As many of you know, I have compiled an exceedingly good track record of predicting the outcome of presidential and congressional elections over the years. My best cycle was 2006, when I was off by just one seat when predicting how many seats the Democrats would pick up in their take over of the House. For over a year, I have been predicting that this presidential election would not ultimately be a close one, and that it would not be as close as 2008. This has been a bold prediction because I have never been able to point to any current empirical data that supports such a prediction. My judgment has been based on some data, but it’s all historical in nature. For example, there’s just no precedent in the last 150 years of an incumbent being reelected by a narrower margin than they were elected in the first place. It doesn’t happen. The only exception you will find is FDR’s third and fourth elections, but that’s an anomaly that can’t be constitutionally replicated. The rest of my judgment has rested on my estimation of the difference in quality between Barack Obama and the Democrats on the one hand, and Mitt Romney and the Republicans on the other hand. We’ve seen flawed candidates battle it out before. Nixon and Humphrey, Ford and Carter, and Gore and Bush definitely come to mind. But, when there’s been a clear talent differential, as we saw between Reagan and Mondale, Clinton and Dole, and Obama and McCain, the end result has always been decisive.
Arguing against my prediction all along was polling data and a weak economy that argued persuasively in favor of this being a toss-up election, or even one in which the incumbent should be considered the underdog. In particular, the polling data has been extraordinary stubborn and stable all year long. While Obama has consistently held a lead, his lead has always been extremely narrow, particularly on the national (popular vote) level. Yet, even as the polls have been close, I have argued that Romney is losing, losing badly, and is going to get blown out. Nate Silver’s analysis has largely backed this up, although his numbers have spoken much louder than his words.
The numbers have finally started to move decisively in the president’s direction, beginning (roughly) with the onset of the Republican National Convention. Mr. Silver is now predicting that Obama will emerge from the conventions with an 8-10 point advantage in the national polls. Let me be honest. This is exactly what I expected to happen. What I want to know is why Mr. Silver says this:
You would figure that at some point over the past year, Mr. Romney would have pulled into the lead in the polls, given how close it has usually been. John McCain held occasional leads in 2008; John Kerry led for much of the summer in 2004; and Michael Dukakis had moments where he was well ahead of George H.W. Bush in the spring and summer of 1988. But Mr. Romney, if there have been moments when his polls were ever-so-slightly stronger or weaker, has never really had his moment in the sun.
Instead, the cases where one candidate led essentially from wire to wire have been associated with landslides: Bill Clinton in 1996, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.
There is almost no chance that Mr. Obama will win by those sort of margins. But this nevertheless seems like an inauspicious sign for Mr. Romney. If even at his high-water mark, he can only pull the race into a rough tie, what pitch can he come up with in October or November to suddenly put him over the top?
Due to the basic strength of the Republican Party in the South and the Plains States, I have to agree that Obama cannot win by margins reminiscent of Nixon in 1972 or Reagan in 1984, but I see no reason he can’t win by margins reminiscent of Dwight Eisenhower or Bill Clinton. As Mr. Silver points out, candidates who never break into a clear lead during a whole campaign get blown out. That’s what happens. We’ve never seen a candidate fail to break through at any point who nevertheless lost narrowly on election day.
So, how does this work? How might it work?
if Obama really opens up an eight-to-ten percentage point lead in the national polls, what will that mean for the state polling in Indiana and North Carolina and Georgia and Missouri and Arizona? If Obama is going to win by a bigger margin than he won in 2008, he’s going to have to hold the states he won back then and win a couple states he lost.
What I have predicted is that this is exactly what will happen and, if it doesn’t, I stand ready to eat my hat. I know that voter suppression will have an impact. I know the Democratic base is a little less enthused. I know Romney has a lot of money. All of those factors are worrisome, and they might ultimately combine to prove me wrong.
But history tells me that the people will make a decisive choice this time around. And I still believe that to be the case.
