• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is the Loss Narrative?

cpwill said:
I think this is fantastic analysis. I will admit, the iron-clad surety expressed by so many Democrats in what seems by all objective measures an exceedingly close race is surprising. There appears to be the belief that Obama has to be elected because well he simply does. I've wondered if this is connected to the "progressive" belief that they are some kind of inevitable historical ideological evolutionary destination/endpoint, or if The One's famous self-love is simply contagious.
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the polls, and with the rise of statisticians like Nate Silver (who has unexpectedly become perhaps the most influential person driving the political narrative). Obama's lead in the swing states is relatively narrow (just a couple points), but it's consistent enough to predict a victory a high percentage of the time. If the polls had shown Obama was down by a couple points and the forecasters were saying he only had a 10% chance of reelection, I think the mood among Democrats would be very different. They would be resigned to a loss, and probably more willing to do some introspection after the election. They would have been aided in this effort by the news media, which would have spent much of the last few months building a narrative about why Obama's campaign was doing so badly and why voters were flocking to Romney. But since the polls do not predict an Obama defeat, the news media hasn't bothered to build out that narrative...and therefore many Democrats won't accept an after-the-fact media narrative about why voters were unhappy with Obama, which I think they'd view as an attempt to rewrite history.
 
AdamT said:
When Obama wins Republicans will do what they always do: call Romney a RINO and throw him under the bus.
Click to expand...

Right.

And if Romney wins he'd still be a RINO that needs to be watched like a hawk and challenged every step of the way to insure that he doesn't crater into statist, big government "conservatism".
 
Kandahar said:
I think it has to do with the polls, and with the rise of statisticians like Nate Silver (who has unexpectedly become perhaps the most influential person driving the political narrative). Obama's lead in the swing states is relatively narrow (just a couple points), but it's consistent enough to predict a victory a high percentage of the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah. As long as you assume that voter turnout with a Democrat advantage equal to 2008, which was a perfect storm election for Democrats. Hell, I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romney was going to sweep all 50 states by assigning Republicans 80% of the electorate.

CNN's latest poll, for example, gives Democrats an 11 point advantage. That's ridiculous. If you alter those polls to the partisan breakdown that Gallup says is actually happening (Republicans +2), then those polls change dramatically. Romney is winning independents by wide margins across the board. Polls seem to be giving the victory to Obama to the extent to which they weight the Democrat share of the vote.

If the polls had shown Obama was down by a couple points and the forecasters were saying he only had a 10% chance of reelection, I think the mood among Democrats would be very different. They would be resigned to a loss, and probably more willing to do some introspection after the election. They would have been aided in this effort by the news media, which would have spent much of the last few months building a narrative about why Obama's campaign was doing so badly and why voters were flocking to Romney. But since the polls do not predict an Obama defeat, the news media hasn't bothered to build out that narrative...and therefore many Democrats won't accept an after-the-fact media narrative about why voters were unhappy with Obama, which I think they'd view as an attempt to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Ah. So, as Obama says, they actually believe their own BS. This may be an unintended consequence of left-wing unwillingness to accept the bias of the mainstream media outlets - when you listen to what you want to hear and hear what you want to hear, reality has an unfortunate way of surprising you.
 
Lutherf said:
Right.

And if Romney wins he'd still be a RINO that needs to be watched like a hawk and challenged every step of the way to insure that he doesn't crater into statist, big government "conservatism".
Click to expand...

That is correct.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. As long as you assume that voter turnout with a Democrat advantage equal to 2008, which was a perfect storm election for Democrats. Hell, I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romney was going to sweep all 50 states by assigning Republicans 80% of the electorate.

CNN's latest poll, for example, gives Democrats an 11 point advantage. That's ridiculous. If you alter those polls to the partisan breakdown that Gallup says is actually happening (Republicans +2), then those polls change dramatically. Romney is winning independents by wide margins across the board. Polls seem to be giving the victory to Obama to the extent to which they weight the Democrat share of the vote.
Click to expand...

Well, the partisan gap isn't something the pollsters just cooked up on their own...that's what the people who they interview are telling them. The reason the partisan edge appears greater in 2012 than in 2008, and the reason that Romney is winning independents by wide margins, are actually two sides of the same coin: Identification with the Republican Party has cratered in the past four years, and more Republican-leaning voters tend to call themselves independents than they did four years ago.

