I think Steve M. is concerned that I’ve lost my mind and am guilty of engaging in some irrational exuberance about Obama’s chances of winning a landslide reelection. I want to make clear that when I talk about Obama winning 35 or 38 states, I am not making a prediction. I’m talking about a potential maximum upside. Steve thinks the maximum for a Democrat is 33 states. I think it’s probably 38 states. That difference of opinion is really the main distinction between what he’s saying and what I’m saying. But there’s also a difference in confidence that Obama will win at all. Steve is concerned. Given the stakes, I’m concerned too, but I am very confident.
There are reasons to worry. The Republicans are going to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, perhaps even as many as two million likely Democratic voters through Photo ID laws, eliminating or shortening early voting, and other devious schemes. The Citizens United ruling ensures that corporations can make up for any money advantage the president has over the Republican nominee. The economy is still weak and unemployment will be still be high, by historical standards, in November. And who knows what crises might pop up to change the mood of the country? So, it’s best to not get complacent.
So, on what do I base my confidence? First, there’s the president and his campaign team. 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? Does anyone else even have a campaign team?
Second, despite the Republicans’ best efforts to keep Democrats from voting, they’re trying to block a firehose with their thumbs. The electorate of 2012 is going to be younger and browner than the electorate of 2008. There’s a good chance that Obama will improve his performance among Latinos by better than 10 points, and there will be many more Latino voters to pool from.
Third, the president will be running a very positive and upbeat campaign reminiscent of Reagan’s 1984 Morning in America campaign that won 49 states. Romney or Santorum will be running a relentlessly negative campaign filled will apocalyptic downer language. People generally vote for the optimistic candidate.
Fourth, the Republicans are trying to convince the voters that stuff they advocated four or eight or eighteen years ago is the most radical stuff ever when proposed and implemented by the president. But that’s all hypocritical bullshit that takes a fortune to sustain. Meanwhile, the Republicans are proposing very radical and deeply unpopular policies on entitlements, on birth control, and even on foreign policy. People do not like what they are selling.
Finally, there are the candidates. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are two of the least appealing presidential candidates in modern American history. Santorum excels in offending people. Romney excels at nothing. A politician (from either party) with average political skills should be able to win at least 41-42% of the popular vote. But these are not average politicians. These are the worst politicians to reach this echelon in living memory. We’ve seen ridiculous running mates before, but we’ve never seen anything as ridiculous as Mitt Romney trying to connect by talking about the height of the trees in Michigan or telling us that his dog had a great time on top of the car. No party has ever even considered nominating anyone half as divisive and unpopular as Rick Santorum.
So, we’re talking about a contest much like when the Harlem Globetrotters take on the Washington Senators. Or like when Mike Tyson fought Michael Spinks.
The president won 53% of the vote in 2008 when he was untested. He took 53% despite running against a national war hero, despite being black, despite having a pastor who said ‘God Damn America,’ and despite being named Barack Saddam Hussein Osama Obama. The president is tested now. The economy is on the mend, the auto industry is saved, the Iraq War is over, and bin Laden is dead.
So, to summarize, the president should do better than he did last time among every group the Republicans have been offending, including public service workers, women, gays, auto workers, Latinos, Muslims, environmentalists, the unemployed, college students, etc. Some core Democratic constituencies will be larger in 2012 than they were in 2008, especially Latinos. The president’s team has been gearing up for this for four years. Their opponents have not even been assembled. The president has a positive message and a lot of accomplishments to tout. The Republicans have neither of those things.
There’s very little reason to believe that he won’t do better this time around than he did last time. If he were facing a reassuring, optimistic, and well-respected opponent, things would be different. But he’s not. Barry Goldwater was a much better and more serious candidate for office than Romney or Santorum.
And the secret is that Obama doesn’t have to do all that much better than he did in 2008 in order to start winning in some very red states, including several that Steve assumes are unwinnable.
I respect Steve’s views. I respect his caution. I’d ask him, though, to really take a long look at Romney and Santorum. Try to imaging them winning anywhere. Candidates matter. Clinton would have beaten Bush in 1988 and Dukakis would have lost to Bush in 1992.
If Obama improves his performance by just 7% in states his lost in 2008, here’s the 10 new states he will win.
Arizona 52/47
Georgia 54/45
Mississippi 50/49
Missouri 56/42
Montana 54/43
North Dakota 54/44
South Carolina 52/47
South Dakota 52/46
Texas 51/49
West Virginia 50/49
Steve assures us that no Democrat can win Mississippi, Montana, either of the Dakotas, or West Virginia. Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Take a look at the numbers. We’re closer to winning Texas than we to winning West Virginia. That’s a big change. Montana really isn’t that heavy of a lift.
The nice thing about this kind of dispute is that we get to find out what happens and who was closer to being correct. I’m not saying Obama will win in a landslide. I’m saying that I see all the signs I’d expect to see on the way to a landslide. Let’s hope I’m right.
Boo:
If the President is going to win the Dakotas, Mississippi and Georgia, what does that say for the party in those states? The party in all those states is virtually nonexistent. We can talk about the whys and what fors but just imagine if we had a functioning Democratic Party in all those states.