I hope you are right- I have been continuously surprised at what an
awful candidate the RomneyBot 9000 is. I suspect that Romney
may be a smart guy, as in IQ smart, but something has happened since
his Bain days, that makes him effectively not-smart. Perhaps he has
just surrounded himself with echo-chambery yes men types, no one
can ever tell him how idiotic his ideas are. Same thing with all the
Citizens United Evil Billionaires who are trying to buy this election, I am hoping that all their money is wasted, in stupid ways.
Do your predictions think that the coattails will pull congress over ?
-r
The Senate must be looked at on a race-by-race basis. However, if I am right about the ultimate shape of the presidential race, the House will be in play.
Here is something for your amusement:
link
Thanks for that link. It’s a perfect example of President Obama’s humor, which I think is under appreciated. And it’s why I liked his speech so much–his laughs are never cheap, like some political jokes.
He thinks on his feet, and it shows in his humor. Hope he brings some of this to the debates.
Matt Knoller is completely outraged about this on twitter.
People are of course schooling him about it.
Jeez, I can certainly tell jokes about my mommma, but damn if I’ma let you do the same.
Mitt Romney, if he was so inclined, could make jokes about Mormonism ’til the cows come home and no way would I say it’s okay for Obama to do so. So yeah, Obama can have some self-depracting humor, as supposed to humor based on making fun of someone else.
Mitt’s birther joke was NOT making fun of himself
Possible clue: I don’t think romney’s success at Bain required much in the way of people skills, to put it mildly, or a very broad view of humanity.
Romney was the son of an extremely well-connected family. He was almost certainly a figurehead at Bain. I’ve seen this many times in my career. It makes sense in a way – you bring in a well-connected, well-groomed man (it’s virtually always a man) and pay him a pile of money to do the public relations stuff and let other people actually run the place. Sometimes this doesn’t work out so well for the company (like the figurehead jobs they gave Dubya in the oil industry and with the Texas Rangers) but somehow the figurehead always comes out of it smelling like roses – and much richer.
I think he gave the game away when he said his involvement with Bain ended in 1999 although he was listed as chair through 2002. I suspect that what he said was true, despite what was listed in the financial reports.
One could in fact argue that an inability to connect with ordinary people, a mindset that casts them as spreadsheet statistics with no greater worth or emotional connection than obsolete machinery, would be precisely the traits most conducive to success in the Bain world. The human consequences of business strategies have no weight in the decision-making.
Yes, in the Bain world, but not in political campaigns.
I think the base is going to get enthused. What the Democratic convention showed was a party of winners (and yes the GOP were a party of whiners) with an incredible back bench. And people have underestimated Obama’s convention speech. It was a moment where he could break through in a FDR fireside chat sort of way that is really difficult in today’s constant media market. Independents wanted to like him, and he gave them a reminder of why he is a once in a lifetime leader. And it was a very well-timed moment. People are still thinking it was all about Clinton, and he was huge, but it’s the president’s speech that people really needed to feel reassured.
In addition to the convention showing a party of competence, the momentum that Obama has is going to pull in the base and make them want to join in in crushing these assholes who have been treating us and the country like absolute crap. I know I’m feeling it, and I felt like I might not even participate in phone-banking before the convention. Now I feel like I want to be part of something: the Waterloo of the Tea Party GOP, the transition into an America that is done with hating it’s multi-racial, essentially progressive identity.
BOOOM!
The actual base, or the people on the internet proclaiming that they are the base?
The latter are past redemption….
Nope. People conveniently ignore the non-candidate polls that suggest that voters believe the country is “going in the wrong direction” by a margin of 3:1. Or that they disapprove of “congress” by a margin of 9:1. Nine to one.
There’s no particular era of good feelings looming out there. We’ve become a nation of resignation. But it doesn’t matter. There was minimal enthusiasm in 88 and 96. And those were decisive, one-sided results.
Nobody needed to feel like they were saving the world to elect First Bush and reelect Clinton. They don’t need to feel like they’re saving the world when they reelect Barack Obama.
