So here's your other chance to comment on all the week's news.
Former Governor Mitt Romney leaps to a 7-point lead over President Obama in Gallup's national tracking poll. But my understanding is that reflected only one day of polling after the second Presidential debate.
Most battleground states appear to be much closer, leading to my previous post about some veteran political pundits - such as Charlie Cook - seeing the possibility of another disputed election, perhaps with one candidate winning the popular vote, and the other, the Electoral College.
The Boy Scouts of America release their "perversion" files of suspected child molesters. Looks like Delaware had three cases. And, once again, in an eerie parallel to the abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, some Scouting officials declined to report suspicions of abuse to law enforcement, either because they weren't persuaded OR feared such public allegations and an arrest would tarnish the Scouts' reputation. Here we go again!
(A short blog posting here: I'm preoccupied with upcoming station/Widener law school debates; in-studio debates; high school student journalists' and communicators' night; and an upcoming in-studio interview - and video - with an African Roman Catholic cardinal visiting Delaware next week! Also doing some entomological things tonight in Pennsylvania, and tomorrow all day at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey...)
Posted at 11:51am on October 19, 2012 by Allan Loudell
As you noted in your previous post, Romney may have a small lead in the popular vote, but the electoral college configuration would likely get Obama re-elected. It's the inverse of what happened in the 2000 election when Gore had the popular vote and Bush won based on the electoral college.
Right now, Obama still leads in Ohio which is a key state to deny Romney the presidency. Bill Clinton and Bruce Springsteen both campaigned in Ohio yesterday on behalf of Obama. And, Romney-Ryan have visited more than 40 times.
I'll ask what I asked in an earlier blog: does it seem like the candidates do not answer the questions that are asked of them during the debate? For example, Obama was asked why the extra security request for the Libyan embassy was denied and Obama responded by talking about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Fri, Oct 19, 2012 2:15pm
I absolutely agree with your analysis and observations, teatime.
And sure, you can bet advisers to the President and his opponent tell their guys which questions to sidestep at all costs!
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Oct 19, 2012 3:01pm
What would be great to have at the debates is some of those national fact-checkers there. So both Obama and Romney give their answer(s) to the posed question or dodge it as they so often do. Then the moderator could turn to the bi-partisan fact-checkers and ask, did both candidates tell the truth in what they said? Those folks already have these issues checked out, so they easily could give real-time answers for the most part. THEN IF the fact-checker says, either Obama or Romney or both lied, then America would know right then and there. THAT added feature would help keep them a bit more honest with the facts, and the public would benefit which could greatly affect who gets elected.
I already posted a comment about the Charlie Cook article on the other thread.
What would be interesting to find out, in both Roman Catholic and Boy Scout perversion issues, were these men gay or straight, or a mixture of both? What makes this even more interesting to know is the Boy Scouts are taking a lot of heat since their policies are to NOT allow any gay men or boys to be in their program. My guess is, both organizations would find that it was a mixture of both gay and straight men, but it would be interesting to actually know.
Fri, Oct 19, 2012 8:58pm
Our little Blue Chicken state is considered an easy Obama/Biden win, but PA and a few other previously "safe states" are up for grabs.
BTW, for the first time Romney leads in an Electoral College map.
EarlGrey: Thanks for posting that electoral map. That's a great trend that hopefully will grow. What I really hope for is that Romney will win big so that the DEMS/libs won't be able to say, the Republicans stole the election like they did in 2000 (I know DEMS, who still complain about that election). If Romney wins big, it might translate into the GOP gaining control of the Senate, which will then make it far easier for a President Romney to get this economy going. Also then he'd be able to actually say he's got a real mandate from the people, whereas if its razor close, and he barely wins its harder to make that case.
Sat, Oct 20, 2012 11:19pm
In addition to the growing crowds/momentum for Romney/Ryan their donations are way up too, but Obama's campaign needs cash...Obama for America just "borrowed" $15 million from Bank of America.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.