I’m concerned that Jeb or another popular named Republic will be drafted at convention time because you are absolutely right about the quality of Romney and Santorum.
I’d like to see the list of these popular named REpublics.
I just hope there are a lot more coattails action this time around. Obama needs to pull along more down-ticket Dem candidates then he did in 2008. Getting a majority in congress (and keeping the senate) are more important than winning a record number of states.
Obama has put the United States another 7 Trillion dollars in debt and he continues to promote
the printing of almost worthless paper money by the Federal Reserve.
Toyota Irvine
Worthless paper money? Ron Paul, I guess.
The Federal Reserve doesn’t print paper money. It creates money out of thin air to loan to banks and to be repaid at what is now close to a zero interest rate. Banks don’t think that it’s worthless because they loan it to other institutions, corporations, and individuals.
The Department of the Treasury prints paper money. I wish they would print more of it to pay off federal debts. We really could use a little inflation of the currency right now to provide small savings accounts some compensation.
What we have been experiencing for the past four (maybe more years) is not inflation of money but deflation of wages and salaries.
It’s really not that important whether Obama wins with 300 or 500 electoral college votes. What matters is whether the DEMS win substantial majorities in both houses and whether or not they are then afraid to use them to implement some real structural reforms:
e.g.
etc.
Agreed. What gets me is the constant coverage of presidential politics with hardly a mention of other contests that matter. Like the House and Senate.
The fact that GOP hardliners have taken over state governments and are disenfranchising voters means we have to spend more time focusing on common issues among states and the relevant contests.
But many bloggers don’t. Somehow it’s only about the Presidency. That’s not only dumb politics but it’s a sick perspective of democracy.
Living, as I do in Ireland, I find it interesting to observe how this debate has evolved from a fear that the Dems would lose the Presidency and both houses – just a few months ago – to how we are now speculating about a blow-out for Obama and with the Dems winning both houses.
There are some obvious cautionary notes to strike:
… just saying… although things could also surprise on the up side with current momentum growing into a tsunami.
What I haven’t seen is much in the way of Dems creating a new and different vision for the USA. Most of their rhetoric is negative and defensive – look at what Bush did, look at what Santorum would do etc. – or an appeal to competency – no more stupid wars or financial deregulation.
But where is the new and different economic or foreign policy vision? Is a watered down version of 1990’s Republican health care policy good enough? Civil liberties are worse now than ever before – no need for reform? Is stopping/delaying a pipeline as good as the environmental vision gets?
Where’s the audacity in all that?
What I’m not seeing is
(1) I’m not persuaded until you tell me for each state where those 7% come from. Where are the upsides in South Carolina, Georgia, South Dakota, and Mississippi? Why Mississippi and not Alabama? Why Arizona and not Alabama? Why West Virginia and not Kentucky or Tennessee?
(2) An Obama landslide without Congressional coattails will just make the same idiot even madder than hatters and angrier than hornets. What does your upside prediction say about the composition of Congress?
(3) I remember when in 2004 the Republican media machine took down the accomplishments of a distinguished veteran just because they considered opposing the Vietnam War traitorous. That media machine still exists, it still operates on folks beyond their rationality, and it effectively has so much money that media companies will either run out of air time for ads or the price of political advertising will skyrocket for the duration. There are a number of the constituencies that you identify that could be persuaded to stay home through clever attack ads.
(4) The Occupy movements’ effects on American politics likely cannot be evaluated until after the conventions. In addition and only partially related to the Occupy movement, there will be protests both in Tampa and Charlotte, which both cities seem to be preparing to deal with by using a militarized police response. That puts one big dose of uncertainty in the mix.
(5) The upside is really taking 50 states. Taking 49 states is not unheard of in US politics, the one state usually being that of the challenger. That is much easier to do when running for a second term. Especially when it is as much “Morning in America” as it was in 1984.
So can we stop discussing the Presidential horserace and start discussing the Congress, the governors, and the legislatures in light of this upside or the contrary downside.
He won’t win any Appalachian states. Certainly not WV. Saddens me greatly but, as a West Virginian, I just don’t see it.
The reason I said “He won’t win any Appalachian states” is that the racism here is really deeply ingrained. The “poor white trash having only brown people to look down on” phenomenon is quite real. And it is clinged to, along with those guns and bibles.
I’ll take a look at West Virginia soon. But it’s probably the last state Obama could conceivably win. Or, to put it another way, of all the states he might win, West Virginia is probably the least likely, and for exactly the reason you mention. Yet, you can’t ignore the state’s Democratic roots and its tendency to send Democrats to Washington.
What a pessimistic series of replies – I’m with you except I think President Obama could win more. The GOP may retain the votes of older whiter men but the young, the gays, the African Americans, the Latinos and definitely the women will be voting for the President.
I am saying President Obama will win in a landslide
If we can turn TX into a consistently Democratic state with the increase latino vote, Republicans will never win the presidency again.
We should be focused on voter turnout and registration in TX, especially in the latino areas which have low registration and turnout numbers.
