply 511/08/2012

[quote]I'm looking forward to the HBO movie.

Dazed & Confused

by Anonymousreply 611/09/2012

If only I could have been in the inner circle that day. What a great movie, just a few days near the end of the election. Joan Rivers could play Ann.

by Anonymousreply 711/09/2012

Halperin and Heillerman are reportedly writing a book about the 2012 campaign.

I want Jessica Lange to play Ann Romney.

by Anonymousreply 811/09/2012

Remember the years we all felt the right and the Limbaughites had made "liberal" a dirty word? At this point "Republican" is even dirtier. I live in Massachusetts, and *all* Scott Brown's ads flashed the word "Independent" in the text and all of his speeches kept saying he was "an independent voice." Never, ever did an ad say he was a Republican. And then you get to the voting booth and the ballot says "Republican" next to his name.

When they run away from their own identity, you know the brand has been sullied.

by Anonymousreply 911/09/2012

[quote]I can't believe none of them read this, thought of this or believed this.

You don't understand the power and allure of the Republican bubble.

by Anonymousreply 1011/09/2012

Every time there's a new thread about the fuck-ups on the right, an angel gets its wings and I just smile all day.

by Anonymousreply 1111/09/2012

[quote]As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn’t reflect Republican enthusiasm.

Aww, poor dears. They forgot it was CNN who does the oversampling... Republicans.

[quote]Dazed & Confused

I prefer "Mitts & Giggles"

by Anonymousreply 1211/09/2012

Over 200 more comments here:

by Anonymousreply 1311/09/2012

[quote]I want Jessica Lange to play Ann Romney.

I actually think Leslie Ann Warren would be perfect as Ann.

by Anonymousreply 1411/09/2012

[quote]As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats

They say this EVERYTIME. They have been crying that the polls over-sample Democrat voters for as long as I can remember. When are they finally going to realize that just because they keep saying something, that doesn't make it true?

by Anonymousreply 1511/09/2012

Sean Young was born to play the role.

by Anonymousreply 1611/09/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.