Overall, I have to agree with you Boo, and I have a pretty good track record of predicting elections in Europe; Although like you, I have been somewhat perplexed by the failure of the opinion polls to support my contention at this stage.
What has been remarkable has been how static/stable the polls have been compared to previous years, which may indicate much more entrenched attitudes in the electorate and also perhaps improved survey methodologies.
But if it is true that the great unwashed only really start paying attention during and after the conventions, then it looks like they are likely to break decisively for Obama – always provided they actually make it to the polls. However even Nate Silver, who, since his move to the NYT has become much more “balanced” i.e. conservative in his approach now has to yield to the logic of his own numbers, and the historical precedents for what happens when a Challenger never takes the lead in the polls.
Romney has already pulled back to a core minimum of states he thinks he can win by concentrating his resources there. If that strategy fails, he could fail spectacularly even in states that now seem solidly red. He is starting to look a loser very early in the process and badly needs Team Obama to make a major mistake: something which has been conspicuously absent from the campaign to date.
As a matter of interest, what to you think have been the major mistake made by team Obama to date? I’m having a hard time thinking of any, and your columns have been filled with an absolute litany of major Romney mistakes. I doubt even bad Obama debates could save Romney now.
We don’t watch much TV, so maybe that separates us from most others, but the quality of the two candidates has always seemed worlds apart, and the closeness of the polls baffles us. But W’s appeal in 2000 was also a mystery. The big question is to what degree do folks hold Obama responsible for the tepid recovery and to what extent they’re willing to gamble on Romney making a big difference. It appears that the Obama camp’s belief that folks are cutting him a good bit of slack for the mess he inherited is proving true. If Obama’s convention bounce turns out to be substantial, listen for the freak out on the right. Which will likely cause Romney to make ever increasing wild accusations and errors. I do not think, however, that the advertising pullback in swing states is permanent. They have more than enough money to throw around and not worry about wasting resources. McCain had to make strategic choices in ’08 because his money was not unlimited.
I like this perspective. Many speakers at DNC kept to the message that Obama kept us out of a severe depression. One NEVER hears that from “progressives” on many internet sites, but that is the kind of message that if it gets out and repeated enough will remind people that going through a once in a lifetime event like this downturn has to be recognized.
President Obama lost Missouri by 3900 votes (+); it stil may be winnable.
It is odd how often I have had personal experiences during this election cycle that seem to then coincide, in short order, with something you post. On the ground here in Ohio I was just talking yesterday with another volunteer about how it seemed that people we talked to who had voted for Obama in 2008 and up until this point appeared to undecided this time around, were beginning to break the President’s way. Despite their professed “disappointment” in the slow progress, they felt like he was the better choice. This is what we had both been experiencing.
This, of course, is far from a scientific sample. But as November draws nearer, and people begin to realize the true choice that they face, the possibility that this will not be a very close election begins to seem more plausible.
I attended Obama’s rally in Seminole Florida yesterday, and I rarely have seen him so relaxed. Physically relaxed, bantering with the crowd a bit, etc. Granted, it was more rally than speech, but I left thinking, “If Romney seemed wooden by comparison before, he will appear like cast concrete statuary now.” I reckon the time he spent in Charlotte off the campaign trail probably recharged his batteries, and those batteries were topped off by the success of the convention.
Per, ” I know the Democratic base is a little less enthused.”
I read somewhere recently that the Obama campaign expects to improve its GOTV efforts by 150% over 2008. I think the validity of that statement will deliver Booman’s prediction. In my anecdotal experiences with the campaign so far (St Petersburg FL area), I see a heck of a lot more volunteer participation than 2008, and a much larger and stronger campaign infrastructure.
Biden is having an event here this afternoon in this very red area. Turnout will be tremendous, based on the tickets distributed. It is going to be very cool to be in the middle of the energy.
As an added plus, I am getting to personally meet Biden. That will be really, really cool.
