Romney never had any remote chance to win

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The popular vote and electoral college votes match (except for Gore), so I really don't have problem with that. It does keep us trapped in a two, not three or more, party system.

My point in this thread is that the Romney crowd really, honestly thought they were gonna win, and were truly devastated and shocked when they lost.

But that could have been avoided if they didn't base their hopes and dreams upon deliberately ignoring all the aggregate polling that said Romney could never win the swing states, in favor of one or two polls that were hopeful or showed Romney ahead (while seven others showed him behind)

Two or three points is huge - not "either way", depending upon what polling techniques are used. And the Romney campaign repeatedly embraced faulty technique that told them what they wanted to hear, and deliberately ignored better analysis that told the story of his probable loss months ago.

Look at the angry donors, who were told Romney was a lock by the Romney campaign - based upon bad, bad polling analysis. I'd be angry too. They were not lied to deliberately - they were given bad, bad information from a woefully factually uninformed and amateur campaign crew.

It wasn't as if there weren't credible polls showing Romney tied or ahead in many of the swing states. Polls like Pew, Rasmussen, and Gallup gave Romney a great chance. I knew there were polls that weren't as favorable but I figured Romney had a decent chance. When the economy is not good and the unemployment rate is this high, you would think that many of the undecideds would end up voting for change.