# 33 Is the American Electorate as Stupid as the Romney Camp Believes?

The Reuters/Ipsos poll just published on October 10 (maybe Oct 11 East coast time) gives Romney a slight lead overall in the presidential race.  That doesn't mean anything, and is probably not even accurate.  What's that, you say?  Am I being "Republican" by ignoring information that I don't agree with?  Do I think that only polls showing Obama to be ahead are the only polls to be listened to?  Am I going to continue ending my sentences with prepositions? 

No.  There are actually two major problems I have with tonight's poll results showing Romney slightly ahead: (1) Voter Suppression Laws [VSL] and (2) the claim that Romney's performance in the first debate has propelled him into the lead.

(1) This one is not quick but it is dirty. If the VSL work, Romney might just carry some battleground states that otherwise he might not.  Right now, Florida and Iowa are showing that new registrations have changed from four years ago: new Republican registrations are about the same, but new Democratic registrations are WAY lower than four years ago.  Rachel Maddow discussed this on Tuesday night, and seems to attribute the Democratic reduction to new laws in those two states. 

Two points of note:

(a) if those are the only two states where voter suppression laws are allowed to stand, Obama can still win, and easily.  If other states are also allowed to keep new voter suppression laws, then the race could turn.  Ohio, for example, is running 4 to 6 points in favor of Obama.  If enough of those folk find themselves disqualified as voters, Romney might carry the state. Remember, however, that most of the states that have passed or are trying to pass voter suppression laws are already red states, particularly in the deep south.  Those laws would have no effect on those states' presidential election results.

(b) I'm not convinced that new voter registration is quite so important.  If the folk in battleground states who registered to vote four years ago, in order to vote for Obama, can still vote this year (and aren't disqualified by the new VSL), and still vote for Obama, then Obama can still win those states.  The key polls will be those that deal with registered voters who do actually plan to vote.  Those polls become more important as we approach within a week of the election.

 (2) The view that Romney's forcefulness in carrying the first debate has swayed voters depends very much on the American electorate being really stupid.  Romney shifted his positions on so many issues that I'm surprised his head didn't spin around and that he didn't spew green vomit on camera. 

What in the blazing saddles does Mitt Romney stand for? and how can anyone support him when he keeps changing his point of view?  He gives one position to one audience (in a newspaper or TV interview for example, or a speech in one state) and a contradictory position to another, different, audience. But much of the press is reporting on both--and is making it clear that Romney is pandering to specific audiences by changing his positions on several issues. 

The press has covered pretty well his inconsistencies on abortion, his mathematical absurdities on the budget, and his contradictory policy statements.  If a significant number of voters ignore the facts that the media (and the Obama camp) are emphasizing, then, sadly yes, the American electorate IS as stupid as the Romney camp believes.  The facts on the issues are available.  Romney and his surrogates ignore them. 

For these actions, to me Mitt Romney lacks integrity. I have always maintained that, if you don't have integrity, you don't have anything.  To me, Mitt Romney has nothing.