I didn’t think he’d win by a larger margin than in 2008. At least not in the electoral college. It’s possible the popular vote will be a bigger margin, though. In general, I’ve been supporting your prediction as well. Why people have been saying “but the polls!” over that same period of time are crazy. Again, in 2008, a lot of states were either neck and neck or McCain was leading until late September to mid-October. And then, Obama broke away and it was history.
PA a toss-up? No chance. Without the voter suppression shit, PA would be Obama by double digits. I still want to say it’ll be him by double digits, but the voter suppression is too hard to incorporate.
I’d say the only state that has me quite perplexed is Wisconsin. The closest McCain ever got to winning the polls there was late September, where he was within 2 points. Romney’s polling around that same margin right now, so he has room to make it up. Unless of course this year the president makes his clear break earlier than he did in 2008. Either way, WI will not be a toss-up. Obama will win by 7-9 points.
From your keyboard to God’s ears, Booman.
I have no basis for why I feel that Obama will win. I’m glad that with exposure Romney has shown himself to be a shallow, dishonest corporate snob, and the Obama campaign has only needed to hold a mirror up occasionally to prove it.
What I’ve repeated over and over is that the Republicans aren’t voting FOR a specific candidate, but rather AGAINST Obama. They despise him and will hold their noses and vote for Romney just to try to unseat the President. We just have to rally, get out the votes, and keep the corporate money from buying this election.
One thing I’ve noticed here in Ohio, and specifically in our city, is the lack of bumper stickers for candidates. I still see the original Obama/Biden ones and I’ve seen a few new ones, but I’ve only seen one Romney sticker. By this time four years ago, there were tons of them. Are people just not that motivated this time?
My own sense is that while a campaign may have a great deal of support in a particular community, folks who live in that community will only slap a bumper sticker on their car if they feel personally supportive of the individals on the campaign ticket. For example, there might be lots of people in your community who want to get Obama out of office, and support the Republican agenda, but are lukewarm about or don’t even personally like Romney. They just see him as a vessel for the party agenda (which of course he is). Were they to put a bumper sticker for R/R on their car, they’d be associated with Romney in a personal way, which they may not want to be if they don’t actually like the man.
Put differently, a hardcore Clintonite from 2008 who didn’t care for Obama at all after the primary, but still fervently wanted the Dems to win, would absolutely vote for Obama in the general and would maybe even volunteer for him. But the Clintonite would never put an “Obama ’08” sticker on the car.
I could be wrong about all that from a political science perspective, but that’s my gut feeling.
I’ve been watching what the campaigns have been doing more than the polls to get a feel for where everything stands.
My feeling over at least the past month or so is that Romney is in a huge amount of trouble. Usually candidates will make a play for the center, but Romney has gone full wingtard.
This indicates to me he either has not consolidated his base OR that they’ve already determined they are going to lose and are trying to keep the House in GOP hands and flip the Senate by keeping the wingnuts energized/enraged.
I can’t see Romney doing anything for anyone but himself. The idea of him sacrificing his Presidential bid in effort to secure congress for the GOP/wingnuts is laughable. In Bain it was always his own bottom line, whatever the cost to other companies, shareholders, employees, customers or pensioners. In politics he is probably as derisive of the wingnuts as we are. He is using them for a purpose, and if his purpose isn’t achieved he will dump them like a debt loaded corporate bankruptcy.
I would agree with you on that, except that Romney isn’t in charge of his own campaign. He’s just a tool of the money men.
He’s actually tried to make a few plays to the center, like the time one of his aides said something positive about his Massachusetts Health Care, and the last few days where he has praised Bill Clinton. But all this is feeble, sporadic, and sure to be shot down by “da base”. It has been known for a long time by more or less objective commentators that strategically, after the primaries, he needed to pivot to center. Given the kind of campaign he’s run so far, and the nature of the present-day GOP, it just can’t be done.
Romney’s organization saved his ass in Iowa when the R leadership literally LIED to give him the win. Twisted arms and crooked organization saved him once again in Maine when 2 counties weren’t allowed to vote.
All along his luck has been astounding. No real R politician got into the mix early. T-Paw looks like a dork. 6 months of ‘roid bulking up would have made him competitive. But he didn’t and dorks can go home. Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum were all the flavors of the day ONLY because Mitt was ahead at the time.
And, in my humble opinion, it is because out of the candidates that lead at any point: NOT ONE OF THESE GUYS IS A REAL POLITICIAN. NONE of them have ever had to fight in real political battle.
All of them have safe havens to run to and dominated bases to run off of. They don’t know HOW to campaign. They keep getting off message and screwing up.
I’ve been hoping all along that you’re right Boo. I think that subconciously you realized the essential weakness of Romney had to be exposed during the crucible of the campaign.
You want an example? Ann Romney refusing to answer questions about conception because “its not the focus of the campaign”.
Tone Deaf.
Consciously, not subconsciously.
History also told us the Washington Redskins can predict the presidential winner except when it comes to John Kerry. 😉
But seriously, I think you need to define what you mean by “blowout.” Do you mean EC, popular vote? Both? Kos certainly called 2008 a blowout and that was a popular vote win of 7%.
There won’t be a Presidential election decided by more than 7%-8% any more, not for the foreseeable future.. Polarization, regionalization, and the shrinking number of swing votes, all militate against it.
For now, 6% is a shellacking and 8% is a crushing embarrassment.
It is certainly an excellent analytical tool to look at the election history of incumbent prezes, and the “product quality” difference (political ability) between Obama and Rmoney is stunning, IMO. Rmoney is also very minimally qualified (as is Lyin’ Ryan). As for actual intelligence, at the very least Bishop Plutocrat (even if he is an intelligent man) is not allowed to play one on TV as a result of the braindead “conservative” ideology he is required to parrot daily. Thus Rmoney must appear as a gibbering imbecile to objective and informed people.
Yesterday Rmoney was apparently blathering insanity about Obama taking “God” off our currency, for example. It doesn’t get much more ridiculous than that, but the campaign is young. Frankly, I think he actually believes in the “tax cuts solve all” fantasy religion, and so must ultimately be declared a fool and medievalist.
But the fly in the ointment of precedent is Citizens United, of course, and the massive cash discrepancy it is creating. Some analysis is showing an incumbent prez as being outraised 3 to 1 by the plutocrats. And it seems quite obvious that this massive plutocrat cash is being effectively “coordinated” by Rmoney and his PACs and Rover and his. That cash is going to buy a whole lotta excitin’ hate and lies, and we know the effect of Big Lies based on lizard brain emotion and fear. Many predict a “backlash” against the carpet bombing, but this seems quite hopeful and remains to be seen. Rmoney’s cash advantage is about to start.
The 2010 election was arguably the greatest rout of a party since the 30s. The story is that Dems stayed home and “conservatives” rushed the polls. Some of that must have occurred. But it was also the first Citizens United election, and Rover won damn near every congressional election he targeted in his first Citizens United effort. He destroyed a relatively new congress, the Pelosi/Dem Congress–tore it limb from limb–with far, far less cash than he has right now. I don’t believe there was any precedent for a congressional majority being annihilated so quickly after taking power. When that sort of thing happens, it indicates some structural component has radically changed.
It may indeed turn out that the House seats (not the senate and WH) are the most susceptible to being thrown by the ocean of corporate/plutocrat bribery that now exists after Citizens United. They are the smallest in size and population. But we really have no idea about its effect (when coordinated) in the prez election, we are in a new universe.
Not to make light of Citizens United, but there is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns.
http://thepoliticonomist.wordpress.com/tag/diminishing-returns/
Then there is the backlash factor. People are sick of the sheer volume of ads. Citizens United is intensely unpopular across the spectrum and independent voters are aware that it was a Republican idea.
http://www.democracycorps.com/National-Surveys/two-years-after-citizens-united-voters-fed-up-with-mo
ney-in-politics/
A midterm election is a very different animal from a presidential election. And people have had time to see how bad the Tea Partiers have been. A lot of them will be booted out.
Still, I agree that control of congress looms as the biggest worry.
that are in a state of flux and dictated to some extent, by events that can’t be forseen, or immeasurable to the degree of certainty/probability/margin for error worked with, given the dependency of pollsters on the integrity and immutability of those polled and their povs at that moment in time. This is why I think that while they may have it right when it comes to the dwindling size of those who claim the “undecided” label, it is pure folly to assign a number of percentage to them.
In 2008, I predicted a 350+ win for BHO, and ten seats in the senate. Since BHO took the helm, I’ve never thought his reelection in doubt — barring some scandal — unless the repubs nominated someone who would and could, restore some sanity to the party. Since the rise of the Pee Party, obviously the likelihood of that was almost nil, and Romney’s embracing them on his way to his nomination only sealed their fate imo.
In addition to this, since the stimulus effort, and the unveiling of the level obstructionism the repubs were willing to go to in their quest to make BHO a “one term pres”, I’ve thought that this would eventually catch up with them by the slow encroachment of dedicated self interest in the small minds and dark hearts of many of their minions, as reality and the truth caught up with them as a matter of course during the pres election season. I don’t see the fear of rightwingnuttery just energizing the dem base, but inevitably also “peeling off” what I’ve long called “CONverts” from their base. Between the repub inaction on jobs legislation in the house and the denials of BHO’s proposals, the threat they pose to women and worker rights, SS and Medicare, etc, etc, etc, and the now inarguable answer as to who butters their bread and they exclusively serve, if BHO doesn’t win in by something approximating if not exceeding his last, then all I can say is, we can attribute mass ignorance and masochism as the proximate causes, and indict that mythical and omnipotent, “liberal” media for complicity in those crimes. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php
As I see it, voter suppression (and those electronic voting machines are still a major concern as well)is the biggest monkey wrench, and should it be successfully used to install someone who will then be widely seen as an illegitimate pres like the now burning Bush was(I predicted both a Gore and Kerry win as well), well, we can simply say we would have been right once again butfor their cheating, no?
And hopefully the resulting tumultousness will at least lead to an end of the voter restriction efforts, as well as the uncertainty introduced by the paperless “machines” largely controlled by republican interests.http://www.google.com/search?q=electronic+voting+machines+repulicans&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-
SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:
en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGHP_en&sa=X&ei=p7lMUK-yIZT62AWd4oHACw&ved=0CB0QvwUoAQ&
;q=electronic+voting+machines+republicans&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7c2db6e
d7c41015b&biw=1680&bih=847 Their voter fraud efforts have been a great distraction from all that, no?
It is fascinating that the Democratic convention does seem to have won over a ton of independents.
All I can think of is that for 3 days the Democrats were able to state their case, defend their record, and portray themselves as they are, as opposed to having the corporate media do it for them.
Can they keep it up through early November?
This is purely hypothetical, but Obama could win by a bigger margin if more Republicans are demoralized and don’t go to the polls; if more independents vote for him; or if a lot of “unlikely voters” do show up; or some combination of the above.
“For example, there’s just no precedent in the last 150 years of an incumbent being reelected by a narrower margin that they were elected in the first place.”
But we’re also fighting against a number of new precedents:
“Bill Clinton in 1996, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.”
None of those 4 who had msecond wins had any of the headwinds I just listed. In fact, 3 of them were Repubs that held the South so racism didn’t hurt them. Clinton had his Sistah Souljah moment and move to the middle social policies plus knew how to reach Southern whites from his own experience.
I would be delighted if you’re correct and Obama wins more EC votes than the 365 he did last time. I would love it if the corporate press and the Tea Party extremists start a major collapse and more people tilt toward Obama. But sometimes new variables break precedents and this may be the time.
