Obama vs. Romney 2012 - Das Duell
-
48% obama
40% romney
der debate watchers
aber mehr reps als dems haben die debatte angeschaut /es gibt aber mehr registrierte dems als reps)
-
The states covered in our swing state poll were CO, FL, MI, IA, NH, NV, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI
obama gewinnt debatte 53:42
gewinnt wähler 51:45
-
Hab die Debatte nicht gesehen (muss heute viel arbeiten und leide immer noch ziemlich unter Jetlag), aber die Reaktion des Netzes sagt mir, dass ich das nachholen sollte. Offensichtlich hat Romney sich Obamas außenpolitischen Vorstellungen ziemlich angepasst, nach all den Superlativen, mit denen er und seine Partei den Präsidenten auf diesem Gebiert sonst verteufelten, ist das schon erstaunlich. Andrew Sullivan kann's nicht glauben:
Romney is endorsing Obama's foreign policy. Simple as that. Amazing. You cannot believe it of course. you can believe nothing that comes out of that mouth. [...]
Watching this man shape-shift in front of your eyes is staggering. I'm fascinated by the purity of the cynicism. Seriously, I've never seen any human being up close like this - a mechanical, unstoppable machine of say anything, forget everything in the past, refuse to take any responsibility for anything he has said in the past, and just smile and golly-gee smile his way along. There's a a machine-like quality that chills me. I have no idea what he would do in office on anything. I believe nothing he says.
Obama dagegen sei gut gewesen:
But this was Obama's debate; and he reminded me again of how extraordinarily lucky this country has been to have had him at the helm in this new millennium.
He's flawed; he's made mistakes; but who hasn't? If this man, in these times, with this record, against this opposition, does not deserve re-election, then I am simply at a loss for words. I have to believe the American people will see that in time.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-foreign-policy -debate.html
Auch political wire sieht den Präsidenten als Sieger:
The third and final presidential debate was President Obama's best moment in the campaign so far. He was prepared on every issue and knew Mitt Romney's record of past statements just as well. [...] Romney made an effort to look presidential by not attacking. He was exceedingly careful and desperately tried not to make a mistake. In fact, despite his rhetoric for the last two years, he now apparently agrees with most of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
As a result, Romney's biggest opponent was not the president, it was his own words. Obama did a brilliant job of bringing up past Romney statements -- on Iraq, on the nation's biggest adversary, on Afghanistan, on Osama bin Laden -- to make him look unprepared for the presidency.http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/22/reaction_to_the_third_presidential_ debate.html
Jonathan Chait ätzt:
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama came into the third presidential debate trying to do two different things. Romney was attempting the foreign equivalent of the Denver debate – positioning himself as an acceptable choice to the center, a strategy he signaled in his first remarks when he insisted, “We can’t kill ourselves out of this mess.” Obama was trying to win a debate about foreign policy. [...]
I wrote a while ago that the election seemed l [nymag.com]ike a reprise of 2004, with Obama as Bush and Romney as Kerry. In this debate, Obama seemed to play both the Bush and Kerry roles. Like Kerry in his successful debate, he exposed his opponent’s often facile beliefs with sharp dissection. Like Bush, he repeatedly assailed his opponent as “all over the map.”
But what Obama failed to do was to take the next step and make that latter charge into a larger disqualification of his opponent. Here is what Obama did not say: “My opponent changes his position on leaving troops in Iraq, on China, on Afghanistan, and on George W. Bush. You cannot believe anything he says.” Perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps Obama did not think he needed to launch a nuclear strike on Romney’s character.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/obama-wins-the-why-are-we-debating-this-deb ate.html
Bei der rechten National Review wird Romneys Auftritt dagegen eher positiv bewertet; der Trend sei im Moment auf seiner Seite, kein Grund also, unnötige Risiken einzugehen:
By the end I thought Romney had at least won his tie, and maybe even inched out victory by a nose. He did it by playing offense at critical moments during a generally restrained, respectful, and competent performance. In effect, Romney carefully pivoted between playing for a tie and a win, and the strategy worked.
Obama has got to be concerned now. He held up his end well enough, but the president needed more than that to halt Romney’s momentum. Romney has now decisively established himself as a credible alternative to Obama. At a moment when the public thinks this country is headed in the wrong direction, that spells serious trouble for the incumbent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331305/tortoise-ties-hares-concerned-stanle y-kurtz
Allerdings gibt es auch dort einen ansatzweise kritischen Post, der immerhin anklingen lässt, Romney sei für den Geschmack der Konservativen viel zu weit in die Mitte gerückt:
A man from the moon, having read about the past five decades of American history and sent to Earth to listen to the foreign policy debate, would have concluded that the aggressive Mr. Obama was the conservative Republican and the inoffensive Mr. Romney was the moderate Democrat.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331326/non-debate-romney-obama-bing-west
Der Spiegel urteilt:
Manchmal schien nicht so ganz klar, wer hier Herausforderer war und wer Amtsinhaber. US-Präsident Barack Obama sorgte für reichlich Schärfe im letzten TV-Duell mit seinem Rivalen Mitt Romney. Der Republikaner dagegen setzte seinen Marsch in die politische Mitte fort, wo er nur konnte. Wo Obama angriff, wich er aus. Wo der Präsident über eigene Erfolge sprach, stimmte ihm der Rivale zu. Obama dominierte - aber Romney neutralisierte ihn.
Highlights der Debatte (der letzte Clip gefällt mir am besten):
-
Realitätsblindheit ist ein gutes Stichwort wenn es um die US-Wahlen geht.
