Romney campaign cautious with new momentum

(CBS News) OHIO - Recent polls have shown a positive momentum for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

In Ohio, the Romney campaign is seeing it all over place. The lines for tickets for an event in the northeastern part of the state were so long that officials here are saying that it might be the biggest of Romney's entire campaign.

But campaign officials are cautious. They know it's a long slog ahead.

If you count the electoral votes that President Obama has almost locked up, he has about a 30-vote lead over Governor Romney, so campaign officials are very cautious.

They also say that it can be seductive when polls are going very well in lots of different states. Campaigns can spend time in a state that they really in the end based on the fundamentals are not likely to win. But a Romney campaign official said given the way things were going a week ago, having too many opportunities is a good problem to have.

At left, watch a report from CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford, who was with the Romney campaign in Ohio.

At left, watch a report from CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford, who was with the Romney campaign in Ohio.

[WhatWouldJesusDo]

I was SHOCKED to hear SOME of my Jewish friends excoriating Obama for being anti-Israel. They stunningly stated that they did not care much for Romney but would vote for "anyone" other than Obama and Romney sounded like he'd be more for Israel than Obama would!

"Give me a break!" I responded, "If you think Obama is an enemy, then you should recognize that the so-called 'enemy' of your 'enemy' should be supported, eh?"

I got blank stares.

Then I asked them a simple question: "Well, WHO got rid of Osama bin Laden? Wasn't Osama bin Laden about as anti-Israel as you can get, don't you think?" From there I went on to describe how a supposed "enemy of an enemy is your friend."

As for Romney, I observed: "Are you REALLY going to trust someone whose positions have changed quicker than a weather vane in a hurricane?" The response was: "All politicians lie," which prompted me to go to Jesus, who said: "thus by their fruit you will recognize them!" Matthew 7:20.

The "fruit" in this case is a promise delivered: a DEAD anti-Jewish terrorist! What "fruit" does Romney offer--an apple that turns various colors and shapes, depending upon who's asking what's in his hand.....duh.

[Breeze583]

Your rigth, your friends are confused. This election isn't about the best interest of Israel, that's not even a consideration. It's about what's best for this country. Now if they think Romney is so much better, they can take Romney, fly to Israel and let him run for president there and then vote for him.

[steeepe]

Romney is a liar. He'll say whatever to get elected. Who really knows what he stands for? It changes every day. The only principled position he's taken so far is to refuse to reveal his tax returns. Is he a radical? Is he a moderate? Who knows? I suspect he's just a phony. A vote for Romney is a vote for a third term for George Bush and worse.

[notreich]

Seniors need to remember one thing and vote their self-interest. The Democrats initiated and passed Social Security in 1933 and a Democrat president signed it. The Democrats initiated and passed Medicare in 1965 and a Democrat president signed it. The Republicans have been trying to cut it ever since and nowadays with the radical Republicans and Tea Party and people like Romney's VP pick and his Ryan Plan they are trying to gut it and then completely phase it out. At election time is the only time they get out the big lie and deny all this. It's too bad it is hard to straighten out with the truth a barrage of easily spewed lies and distortions in a time-shortened format like a debate.

[Thinkbeforeyouwrite]

A woman has a bout with breast cancer while she is working and her group health insurance covers the treatment. If she is laid off, she loses her health insurance and must buy private insurance until she finds a new job. If she cannot afford the individual insurance while unemployed then she cannot get health insurance (when she does find a job) that will cover another battle with the cancer due to it being a pre-existing condition. Romney says the state should step in and help but states are having their own budget problems and it is very questionable that they would. There is a good chance the woman will not get needed treatment. Mrs. Romney has had breast cancer. How does she feel about that?

[maiingan]

One key question is, will Romney accept David Letterman's invitation to be a guest on his show, before the election? Letterman has been making a very good case for this; he did a superb presentation of his invitation last night. I could add nothing to his argument.

[dgjs5410]

Poor Myth, he still doesn't have a clue.

[bluejacket2-2009]

The only thing people need to remember when they go to the voting booth... Romney is a slick talking and slick looking fraud who will say anything to anyone to get what he wants... basically, a used car saleman... this is the truth.