Ah. So, as Obama says, they actually believe their own BS. This may be an unintended consequence of left-wing unwillingness to accept the bias of the mainstream media outlets - when you listen to what you want to hear and hear what you want to hear, reality has an unfortunate way of surprising you.
Click to expand...

In this case I don't think it's so much partisan or ideological bias, as much as the fact that the media loves to talk about the horse race. The media tends to craft campaign narratives that support whatever the poll numbers are showing, which is why during/after every campaign the media explains the mistakes of the losing side and the genius of the winning side (even if the election is fairly close). But yes, I think that people tend to believe the media's BS. Since the poll numbers have been suggesting an Obama win for virtually all of the campaign season, the media hasn't really bothered to craft the "why voters aren't voting for Obama" narrative...and if Romney beats the polls and has a surprise victory tomorrow night, I'm less sure that Democrats will accept that narrative after the fact. This is why I doubt there will be any serious introspection from Democrats if they lose...they're expecting a win in the polls, and as a result the media narrative has been pretty kind to them this campaign season. If they lose, I think it's more likely they'll (rightly or wrongly) attribute it to electoral shenanigans.

IMO it would be different if the polls indicated that they should expect to lose. I think most Democrats *would* accept defeat in that case, and try to figure out why their message was rejected. I remember a quote from a pollster from a few months ago that I liked: "When you give Republicans bad news, they want to kill you. When you give Democrats bad news, they want to kill themselves."
 
Kandahar said:
Well, the partisan gap isn't something the pollsters just cooked up on their own...that's what the people who they interview are telling them.
Click to expand...

...sort of. This is how they shape their polls. The response rate to polls has fallen to 9%. To compensate, pollsters call alot more folks, and try to make sure they have a sample that fits the demographics and partisan breakdowns that fit what they think is going to show up on election day - and that is a subjective call.

The notion that Democrats are going to have an equal or even greater advantage in 2012 than they had in 2008 just doesn't pass the smell test, especially after 2010. Nate Silver is simply the new Zogby.

The reason the partisan edge appears greater in 2012 than in 2008, and the reason that Romney is winning independents by wide margins, are actually two sides of the same coin: Identification with the Republican Party has cratered in the past four years, and more Republican-leaning voters tend to call themselves independents than they did four years ago.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - Identification with the Republican Party (plus leaners) across the populace is up slightly since 2008.

Party Affiliation:

November 2008:
R: 28
D: 33
R+L: 40
D+L:51

Sep 2012:
R: 28
D: 32
R+L: 43
D+L: 50

And that's before you screen for likely voters, which favors Republicans, and gives them (according to Gallup) a 2+ advantage.

In this case I don't think it's so much partisan or ideological bias, as much as the fact that the media loves to talk about the horse race. The media tends to craft campaign narratives that support whatever the poll numbers are showing,
Click to expand...

No. The media tend to craft narratives to support what they think numbers are showing. And media (like all humans) are incredibly susceptible to Confirmation Bias, particularly given that they tend to exist in groupthink-enabling atmospheres.

which is why during/after every campaign the media explains the mistakes of the losing side and the genius of the winning side (even if the election is fairly close). But yes, I think that people tend to believe the media's BS. Since the numbers have been suggesting an Obama win for most of the campaign season, the media hasn't really bothered to craft the "why voters aren't voting for Obama" narrative...and if Romney beats the polls and has a surprise victory tomorrow night, I'm less sure that Democrats will accept that narrative after the fact. This is why I doubt there will be any serious introspection from Democrats if they lose...they're expecting a win in the polls, and as a result the media narrative has been pretty kind to them this campaign season. If they lose, I think it's more likely they'll (rightly or wrongly) attribute it to electoral shenanigans.
Click to expand...

I think you are right on their likely response. I simply think that they are wrong to assume that this election is so in the bag.

IMO it would be different if the polls indicated that they should expect to lose. I think most Democrats *would* accept defeat in that case, and try to figure out why their message was rejected. I remember a quote from a pollster a few months ago that I liked: "When you give Republicans bad news, they want to kill you. When you give Democrats bad news, they want to kill themselves."
Click to expand...