I bet this plays a huge subliminal role in dooming Romney’s hopeless quest to penetrate beyond the rabid Obama-haters, every time he opens his mouth to speak:
Obama’s speech (not -speeches-) is a joy to listen to. It’s rich, dynamic, exciting, in tone, cadence, and structure. How many people are prepared for four years of Romney scraping his nails across the chalkboard?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/obama-and-the-racial-politics-of-american-english.h
tml?_r=1&ref=opinion
I can’t recall any speech by a national political figure that was deader than Mitts. Seriously.
The closest I can come to it would Gebhardt or Ford.
Can anyone else name a poorer public speaker than Mitt? Nationally known political types only, please.
Also dooming the candidate in 2nd place once the “electorate” starts paying attention is the voting algorithm that prompts many of democracy’s dimmer lights to vote for the perceived winner, so that they can too can see themselves as winners, once the votes are all tallied. “I nailed it!”
Issues my ass.
A much under-appreciated component of elections. Not sure why when the Asch studies on conformity — or going along with the perceived majority — are decades old.
I must have heard this from voters a million times during the primaries in 2004 when I was volunteering for Wesley Clark. “I really like Wesley Clark, but I’m gonna vote for Kerry because I think he’s going to win.”
Any attempt to bring logic into those conversations fell on deaf ears. They wanted to vote for the winner. That’s all that mattered, and it was especially true in the later states.
(2007/2008 left me really despising Wesley Clark, but that’s neither here not there, and you can’t change the past.)
I have felt both Very Confident about the upcoming Presidential elections, and scared about what could happen if Romney is elected.
Both of these articles that I am paraphrasing were written in 2012 and dealt with demographics of the population, and the different “status” the parties represent compared to the past 5o years.
Demographics: Article talked about the gains in Latino
population growth, and along with other “minorities”, these blocs are more and more voting Democratic. The Republican Majority White Base will soon become an “obsolete” base to solely predicate future victory.
The changing “Status” of the Parties: Since the 1960’s, the Democrats have been the party of “change”, while Republicans stood for the “status quo”. Well today, with the TEA Party Tail wagging the Elephant, it is the Republicans who are pushing “change” regarding abortion and other civil rights, and it is the Democrats who have to try to defend the “status quo” of sanity over Religious Craziness to change voting laws, what a woman can do with her Vagina, and trying to put religion in Government where there is an explicit separation of Religion and Government.
Where in the Constitution does it say you need ID to vote?
I think the Booman knows the 2 articles I wrote about.
I don’t have much faith in the numbers or calculations at this point, but it just feels like this will indeed be a decisive election. The contrast between the candidates is too great for it to end otherwise. McCain had that grampa thing going. Romney’s got nothing personality or personal-history wise. The difference in the ambiance between the sour, angry GOP convention and the confident, hopeful Dem one reflects how the national mood is going to swing, seems to me. We’ll see.
Public Policy Polling has tweeted that their latest (post-DNC) numbers out of Ohio, which will be released later tonight, are showing a bigger margin than in 2008.
Booman, I can tell you why you’re right. Polls in the spring and summer do not predict what happens when a candidate gets to September with a lead that’s big, stable and well-suited to the Electoral College system: the big corporate money starts lining up behind the favorite in hopes of buying influence. There’s little reward for giving to losers and these donors try to avoid that as much as possible. Mitt’s window for proving the viability of his ticket is just about closed, barring some catastrophic event. Money will not be so easy to come by for him now.
And that will be the death knell of his campaign.
The question now is whether the Democrats will be able to give Obama some coattails. How effectively can they make downballot races national referenda rather than local? How much in resources formerly lined up for the President can now be shifted downballot? This will be the fascinating storyline of this election. If the Dems fail to take back the House of Representatives, I believe it will be a terrible blunder.
Further to your point: cnn.com is reporting that Obama outraised Romney in August, for the first time since April:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/10/obama-outraises-romney-for-first-time-in-months/?hpt
=hp_t2