As an illustration of just how divided the U. S. is, both ideologically and geographically, consider the two mutually exclusive points of view.
Barack Obama will win in a landslide:
Liberals don’t want to jinx it. It terrifies the right. And the press would prefer a nail-biter. But the fact is that finding Romney’s path to victory is getting harder every day.
There’s a secret lurking behind everything you’re reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know—or should—but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business. The secret is the electoral college, and the fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney has to draw an inside straight like you’ve never ever seen in a movie to win this thing. This is especially true now that it seems as if Pennsylvania isn’t really up for grabs. Romney’s paths to 270 are few.
Mitt Romney will win in a landslide:
Yes, Barack Obama is ahead in some polls. And, yes, it looks like a neck-and-neck race. But that is because the President is spending everything that he has right now in a desperate attempt to demonize Mitt Romney, and it is because Americans are not yet paying attention. Obama’s support is a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep.
Of course, if Romney were a corpse as yet unburied on the model of Bob Dole and John McCain, he would lose. If you do not all that much care whether you win or not, you will lose. But Romney wants to win. He is a man of vigor, and he has a wonderful case to make. He is a turn-around artist, and this country desperately needs turning around. Barack Obama has no argument to make. He can only promise more of the same — yet another stimulus and higher taxes on the investing class. All that Romney has to do if he wants to win is to make himself presentable, and that should not be hard. He is handsome, tolerably well-spoken, and accomplished. If, in the debates, he stands up to the President, he will seem the more presidential of the two – and that will do the trick, as it did in 1980.
A more balanced view can be obtained by looking at this electoral map, courtesy of Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball:
Add to that the following. Many of the states that the president carried in 2008 were carried by only a percentage point or two. If the election is a wave election, not only could Romney carry the states that are solidly Republican, likely Republican, or leans Republican, and the states that are too close to call but the states that lean Democratic as well. We won’t have any real idea of whether that has any likelihood at all until much, much closer to the election itself.
Basically, the election is too close to call and will remain that way for some time.
I believe that the only way you can believe otherwise is to be sealed in an ideological bubble as I gather that both of the authors cited above are. That’s the reason for the title of this post. In the aftermath of the 1972 presidential election NYT critic Pauline Kael was quoted as saying: “I can’t believe that Nixon won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him”. What she actually said was, apparently, more like:
I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken.
There is a real, legitimate, genuine difference of opinion in the country today. There are millions of people who cannot imagine voting for Mitt Romney any more than they could imagine voting for Richard Nixon. Or Attila the Hun, for that matter. But there are also millions of people who cannot imagine voting for Barack Obama and are skeptical that anyone could see things differently than they do.
Many members of each of these groups live in states, towns, or neighborhoods in which everybody they know believes what they believe and have preferences similar to their own and, consequently, they overestimate how universal their views are. In my view that’s how fundamentalism of any stripe survives.
Most of the polls are using 2008 for their voter makeup. The 2010 voters were pissed off, and they have not gotten less pissed off. In 2010, Republicans won big in the state elections, and 2010 was a census year. Districts were redrawn by Republicans.
The 2012 election will more than likely be a wave election, and Republicans are going to surprise many people. I am guessing the Clinton Democrats can “see the writing on the wall”, and James Carville has his trashcan ready.
I think the election can be epitomized in one question. 95% of African Americans will almost certainly vote for Obama. What will the turnout among African Americans be?
I have no idea and I don’t think anybody else does, either. If the same percentage of African Americans vote as voted in 1996 (34%), Obama’s goose is cooked. More than 50% of African Americans voted in 2008.
I think the essay was a fair assessment.
I obviously have a dog in this hunt. I note over sampling. I note the perfect storm in 2008, no segment which I think will be as robust for Obama now. I note 2010. I note Obamas inability to move the needle despite tremendous negative advertising this summer. I think Romney is doing a rope a dope. The economy stinks. People view him for what he is: in over his head. A smooth tongue, but nothing more. Hope and change is now viewed as cynical Chicago politics. Obammy ain’t so likeable when his true colors come out: Romney is a cancer man. Filthy.
Obamas inner Emil Jones is out of the bag.
I could be kidding myself. And one can never, ever discount the power of the propagandistic media that reaches most of the electorate.
But my intuition is that the man has been exposed. An empty suit like none in recent memory.
And then there are people who can barely imagine voting for either one, but will turn up their noses for the lesser evil, vote third party, or not vote at all.
TastyBits, if it were to turn out that way, I think Carville and the other Clintonistas will secretly enjoy the opportunity to point out everthing Team Obama did wrong that they got right.