:lol: and yet that is precisely the opposite of what you are predicting ;)
 
cpwill said:
I think this is fantastic analysis. I will admit, the iron-clad surety expressed by so many Democrats in what seems by all objective measures an exceedingly close race is surprising. There appears to be the belief that Obama has to be elected because well he simply does. I've wondered if this is connected to the "progressive" belief that they are some kind of inevitable historical ideological evolutionary destination/endpoint, or if The One's famous self-love is simply contagious.
Click to expand...
Obama cannot lose because the fundamentals are all in his favor. It is delusional to think that Romney can win, it is delusional even to think that the race is close.
 
If Obama loses I think the Clinton's will move to take over the party again. I expect a lot of infighting and a party purge. That's after the racism rants.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Obama cannot lose because the fundamentals are all in his favor. It is delusional to think that Romney can win, it is delusional even to think that the race is close.
Click to expand...

Was 2010 a delusion?
 
Obama loses: The GOP cheated!
Romney loses: We'll try harder next time, assuming the country survives.
 
H. Lee White said:
Ah. The cowardly "impossibility" dodge.

You better hope Obama wins...
Click to expand...

No hope necessary, I have made an objective assessment of the situation and I will not indulge ignorant hypothetical questions speculating a Romney victory. Romney cannot win, so it is incoherent to talk about why he would win.

Here's a question for you: why does two plus two equal five?
 
Guy Incognito said:
2010 was the Republicans wasting their momentum.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.

Seems to me it was Americans voting their self-interest.

Tomorrow, Obama will be hit with a tsunami of American voters that has been building for two years.
 
In reply to OP, it is clear that the groundwork is already being laid for the "why did Romney lose" narrative. It will be blamed on Sandy, and I am pretty sure Chris Chrisie will catch some hell. It's already being talked about by Karl Rove.
 
CedarBear said:
Hmmmm.

Seems to me it was Americans voting their self-interest.

Tomorrow, Obama will be hit with a tsunami of American voters that has been building for two years.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. You're too much of a naïf to discuss this objectively; you're too emotionally invested in your side.

You are going to be real disappointed tomorrow.
 
Guy Incognito said:
In reply to OP, it is clear that the groundwork is already being laid for the "why did Romney lose" narrative. It will be blamed on Sandy...
Click to expand...
Silliness. There's nothing resembling a sound reason to blame a Romey loss on Sandy.
 
H. Lee White said:
Silliness. There's nothing resembling a sound reason to blame a Romey loss on Sandy.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that will be the narrative. You need to be able to look objective and discern the difference between fact and perception, because you are not stupid. You should be able to understand that the fact that Sandy did not meaningful change Obama's inevitable victory, it will be used as the excuse narrative. It's fact (Obama was always going to win anyway) and perception (Sandy was the October surprise that sunk Romney). That's what a "narrative" is and Rove et al. are already sewing the seeds.
 
cpwill said:
In 2004, I remember being astonished at how quickly Democrats turned on John Kerry, declaring him to have been a deeply flawed candidate, etc. and so forth. In 2008, Republicans shrugged their shoulders and said whatchagonnado with an economy in free fall, a war-weary nation, and a political naif who is incredibly good at allowing others to project their hopes onto him, but no record to discount his abilities.


So put yourself in Nov 7 - what is the loss narrative for either side? What do Democrats blame? Republicans?
Click to expand...
I'm uncertain on this. Some people make excuses .. others just sit with it ...

If Romney loses, however, the fault will be with the Libertarian Party that didn't do the honorable thing and fall on its sword encouraging those who would vote for Johnson to vote for Romney.

If Obama loses, the fault will be with American citizens, who suddenly became politically astute enough to realize that Obama is killing America, dismantling America slowly, in the name of his Multi-Cultural Internationalist ideological mindset and its compulsion to create a one-world borderless nationless U.N. government.

Ultimately, from a party perspective, if you field a truly great candidate, one whom the people recognize as obviously having what it takes, and you present that candidate within a political philosophy held by the great majority of Americans, you don't need to make excuses, because you don't lose.

On Nov. 7th, the losing party will simply have to accept that they didn't do a good enough job of selling their candidate to the centrists, and the winning party will simply have to count their very lucky stars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom