Any Obama supporter who thinks that re-election is in the bag should at least consider the inforrmation in the table above. As you can see all of the numbers are closer to those in years in which the incumbent was defeated and all but two are worse.
The economy is not moving in the right direction, either for the country or for the president’s re-election. Every econometric prediction model I’ve been able to identify to date is predicting a loss for the president even as electoral college projections show a near-landslide victory for him.
It’s not difficult to find the reason for the discrepancy. Those projections all assume there is such a thing as a state that’s safely in the president’s column and that states that are leaning towards the president end up being in his column.
The numbers above and the econometric models give reason to believe that won’t be the case.
At this point it strongly appears that the president’s campaign strategy is to ensure that the electorate does not see Mitt Romney as an acceptable alternative. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. Romney and his campaign are already adapting as I think can be seen in his Wall Street Journal op-ed and this interview with Fox Business.
Hat tip: Business Insider
I find this interesting, too. Three hundred and twenty electoral votes seems like a lot for Romney, but it jibes with my belief that it is Romney’s to lose. I don’t think Romney can hit 320 simply because too many people have a bad taste in their mouths about how things worked the last time the (R)s were in charge.
Supporting the view that it is Romney’s to lose is some more data on incomes. Incomes have fallen more during the recovery than during the last recession, according to some new analysis of the Census data. I just don’t see how Obama can even keep it close under these circumstances.
I think it’s going to be close, at least from a popular vote standpoint, if only for affiliational reasons. A large percentage of today’s Democrats are Yellow Dog Democrats.
Increasingly I’m wondering if it CAN be close. In recent weeks, Obama (through his minions) has called Romney a felon, has started a whisper campaign about Romney’s Mormonism, is sending Biden to Tampa contravening long-standing traditions about campaign etiquette, accused Romney and Ryan of wanting to enslave black people, et cetera. It’s so bad even Anderson Cooper has started pole-axing Democratic officials on camera. (Apparently there is a limit to how much the media is willing to debase themselves. Who knew! Or maybe THEIR internals are showing them that they need to abandon a sinking ship.)
This is the most desperate (and stupid) I have ever seen a major campaign get. Not to mention their fund-raising shenanigans. These are signs of desperation, and I’m betting the Obama campaign’s internal polls show them getting crushed. The difference in tone of the two campaigns is striking. Seriously, the only reason Romney isn’t winning in a cake-walk at this point is because people remember how shitty the Republicans were the last time they were in charge. I’m not the only one, apparently.
At this point most of the econometric models are predicting a close popular vote so that’s what I’m sticking to until factors change.
As to “fund-raising shenanigans”, I think that for a large cadre of Democratic operatives the entire idea of an election is to rake in the big bucks in what might be called “indirect electoral production”, e.g. as media consultants, political consultants, fundraisers, etc. At least that’s my explanation for how Democratic campaigns end up spending so much money.
I don’t think the president or his campaign managers have any real idea of what it takes to run against a determined Republican opponent.
I will disagree a bit. You may question Obama’s ability to govern, but i dont think his ability to campaign is im doubt. He beat the Clinon’s and media darling McCain. He has the GOP lying about his welfare rulings and talking about “build that”. This, while they have chosen a candidate whose supposed strengts is competence and private sector experience. Why arent they centered on jobs and the economy?
To top things off, thry are now running as the ones who will save Meduicare. All cutsthe to Medicarethe over theto next tenstop yearz will beI eliminated. AND , they willhave esave Medicare. They will eliminate all cuts to Medicare over
Steve, Obama’s main selling point is that Romney wants to give everyone’s wife cancer. That’s a bit beyond stretching the truth about a policy decision.
Also I think we can add steve to the list of people that don’t like commenting with iPads….
I question Obama’s campaign ability. The record:
Got incumbant kicked off ballot
Unopposed
Lost
Unopposed
Got opponent’s divorce records unsealed
Got opponent’s divorce records unsealed
Alan Keyes (WTF!?!)
Challenges Hillary, viewed unfavorably by >50% USA
John McCain = Herbert Hoover
This is the first time Obama is running for re-election opposed. I think he’ll still win, but he’s not done something like this before, i.e. running on his own record, in a bad economy, disapointed expectations, and difficult manuevering.
@Ice- Stoopid IPad. Correct. Beyond that, as I was trying to say, Romney is now running as the one who will save Medicare. He is promising to not cut Medicare for 10 years. He is also promising to balance the budget or eliminate debt (cant remember which now) by the end of his term. This looks a bit like the replay of the 2010 election where the Dems get attacked for cutting Medicare spending.
Yet, we know that Medicare is the primary primary of future debt. This makes me thing Romney/Ryan is just like every other GOP candidate since 1980. Willing to cut taxes, but not willing to touch popular spending programs, while increasing spending on things they like. Does not bode well. Obama, OTOH, has made some actual cuts.
Steve
steve, it was either an iPad issue or a stroke.
As for Romney’s campaign strategy, I have no idea. He should talk about nothing, and I mean nothing, except the economy. As for your second paragraph I agree completely, which is why I refuse to vote for them.
Obama, OTOH, has made some actual cuts.
Actually, I don’t agree with this. It will be the doctor fix all over again. They will not cut anything.
From Maggie Mahar, via TIE, a list of revenue increases and spending cuts in Medicare from the ACA. The spending cut is real. I have had to adjust my budget this year and will adjust again next year. These are the cuts Romney is decrying as harming Medicare.
“$210 billion generated by lifting Medicare taxes for high-income individuals with adjusted gross income above $200,000 and married couples earning over $250,000
$196 billion will be saved as Medicare trims annual increases (or “updatesâ€) in payments to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical centers and other “non-physician providers†by 1 percent a year for ten years.
$145 billion saved, over a period of ten years, by phasing out overpayments to Medicare Advantage
$75.1 billion in savings that the Tax Foundation describes as flowing from “Interactions between Medicare programs†($29.1 billion) and “Associated effects of coverage provisions on revenues†($46 billion)
$36 billion saved by cutting government subsidies to hospitals that will no longer be forced to absorb the cost of treating 32 million uninsured Americans (these subsidies, paid to hospitals that serve a “disproportionate share†of low-income patients, will be cut for a total projected savings of $57 billion between 2012 and 2021, according to CBO)
$20.7 billion saved by eliminating the Medicare Improvement Fund (the ACA creates a new Innovation Center within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, making the Medicare Improvement Fund redundant)
$10.7 billion saved by reducing the Medicare Part D premium subsidy for seniors with incomes over $85,000 and couples earning more than $170,000
$4.5 billion saved by eliminating the tax deduction for employers who receive Medicare Part D retiree drug subsidy payments”
Steve
Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t even listen to the Medicare promises anymore. It’s just the usual pandering and political fear-mongering. I don’t know why anyone would take it seriously.
PD Shaw
Nice timeline posted on Obama’s election memoirs. Those earlier elections were a joke, IMO. It was like he was being given the spots for little effort or work.
It is pretty well documented too that Obama was taken under the wing of Emil Jones in Illinois, and basically given work-in-progress legislation to call his own, so he could have some kind of ‘record’ to run on. Even his ‘accomplishments’ in his first term have not really originated with him — OBL intel was created under Bush as was the Maliki agreement and the Stuxnet Virus, all of which Obama has taken frontal bows for. The ACA was a Nancy Pelosi win, more than Obama’s, as it’s creation was mainly under her tutorage, with Obama coming in more at the last minute. As for our budget problems, Obama has seemingly disengaged in meeting with Congressional leaders or the Jobs Council in any genuine attempts to hammer out some kind of mutual fiscal policy boosting the economy. Instead Obama is putting more focus on improving his golf game and fundraisers in his ambitious bid for reelection.
Steve,
Maggie Mahar is the ACA equivalent to Paul Krugman’s keynesian policies. She sees no benefits in a competitive marketplace, which would also mean that she would not be advocating any kind of consumer driven policies as well — putting medical choices in the hands of medical consumers.