You say that you are “bullish” about Dem chances in November because:
You must have mistyped. The autocorrect thing is sometimes funny that way. You must have meant to type “bullshit,” right?
I am not completely disputing your political prognostications, though. You are right for all the wrong reasons. As long as Obama doesn’t turn on his PermaGov handlers and experiences no massive failure in an unexpected crisis, he will be re-elected. The media will make sure of that. But the so-called congressional “stalemate” will remain. Why? It’s in the PermaGov’s best interest, that’s why. You learned about “checks and balances” in your high school civics class, right? Like all high school stuff, this concept was a cartoon of the truth. Here’s how it’s working today:
Whichever half of the DemocRatpublican UniParty is “in power,” the other half is held in a state of readiness as a threat. Just in case, don’tcha know. Just in case the ones in office at the time fuck up…like Butch II…or get too popular and too successful. Like Bill Clinton. Or in case the electorate gets restive and falls into a “Throw the bums out!!!” mood…also like Butch II. It’s always convenient to have some more bought-and-sold bums handy and ready to throw in, if y’know what I mean.
Get real.
AG
I generally agree with Steve on this, though it should be noted that this is one of those “ten percent of the time I disagree with you as vehemently as the remaining ninety percent I agree” moments. Speaking as a “Westerner” who has spent better than half a century in the Pacific Northwest, in Cascadia, I wouldn’t be so sure about Montana. The Militas give her a bad rap, but are outliers where the greater population of the state is in the intermountain west and tend to be a bit more progressive.
The same might be said for the adjacent Northern Idaho and Western Wyoming. The Militas are outliers to the greater population, a vocal minority (sound familiar?). And as with here in Oregon, don’t count on the rural eastside(s) to toe the reichwing mark. We’re better informed than given credit, and hit perhaps the hardest of this “downturn”.
It’s easy to stereo-type the rural intermountain west, but recall the old cartoon of the two dogs sitting in front of a computer: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”.
Montana has become interesting. I guess Schweitzer is a fairly popular governor who is trying to get a fed exemption in order to bring something suspiciously like Medicare-for-all to the state. It has a law banning corporate political spending (now blocked by SCOTUS’s corrupt majority). Medical marijuana seems to be a popular cause.
I have to wonder if the Libertarian-style electorate might find the likes of “moral” micromanagers like Santorum and useless money Eastern money manipulators like Romney too much to take.
Cliff Schecter thinks maybe the Repubs are throwing the race.
They are GOP, hear them roar – Opinion – Al Jazeera English
Your basic reasoning seems sound. But pundits are wise to recall those “external events” which can change perceptions:
So let’s hope it’s just Obama vs. Some Clown-R. That’s popcorn time.
Middle East unrest and/or global economic meltdown would result in anxieties tough for any incumbent to handle.
See DaveW’s comment below. But Obama has proved himself in foreign affairs, recent Repubs not so. If Israel attacks Iran, that should strengthen Obama’s hand – also the idea of not changing admins during an international crisis
The problem is that the Netanyahoo crowd knows that any GOP President will practically allow Israel to dictate US policy in the Middle East. Israeli policy-makers are incentivized to disrupt the Presidential election.
Israel, sadly, may be the one country where Obama has not been able to improve US relationship with the government. Maybe all Israel need do is drive the price of gas up to $5/gal. Or raise tensions with one of their cross-border raids.
Obama has no leverage to stop them. Threatening to cut off military assistance plays right into Rethug’s game plan.
I hope that Israelis display some common sense and decency; but recent history suggests that their own domestic politics may prevent that.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216?print=true
Can anyone explain the Obama WH’s incompetence on the issue of medical marijuana?
I’m bullish, too, at the moment. As usual it will depend on turnout, and it’s hard to imagine any Rep candidate who won’t drive liberals and indies to the voting booth despite any disappointments with Obama.
Of course anything could happen between now and November. Rattles of war with Iran could work to Obama’s advantage as the reliable choice in a hard international crisis. A default by Greece would bring down the markets and probably put Obama’s reelection at risk. Still, a sitting president has an advantage in a time of crisis — nobody voted for Bush because they thought he’d done good. They voted for him because he was president.
It’s uncomfortable, though, to build so much optimism on the foundation of GOP insanity and disarray.
…every group the Republicans have been offending, including public service workers, women, gays, auto workers, Latinos, Muslims, environmentalists, the unemployed, college students, etc.
This is a big part of it for me. In fact, it’s become much quicker and easier to list the groups the Republicans don’t hate than the ones they do. It’s much harder to win elections when your message to a majority of the voters is basically “Drop dead.”
I’m not disagreeing about the outcome, but the cause.
Obama’s opponents have consistently stepped on their own dicks without any help from him.
You had Jack Ryan wanting to have public sex with his wife, actress Geri Ryan, and being replaced with the craziest person in the Republican Party, Alan Keyes.
You had George W. Bush completely poisoning the Republican brand, and then you had a sick old man as his opponent.
And then there is Sarah Palin as VP.
It appears that the Republicans are stepping on their own dicks once again (Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney’s responses to the challenge), but none of this makes Obama and his team the smartest people in the room, just the luckiest.