[mikesfilms]

Debate blabber vs reality: I'LL RAISE THE DEFENSE BUDGET TO WARTIME LEVEL, I'LL CONTINUE THE RICH TAX AT BUSH LEVEL. I'LL CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS. I'lLL BALANCE THE BUDGET. Reality: 12 yrs of Bush taxes have sunk the nation in debt and destroyed 10 million jobs. Clinton created 24 million jobs and had a budget surplus. Romney thinks voters are retarded.

[bigmanfrommaine]

'Romney thinks voters are retarded.'

Lucky for him, most of them are.

[bbglow]

Dear Gov. Romney & Rep. Ryan,

I agree with you 100% that we must protect the promise of America including freedom, liberty and opportunity for future generations. I agree that hard work and dedication should determine a person's worth and those looking for a government handout should be suspect. I agree that government should be limited to it's responsibility to the people and duty under the constitution and held responsible when it violates that duty. That is exactly why I am not voting for either of you.

I totally bought in to the Reagan plan for prosperity. I believed that if I worked hard in support of the people able to finance and grow America that as they rose in wealth my boat would also float higher. However, the reality has never matched the rhetoric.

As I dedicated myself to the trickle down ideal and gave my youth and effort to cubical confinement, the following is what I have experienced and noticed.

. As your cronies gained in wealth their boats got larger and larger and floated higher while the greater majority's situation began to stagnate.
. As your wealth grew, the magnitude was no longer acceptable so it became necessary to send American work off-shore and then proceed to rationalize this apparent necessity by blaming the displaced for not having the motivation to work.
. New and unique ways were invented to stagnate and rob 401K's and investments while huge salaries were channeled to the innovators and creators of the deception while also inventing derogatory terms like Muppets and Aunt Millie for the working life blood channeled to your accounts.
. When events made it necessary to defend America and call for sacrifice your cronies in their infinite wisdom determined it was now time for tax breaks that by percentage benefited the wealthiest allowing the disparity between have and have-not to grow to historic levels.
. With unfunded wars, reduced revenue and a growing government deficit it was once again necessary to find blame with the displaced because of their apparent ever-growing dependence on government.
. With depleted employment and reduced revenue the government deficit grew and once again it became necessary to blame the now growing displaced Americans as the responsible ingrates because they apparently are no longer of value to your personal wealth objectives.
. As emphasis grows abroad and revenue resources diminish it is now becoming necessary to deny the need to improve America's infrastructure and education, nevertheless, pointing the sons and daughter of these same displaced and rejected Americans to defend the growing interests abroad as the remaining value you wish to capitalize on.

I could cite additional examples, however, this alone is enough for me to proclaim I will not vote for either of you because it is my belief that your belief is that America's opportunities belong to only you and your cronies and nobody else. When I was deprived of work and opportunity I would have been much worse off if not for the government I love and the democratically minded who understood and empathized with my situation. If government obligations are growing in an uncontrolled manner as you proclaim, it is your greedy policies that are to blame. Inventing terms like right-to-work and then denying employment represents the insanity of your thought process. Your desire to control government means people like me are at your disposal and reducing regulation translates to more deceptive investment strategies along with more worker and environmental exploitation.

If you want me to vote for you next time around it is necessary for you to demonstrate your value to society. Using your wealth to create greater than subsistence level employment and making government protections stronger and more efficient is a necessary first step. I will not vote to place me and my family at your mercy so that you and your cronies can enjoy the better life at the expense of someone else.

Regards,
Strongly Independent American Voter

[merlgrey]

hear hear.

[Breeze583]

Great post, loved the first paragraph.

[habu_71]

EXPLAIN THIS, JOHN.
John dickerson says "If you count the electoral votes that President Obama has almost locked up, he has about a 30-vote lead over Governor Romney, so campaign officials are very cautious."

Not true. Electoral votes are based on the counted popular votes --- it's more than optimistic jargon to claim to have electoral votes in your pocket before the popular vote (election balloting). Why have a popular vote if a team of people just states who is the winner.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states. The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. NOTE: Today, all but two states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.

[legal-equal]

John just writes how he wants it to be regardless of the Constitution and legal agreements.
We call that kind of writing fiction.

[mvymvy]

The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR - 80%, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: AZ - 67%, CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions (including Vermont) possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc