A few days ago, I wrote that I don’t believe it’s possible for President Obama to win a massive, LBJ-size election victory in November — a blowout of a size BooMan thinks is conceivable. Today BooMan responded to me in a post called “Why I’m Bullish,” and then explained why he thinks the state of Mississippi — one of the states I said can’t possibly go Democratic no matter how much Republicans screw up — really might not be so far out of reach.
I guess I just don’t accept the notion that, as BooMan says, the Obama reelection team is the best there is:
After you watched Michael Jordan win his first championship, did you ever worry that he wouldn’t win more? Or, if you prefer football, think about Joe Montana and the San Francisco 49ers. Some teams are born champions. They are a cut above everyone else. Barack Obama and his campaign team are better at elections than anyone in history. And now they have the advantages of incumbency and four years to prepare. Are you impressed by Mitt Romney’s campaign team?
Well, they must be doing something right or he wouldn’t have won any contests this year, would he? (Romney is the weak link in his own campaign.) And whoever wins the nomination is going to have Rove and the Kochs and talk radio and Fox — that’s a pretty formidable team. The Obama team didn’t exactly blow away the opposition in late primaries in 2008, and it was useless in 2010. These guys are good, but I wouldn’t go further than that.
I don’t see any reason to believe there’s “a good chance that Obama will improve his performance among Latinos by better than 10 points” — Hispanics may be repulsed by the GOP agenda, but they’re not exactly thrilled by heavy-handed immigration enforcement on the part of the Obama administration. Besides, Hispanics want jobs, too, and they’re still hard to come by. (The economy, of course, is a key reason to doubt the possibility of a blowout — sure, it might be possible if we really came out of the recession, but we’re only seeing a few green shoots.)
And no, I don’t think “Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are two of the least appealing presidential candidates in modern American history” — is Romney, in particular, any worse than John Kerry or Mike Dukakis or Bob Dole? (Those guys were all beaten, but none by opponents who approached 60% of the vote.) Is Santorum more extreme than Reagan or (as people knew by the second term even if they didn’t in 2000) George W. Bush?
I know Santorum, in particular, won’t stop saying extreme things — but I think lefties vastly overestimate how much this puts people off. Last week Greg Sargent wrote a post titled “Is Birth Control Fight a Terri Schiavo Moment?” As evidence he cited the results of a Democracy Corps survey (PDF) that, yes, showed a real depletion of the Republican brand, and a return to the fold of many in the Democratic coalition. But when Democracy Corps clearly laid out the Democratic and Republican positions on contraceptive coverage, the Democratic position won by a mere 49%-43%. With Terri Schiavo, opposition to the GOP position was overwhelming.
And no, I don’t think, as BooMan suggests in his Mississippi post, that Romney’s going to be hurt in the South because he’s not an evangelical — simply because Obama’s not a Caucasian.
Look, I think Obama’s chances are good. I think Republicans might keep sabotaging themselves. However, I think there’s simply a limit to how well a Democrat can do in a political culture that for decades has accepted right-wing arguments about government wastefulness (always linked to Democrats) and fiscal prudence (always linked to Republicans), and that also regularly retransmits propaganda about GOP “normalness” and Democratic “elitism.”
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
ABC News recently reported on the results of a Univision/Latino Decisions Poll:
Romney is almost holding his own, relative to McCain. Gingrich? He would be an utter disaster even though he’s the least obnoxious of the Republican candidates on immigration issues. Santorum? I’m pretty sure he’d be closer to Gingrich than Romney. And Romney’s positions on the DREAM Act and immigration can be exploited to drive his numbers down.
I can easily see Obama getting to about 72% of the Latino vote. And that would net him a ten point advantage over where he stood four years ago, with a bigger pool of voters. This could easily put Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico far out of reach, and begin to put real pressure on Texas.
I wish I could agree with you about the Latino vote. But having worked in New Mexico politics, I know it just isn’t that clear cut. For one thing, Hispanics in NM have been there a lot longer than any gringos–their families were there long before the whites came, so they don’t see themselves as benefitting from any legislation designed to make it easier to immigrate to America.
They will, however, vote for whoever has a Latino name. That’s how the current governor got elected. If Romney were to put a Hispanic on the ballot, many Hispanics would vote for him for no other reason than seeing that name on the ballot. You can kiss even 67% goodbye if that happens.
And you’re also forgetting that many Hispanics are Catholic and opposed to abortion. That gives Santorum (who won’t be the nominee) an advantage.
The Republican Convention in Tampa comes the week before the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. It is therefore possible if Republicans put a Hispanic (Rubio is frequently mentioned) that the President, Joe Biden, and the Democratic Convention could put a more respected Hispanic on the ballot. All of this is hypotheticals.
I find the idea that Hispanics would vote for a candidate who went out of his way to trash Hispanics and call for English-only legislation (I guess we would have to rename Florida, Texas, (New) Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and California then). But the bind the Republican candidate is in is that not trashing Hispanics loses lots of white bigot voters.
They very well might win New Mexico’s 5 electoral votes only to lose electoral votes in South Carolina, North Carolina, and other states in which recent immigrants are citizens but subject to the same discrimination as undocumented workers.
The abortion issue is not going to have traction for the Republicans in the general election. Legal abortion services in the US have almost completely disappeared. They’ve won and are now on to attacking contraception. Again, pushing this issue with some Roman Catholics could lose them more other voters than they gain.
But in this I agree. Making political judgments on national polling is crap. National polls be extrapolated to electoral votes only models that include massive historical data on elections. In elections in which patterns are changing, they can be completely wrong. And attitudes by demographics are more complex that polls can capture. Interpretation of any poll without taking into account the margin of error is close to political malpractice.
It is surprising to me how poor a candidate Romney has turned out to be. And as bad as he would be, Santorum would be hopeless. Which is why I think, neither of them will be the candidate that Obama will be facing in November.
The roll-out of a new candidate could come swiftly and would not necessarily require a brokered convention. Here’s how it works:
Romney’s candidacy continues to implode, Gingrich’s supporters desert him in favor of Santorum, and Santorum wins both Arizona and Michigan. Romney, realizing his campaign is fading, or after being pushed to the exits by the party leaders, withdraws from the race, but coordinates his withdrawal with the annointed replacement candidate, presumably Christie. Christie takes over Romney’s delegates and Romney’s ballot line in the rest of the primaries.
Christie, who has the unique feature of being acceptable to both the establishment and the Tea Party, wins most of the Super Tuesday primaries, and the nomination. Who wins in November? As usual, the folks in Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado will let us know when the time comes. No blowout.
you can ask your delegates to vote for another candidate but you can’t get your name on the ballot. You’d have to tell Christie voters to go to the polls and vote for Romney. And then you’d have to have elected-Romney delegates actually vote for Christie. And that wouldn’t work very well.
I understand the name on the ballot would still be Romney, but presumably the voters would be informed that it would be in effect a Christie line. And, true, the Romney delegates wouldn’t be legally bound to vote for Christie at the convention, so that would be a bit of a wild card. But I think it would still work.
The whole scenario depends on Romney’s cooperation, of course. As long as Romney is still viable, this won’t happen. It only comes into play if Romney loses both Arizona and Michigan, and the polls look bad for Super Tuesday. It would then be a combined effort of Romney, Christie, and the Republican establishment to fend off a November drubbing that Santorum’s nomination would make likely. I wouldn’t be too surprised if something like this hasn’t already been planned out as a contingency.
I think it’s like being buried by an avalanche in your car. You can come up with all kinds of plans for how to escape, but you are actually doomed. You’re not going to live. There is too much weight bearing down. And, in Christie’s case, this is literally true.
I’ll tell you this. If he wins the overweight vote, he’ll carry Wisconsin.
If the Ministry of Truth — i.e., Fox — tells them to vote Romney for Christie, they’ll vote Romney for Christie. (And Roger Ailes sees starbursts every time Christie yells at a teacher, so this would absolutely happen.)
when there was a late stop Carter movement. IIRC in a couple of slates essentially the stop Carter people argued that voters should support the slate of one of the candidates who dropped out.
I have run the math, though. The way the rules are I can’t see any reasonable scenario where someone but Romney or Santorum gets a chance. The vast majority of deligates are winner take all by Congressional District. In South Carolina, Gingrich won 40-28, but the delegates split 23-2.
If you apply the current polling to the upcoming states, this is what you get:
Romney 98
Santorum 44
Ginrich 32
Paul 20
Before Super Tuesday (Arizona, Michigan, Washington)
Romney 144 (8 in Michigan, 29 in Arizona, 9 in Washington)
Santorum 92 (22 Michigan, 28 Washington)
Gingrich 35 (1 Michigan, 2 Washington)
Paul (1 in Washington and Michigan)
After Super Tuesday
Romney 296, Gingrich 88 (includes 38 from Georgia, where he is ahead), Santorum 308, Paul 30
To get enough deligates to lock the nomination Santorum needs 54% of the remaining deligates and Romney needs 55%. Gingrich and Paul are not going to lock up enough deligates to matter unless Gingrich rallies and wins Alabama, Missippi and Texas. But right now Santorum leads by over 25 in Texas (and would likely take at least 139 deligates form that state alone).
The calendar turns more favoable late for Romney (California is winner take all) but I question whether he will still be around.
This is closer to over than people realize.
If you apply the current national percentage to states where there is not post Colorado polling, Santorum wins 1217 deligates to Romney’s 625.
I actually read the Booman post Steve references here with a eye towards how he would disagree and I feel pretty good that I picked up on the Latino policies and the issue of Evengelicals choosing between a Mormon and Obama (insert your disqualifier here).
I am inclined to lean slightly Booman (biased as I am towards wanted to believe) only because I have a problem with Steve’s argument in this piece.
Yes, Romney (or Santorum) are going to have Fox and Radio, but so did McCain, and the PACs are simply replacing the money McCain campaign and the RNC had, almost to a wash albeit wit less coordination, or in Santorum’s case no possible coordination due to the lack of organization at all.
The problem the Republican nominee is going to have is a shorten clock to get it together, a total lack of a party leader and a candidate that doesn’t coordinate well with Fox and talk radio.
Bush had that advantage in 2000 and 2004. He was hand and glove in his attitude and actions to have the complete support of everyone but Michael Savage. Plus he had a slew of respected party leaders backing him up.
This time around Rush has been consistent that Romney is no conservative. I can only assume half of the others on radio have been saying the same. Romney would sacrifice a son to have a salt of the earth type republican leader vouching for him (Jesse Helms? WillF Buckly? I honestly can’t think of a good example))
They’ll get behind Romney if they have too, but just like 2008, it is tough to go back on a guy they are on record as loathing.
I don’t think that spells blow out by itself, but it sure opens the door for that conversation.
Open Your Eyes!!!Count On It!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree that Obama’s race will trump anything for a significant number of voters. What that exact percentage may be is hard to determine, because Republicans have had similar results in the Deep South regardless of the Dem Candidate’s race in prior presidential elections.
And I agree that I don’t see Obama winning Mississippi, but then I don’t think Obama’s team expects to win there or in Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina or Arizona so I don’t expect them using many of their resources there. They will push hard in Virginia and North Carolina and West Virginia, and also in Texas, if only to help down ticket Dems.
Of course, we still have no idea if Santorum can maintain his momentum through Super Tuesday. I still believe Romney is the most likely candidate, but his chances of sewing up the nomination early have disappeared, and now he has to rely on Santorum making major gaffes (which he will do – it’s his nature). The big issue is whether Santorum’s supporters among social conservatives will continue to vote in significantly higher numbers in the coming primaries than other Republicans.
As for a brokered convention, the longer this plays out with no clear leader, the better the odds but at the moment I still think the candidate will be either Romney or Santorum. It’s too late for any potential white knight like Daniels or Jeb to ride in, nor can I see any of them wanting to do so, when 2016 would be a better year for the GOP winning the Presidency.
Let me stipulate that Obama’s race presents a problem every bit as real as Romney’s faith. Let me note for the record, however, that Romney is not going to do as well as McCain among white Southern Baptists. The following is from 2007, when Romney was battling Huckabee:
The Southern Baptists are a plurality of the vote in Mississippi. How is Mitt going to do as well as McCain against the same candidate?
Thanks for putting this up. Competition for members indeed is what motivates the Southern Baptist Convention’s concern about Mormons (as opposed to what motivates individual Baptist congregations). And the Southern Baptist Convention remains a front group for the Republican Party.
Given the schism in Southern Baptist churches over the last generation, I don’t know whether “Southern Baptist” plurality in Mississippi means “Southern Baptist Convention member church members” or not. Of the competing denominations, the Church of God is the larger and likely shares the SBC’s views of Mormonism. Guys in white shirts and ties on bicycles are all over the South.
While I really enjoyed reading both Booman’s analysis and this response, I think unfortunately that this is one of those years where circumstances will decide the election (or at least the election’s issues). We have two obvious ones – the Eurozone and Israel/Iran – but I’m going to bet that a third one will pop up sometime between now and November that will attract equal attention. If one of these situations goes off, that’s what the election will be about, and at that point it’s down to who calls the best audible.
I’ll go with the guy who has Osama’s head on a stick for $100…
I am certain that the GOP candidate gets smoked unless it turns out that Obama IS really a Kenyan born Muslim and Michelle is actually transgender and the girls were adopted by gay parents and he hired Bill Ayers to secretly work for the CIA to overthrow the US government
And then only maybe.
Yeah I get that 35% of Americans are truly whacked. And I get they elected W twice. I just can’t see Americans turning the keys over to any of these schmoes and I don’t see these schmoes being smart enough to put together a campaign to fool enough of America.
To be honest, I find everyone’s confidence surprising.
I don’t find the Harlem Globetrotters analogy convincing. If we’re going to use clumsy sports analogies, I’d bring up this year’s Houston Texans. Good team. But they were doomed by an event — the injury to Schaub — they had no control over.
That’s the economy. Except that there’s a much higher probability that the economy will fall back into recession than there is of a football team losing its starting QB.
From where I sit, it doesn’t look so good. Two things jump out at me:
(1) The Israeli-Iranian fight is jacking up oil prices.
(2) Europe is currently being run by imbeciles, and — with the exception of the US and (last quarter anyway) France — the OECD countries is sinking. And despite there being little impact on us so far, I wouldn’t bet on decoupling lasting.
I’m not so confident.
Also, Joe Montana is second only to Brett Favre among overrated NFL QBs.
it appears that the crazy statements are helping Santorum among the GOP base and I have seen no evidence that it is hurting him among the broader electorate.
The most recent Texas poll makes me question how much higher Obama can go than his 2008 number. Missouri looks close, but beyond that I have trouble thinking of a state he would flip. Montana was close in 2008 – but the polling since has been terrible. Obama won Indiana but since then the state has drifted red.
Has Indiana drifted red? Especially given the past month? Besides, isn’t Indiana like most states? The Democratic Party is weak there.
essentially it represented a 20 point swing. It is reverting to form.
Well, I must say, the loons are coming out in force and often.
Mississippi voting for Obama. right. When pigs play hockey in hell. People, you are talking about a state where 60% (46% illegal + 14% that is should not be legal) of Republicans think miscegenation should not be allowed. Yeah, those guys are going to vote for Obama.
For Obama to win a landslide, I think you have to have a splintering of the Right, and given the profound distaste you have on the Right with their candidates, this is completely plausible.
The Country Club Republicans would bolt Santorum for some Americans Elect bozo. The Evangelicals bolt Romney for the latest iteration of Elmer Gantry.
Obama’s job approval is finally back into net positive territory. His personal approval has always been positive. Given that only the GOP side of the debate has been getting played on the media, it’s remarkable that they are trending down and not up.
Too often, we progressives tend to crouch into a reflexive defensive posture, because we’ve seen victory flushed away at the last second in 2000, 2004 (and arguably 1988).
Rather than worry about Santorum’s appeal to blue collar Catholic voters, we should be the hammer a make every asinine utterances of the Frothy One a nail.