That Sabato map is just crazy and unnerving. I much prefer the version where the shape of the nation is distorted to show the weight.
Who is this Rahe guy? What an idiot. The economy was in the crapper, inflation out of control and the Iran embassy mess. Reagan winning was a surprise?
Ok, that aside, the GOP should be way ahead in the polls. I think any analysis of this election should start with this basic understanding. That they are not, says a lot about the quality of their candidate and the ideas they now espouse. A GOP candidate who had any semblance of competency, which Mitt has though he has to deny his relevant public experience, would be campaigning on jobs (no one knows to fix that so what he says is irrelevant) and by closing our debt with a combination of tax revenue and spending cuts. The public overwhelmingly supports it, but if a GOP candidate did that, they would lose the base, and their turnout.
I also think that we are finding out that Americans are a bit uneasy about making someone who is ultra-wealthy our president. Whose interests will he represent? His Dad, in a politically inspired move, released years of tax returns. Mitt, not being the consummate politician, has not. He avoided doing this in MA and got elected governor, so maybe it will work again.
As always, I will vote against the candidate I think is worse. I prioritize foreign policy.
Steve
@sam
The polls are oversampling, but that does not matter. What matters is who won the state elections in 2010. The winners redrew the maps, and they redrew them in their favor. In most states, the votes are district based similar to the federal electoral system. The popular vote is not the determinate factor.
The Republicans won more state governors and state legislatures, and they got to redraw the maps. This was the actual big win for Republicans in 2010, but most people missed it. The Republicans will have an edge until 2020. It will take a few cycles before the polls catch up.
@PD Shaw
Pre 2010, the Clinton Democrats would vigorously defend President Obama and his agenda. Post 2010, they have been less enthusastic, and recently, they have been defending Mitt Romney. When they do defend the President, it is half-hearted.
I agree they would not be very upset if Mitt Romney won, but they would need to “tread lightly” if that happens. Bill Clinton would have no problem simultaneously praising and condemning Barrack Obama.
Steve,
I agree that Romney is a weak candidate (politically speaking) and I think that partly explains why this election is close. He’s certainly no Reagan or Clinton.
The advantage of being very wealthy is that you’re not necessarily beholden to others. I would rather have a rich person who, thanks to their wealth, is able to follow his/her own moral compass than a politician who essentially has to whore themselves to get contributions in order to get elected. So, I don’t think Romney’s wealth is a huge problem per se – I think his inability to relate to average people (among other things) is a much bigger issue.
That’s usually what I do and I also look at third-party candidates.
What will the turnout among African Americans be?
I live in a predominantly Black part of Orlando, which is the heart of the I-4 Corridor, which is the swing part of the swing state that is Florida.
In 2008 I didn’t live here, but I came here all the time because my mother did. (I live in her house these days, though I suppose it is mine now that she’s dead.) There were far more signs and bumper stickers for Obama in 2008 than there are this year. In fact, one is far more likely to see an Obama 2008 bumper sticker than an Obama 2012 sticker. Enthusiasm is notably diminished from four years ago. (Last time even the dog fighters, drug dealers and home invaders were openly supporting Obama.)
I also was seeing a lot of bumper stickers and yard signs for McCain last time out. I’m seeing very little for Romney this time around. Enthusiasm is way down on bother sides, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the weak turnout from last time around comes out ahead of the turnout this time around. People just don’t want to vote for either of these turds.
That said, the “Against” vote is far stronger in passion than any of the other groups. I still think it is Romney’s to lose, but he can still do so.
In 2008 I didn’t live in this neighborhood, but I did live in Orlando.
Ultimately it is Romney’s to lose because of stories like this one. I linked to this story instead of the original because it includes links to both the original story and an NPR feature.
Reading the original I noted the man in question had a mix of naivete and ignorance about how these things work. Most notably, his Master’s degree will hurt him, not help him. Also, the HR people won’t sift through 653 resumes. They may run that stack of resumes through filtering software, but whether they do or don’t, they will grab the first few off the stack until they get 5 to 10 that look credible, and then only deal with those people. You don’t just have to be qualified, you have to be able to get through the filtering software and then get lucky for your resume to even be SEEN by human eyes. And only if you clear those hurdles do you get to the part that most people think of as trying to get a job.
Depressed and exhausted after discovering all of this information, I drew one general mantra from this experiment, one that I could repeat to myself whenever I apply to a new open position: “No matter how much you want this job, there are 652 other people who want it, too.â€
I think this is somewhat appropo of the discussion, though a bit Illinois specific. Looking at the 18 Congressional races in Illinois, it looks to me like as of today, the Democrats will get 10 and the Republicans will get 8. These districts were drawn by the Democrats. Significantly, it looks like no Democrats are currently winning in a district which is not at least partly in Cook County (Chicago).
There has been a weakening of the populist, Clinton-type Democrats in the downstate. I don’t know if the condition is terminal, but the concentration of Democrats in one corner of the state is going to make it difficult to win a majority of districts across the state. You can only stretch Jesse Jackson Jr’s district into the corn fields so far before he has to become a pro-life, anti-gun ethanol-supporter. (And yes, I’m assuming Jackson is re-elected)
Or even worse, they think people who vote contrary to the way they voted are stupid, crazy, or in some other way mentally deficient.
Drew
It’s interesting you bring up Emil Jones, as he was the President of the Illinois State Senate who actively mentored Obama. It is said that Jones propelled him into a presidential run, taking away legislation in progress from others in the Senate, and reallocating various pieces to Obama so he would have some kind of tangible ‘record’ behind him — albeit was gleaned from the work of others.
TastyBits
Yes, I also think much of the polling internals today are based more on the proclivities of the 2008 race than what is going on today. Given the devastating backlash in 2010, I don’t think you can count these people out, in voting with the same enthusiasm this November. There is so much riding on the 2012 election, including the non-stop objections to the ACA, along with the all the fiscal ramifications awaiting us in 2013, should Obama retain his POTUS position — higher taxes everywhere! As far as the AA vote, it will be dampened by Obama’s politicized gay marriage proclamation. A coalition of almost 4000 black pastors, alone, has formed as an anti-Obama organization. Their message in thousands of churches will not be encouraging people to support Obama.
IMO, Obama’s edge, at the moment, is derived from the democrat’s gift of being able to successfully exploit personal attacks on their opponents, while detouring around their own weaknesses and failures (such as the poor economy and dismal job creation). And while the dems provide the musical themes of their campaign, they have a monopoly on the musicians (aka journalists and news organizations) who are willing to loop these compositions, over and over again, to the public. It’s a wonderful marriage on the left, providing a powerful filter which can alter the public’s perception of what is really going on.
Whether or not conservative grassroots efforts can counter the endless distractions being concocted by the Obama campaign (mistreatment of a dog, hair-cutting incident in high school, cut-throat businessman image in Bain, not enough tax returns, a wife’s horse, nitpicking his oversea’s trip, causing someone’s death, Romneyhood label) remains to be seen. But, in the bigger picture, people’s anger towards Obama remains fused with his mishandling of the economy, lack of cooperation with business, lackluster jobs record, fracturing more relationships in the country than he has brought together, explosion of unfunded social programs leading to an explosion of debt and deficits…and, at the same time wondering how much lower can we go should a second act emerge, after this terrible first one!
@jan
For the 2010 elections, the TV news people brought in extra cots and coffee. It was going to be a long night. They had been seeing the exit polling all day, and the polling was indicating a close election.
As the results started coming in, many were too close to call because reality was not matching the exit polling. I actually felt sorry for the networks. They were scrambling to fill in air time when the A, B, and C teams went home.
Politically, I would like the election to produce ex-President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Reid, and I suspect I will get my wish. If the Republicans do not get a filibuster proof majority, it will be interesting if both side are philosophically consistent in their filibuster positions.
Getting what you wish for is not always good. President Reagan with a Democrat House and President Clinton with a Republican House & Senate produced some fairly good legislation. One party controlling everything does not seem to work out too well.
I think that if President Obama had to work with a Republican House, Senate, or both they would have produced some decent legislation, but who knows, I could be wrong.
Good recall on the 2010 midterms, TastyBits. What I remember is how shocked people were with the momentum of the republican wave, all across the country — with the exception of CA.
There definitely was an underestimation of anger among the silent majority out there. I kind of think the same might very well happen in these upcoming elections. Democrats always seem to get podium time, along with a cooperative MSM to carry whatever message they want to convey to the people — whether it is an accurate one or not. So, that is why it sometimes seems that the entire universe is comprised of social progressive brain waves.
With the Ryan pick as VP, you will now be subjected to a thundering reverberation of criticism, mediscare hype, and any dirt or distraction that can be possible dug up on either Ryan or Romney (so far dogs, horses, tax returns, Bain affiliation, and gaffes have been it for this man). Will the trashy microphone work for the dems? Or, will it bring the silent majority together more, like it did in 2010? We’ll know in a few short, intense months