Per a recent study, in the final weeks leading up to Election Day, one lone investor on InTrade wagered millions to skew the data in Romney's favor.
Not so fast, Vixen, you may be thinking. That piece of info is interesting, but not necessarily a part of the Romney campaign. Tut, says I. Whoever did it might not have been a part of the campaign, but insofar as people put stock in these things, I can see someone doing it for the potential influencing factor. And I don't say that without reason--after all, this is a campaign that saw fake Twitter followers, fake Facebook "likes", skewed internal polls, and "unskewed" external polls. It was as if there was an overriding popular delusion that if they "built Mitt", the voters would come. As a result, they experienced real confusion about the strengths and weaknesses of the campaign.
I think I'm seeing the same thing with respects to the Obamacare defunding saga. From the Tea Party Town hall takeovers to today, an awful lot has been invested in making the ACA seem like the most unpopular, oppressive piece of legislation in all of recorded history or something (even Godwinning over it, right, Sen. Cruz?) But that's just magnifying the yodeling yahoos of the echo chamber. It isn't going to necessarily influence people outside the right wing cocoon, and the folks continuing the war against the law of the land seem, themselves, to be mislead about the popularity of shutting down the government over it. Ratcheting up the hyperbole, or making showy gestures like the "filibluster" of Ted Cruz, are exacerbating the problem, not addressing it.
Right now, one of the smartest things I've heard today actually comes from Sen. McCain. Via Huffington Post:
McCain also recalled the the 2009-2010 debate over Obamacare -- before Cruz was elected to the Senate -- saying "the people spoke" on the issue when they reelected President Barack Obama in 2012. McCain said lawmakers shouldn't "give up our efforts to repair Obamacare" but said it wasn't worth shutting down the government.Repair it? Like, actually address the already-passed legislation and amend the things they don't like as if they were a part of a functioning legislative body or something, instead of having a temper tantrum?
Sounds solid to me. Sounds realistic.