-
"Jill und ich, wir sprechen für 99 Prozent der Menschen in diesem Land..."
so viel zum thema grüner größenwahn. mir düngt, die beiden ehrenwerten damen der us-grünen haben etwas von claudia roth oder eva glawischnig gestiebitzt.
-
13 landesweite Umfragen wurden gestern veröffentlicht, der Durchschnitt zwei Wochen vor der Wahl:
Obama 47,38
Romney 47,31
After the final presidential debate in Boca Raton, the two campaigns head into the final stretch of what could be one of the closest presidential elections in American history. [...] In the 13 national polls released yesterday, Obama led by a miniscule 47.38 to 47.31 margin—it’s hard to imagine the national polls have ever been tighter with two weeks to go.
-
Außenpolitik ist nicht wirklich wichtig für die amerikanischen Wähler, aber jetzt werden sie sich ein abschließendes Bild von den Fernsehdebatten machen können. Obama lag vor den Debatten vorne, ist böse eingebrochen mit dem müden und lustlosen ersten Auftritt, hat das aber nun korrigiert. Wenn der unabhängige Wähler glaubt, der Präsident sei manchmal müde und ausgebrannt, insgesamt aber engagiert und souverän, wird Romneys Trend nicht anhalten. Der ist durch den Weichspüler gegangen und erreicht bzw. täuscht nun besser Frauen und andere natürlichen Feinde, aber im Allgemeinen mögen Amerikaner keine Flip-Flopper. Ich glaube nicht an eine soo extrem knappe Wahl bzw. dass nur Ohio es entscheiden wird. Die Umfragen waren und sind so extrem unkonstant, dass z.B Florida offen bleibt. Da war Obama mal bis zu 10% vorne, jetzt Romney 5-8%, alles innerhalb von fünf Wochen, was soll man da noch glauben. Und dann ist da noch Pensylvania, Virginia und Wisconsin. Die Demokraten sind wohl fitter was das Personal zur Mobilisierung der Wähler angeht, die Wahlrechtsurteile haben Romneys Wahlbetrugsversuche weitgehend verhindert. Egal wie's ausgeht, einige Umfrageinstitute könnten dann ziemlich doof dastehen.
-
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-minnesota-house-6th-district
Hier nen Link der Huff Post zu dem Bachmann Wahlkreis. Mit nem bischen Stöbern und Interesse findet mann/frau allerdings Umfragen aller möglichen Institute quer durch die USA.
-
the Minneapolis Star-Tribune commissioned two new House polls, both from Pulse Opinion Research, unfortunately—the for-hire arm of Rasmussen Reports. In the 6th, they have GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann leading Democrat Jim Graves 51-45, while Romney edges Obama 54-39, a little better than John McCain's 55-43 mark four years ago.
-
Ein Vorteil Obamas, den Romney auch mit sehr viel Geld nur schwer kompensieren kann: Die Frontkämpfer
Only about a mile down the road was the Republican office, a cavernous, unfinished space on the back side of a strip mall next to a Sleepy's mattress outlet. On one side of the room, under a Gadsden flag ("Don't tread on me") and a poster of Sarah Palin on a horse, two long tables of land-line telephones were arrayed. Most of the signs, literature, and buttons on display were for the local Republican congressman, Frank Wolf. A volunteer in a Wolf for Congress T-shirt was directing traffic, sort of -- no one really seemed to be in charge and there were no paid staff present, though there were several elderly volunteers wandering in and out. The man in the T-shirt allowed me to survey the room but not walk around, and was unable to refer me to anyone from the Romney campaign or coordinated party effort. (...)
In Greenwood Village, Colorado, I walked in past a handwritten sign reading "WE ARE OUT OF ROMNEY YARD SIGNS," then had a nice chat with a staffer for Rep. Mike Coffman. In Canton, Ohio, the small GOP storefront was dominated by "Win With Jim!" signs for Rep. Jim Renacci. Obama's nearest offices in both places were all Obama. In Canton, a clutch of yard signs for Sen. Sherrod Brown leaned against a wall, but table after table was filled with Obama lit -- Veterans for Obama, Women for Obama, Latinos for Obama, and so on. The Obama campaign uses cell phones exclusively, while the Republicans use Internet-based land line phones programmed to make voter calls. Every Obama office has an "I Support the President Because..." wall, covered with earnest paeans to Obamacare and the like. (...)
It's a simple, eternal political truism: Democrats are less likely to turn out to vote than Republicans. It's reflected in the difference between polls of registered voters and those of likely voters -- in Gallup's latest survey [gallup.com], for example, Obama and Romney were tied, 47-47, among registered voters, but Romney led 50-46 among likely voters. If the Obama campaign, through organization and elbow grease, can drive more of those less-likely voters to the polls, the president's chances get better.
Fine music for political ears
What we predict...
Wahlfieber, originally a platform from the German-speaking world, offers (user-based) forecasts on elections worldwide - using political prediction markets without applying any algorythm.
Our focus
Germany / Austria / Switzerland
All national and state elections as well as selected local, mayoral and party elections
Europe
Almost all national elections as well as selected presidential, regional and local elections and votes.
USA
All presidential, senatorial and house elections (including mid-term and most presidential primaries/caucusses) as well as important special and state elections.
UK
All national and state elections as well as important special, local and mayoral elections and votes.
Worldwide
National elections - including Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, etc.
Important elections in 2023
- Several state elections in Germany and Austria
- Presidential election in the Czech Republic
- National elections in Finland, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Switzerland and Spain
How does this work?
This is how you contribute to the prediction - See the Infocenter
Found an error?
Your Feedback?
Please send error messages and feedback by email to: help@wahlfieber.com