I still think this campaign is like an arm-wrestling match where Romney is expending everything he has to try to move Obama into a defensive position, but he just can’t budge him. But we know how that works. You fight and fight and fight and then, finally, your strength is gone and your arm is pinned back decisively. When I read articles about the Obama campaign’s cautious optimism, I’m still skeptical that it amounts to anything more than not wanting to curse themselves with overconfidence. At some point, maybe during the debates, Romney will expend the last measure of his strength, and his support will collapse. I still do not believe that this election will be closer than the last one. This thing is going to break decisively one way or the other. And my money is on it breaking toward the incumbent.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
56 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
You’re like a case study in the power of optimism. It’s one reason I’m addicted to the blog. From your rose-colored glasses to God’s retinas.
you crack me up. I just care that the Obama campaign never leaves any stone unturned. I take comfort in that.
I’ve swung back around to thinking Obama will win, especially after nothing the GOP did in Tampa connected,but I think the margin will be pretty much what the polls are showing now.
I’m with Steve. There just aren’t enough undecided voters out there to swing the election significantly from where the polls are now, and so much of the soft support for Romney is of the “anyone but a black man” vote – which, after four years of fearmongering, is IMO larger than it was in 2008 – that I don’t see much possibility for significant erosion there, either. And Romney isn’t anywhere close yet to making a case for himself that would erode much soft Obama support. I also don’t see any huge, unexpected GOTV surge on either side.
The only way the landscape shifts significantly before Nov. 6 is a huge campaign gaffe or scandal (most likely on Romney’s side), or an event outside anyone’s control like a European economic collapse or a major terror attack in the US that would hurt Obama. There’s plenty of time for the unexpected to happen, but with every passing week it grows less likely.
Unlikely voters? You know, the ones that aren’t polled. Just possible.
I just don’t see the polls holding the way they are. Not nationally, and not in Indiana or Missouri or Arizona or Georgia or North Carolina or Virginia.
I’ll give one example. In 1980, Carter remained stubbornly close in the polls, but his support was soft. After he lost the debate, his position eroded quickly. Then, on election day, it was obvious that Reagan won early on and the Democrats were eviscerated on the West Coast as none of them bothered to go vote.
There is a core of hardcore anti-Obama voters who will show up no matter what. But that’s about 30% of the electorate. I cannot honestly say that there is a pro-Romney vote that can be relied upon that exceeds one or two percent of the electorate.
If you are a poll watcher, what is hidden right now is the coming shift in voter enthusiasm. The convention will jack up Obama’s voting base. As all avenues begin to look blocked for Romney, his supporter’s enthusiasm will wane.
Romney will begin losing soft supporters, many of whom will move to Obama. Then he’ll start to lose undecideds in a major way, most of whom are younger and college educated. The Latinos will solidify behind Obama. And, finally, Republicans who can see the writing on the wall will start to express less interest in voting.
That’s how you see the likely voter model change and the numbers among independents shift.
It happened to Dukakis, it happened to Dole. Those are the best models, I think. The Dukakis race was more volatile, while the Dole race was less close all along. But the end-game dynamics should be similar.
Polls break at the last minute in mid to late October every time, especially in key states.
2008:
Obama was not decisively winning VA until early-mid October.
PA was two points until early October.
Nevada broke in early-mid October (McCain led previously).
Indiana: McCain led until late October, and finished aheaad in polling despite losing.
Colorado: Obama broke away late September.
North Carolina: McCain led until late September, and finished ahead in polling despite losing.
Florida: Obama broke away in late September.
Michigan: Neck and neck until mid-September.
Happens every year.
So where does that put Obama compared to last time around? Your histories suggest he’s ahead of the game if the old pattern holds. I guess the break could be in the other direction this time, though. But it just doesn’t feel that way.
See my response to Booman.
Yes, and did I ever worry or doubt that Obama was going to lose most of those states when the polls showed them as toss-ups?
Other than Indiana and North Carolina, I never worried.
Polls do not predict the election until people start voting.
I can’t tell if you understood my point or not, seeing as I didn’t make that clear in this post alone and relied on my posting history, but my original point was: I agree with Booman’s post, and all you people fretting about polls are chicken littles. The polls will break for Obama, big time.
I like to believe that there is a Silent Majority ready to vote for the cool black guy who has his shit together and isn’t Chicken Fucking Little. We’ll see.
I like to believe that there are voters who say all the “right” things to the pollsters and to their spouses, but in the privacy of the voting booth will vote for the guy that let them keep their kid on their insurance, or who helped close gramma’s doughnut hole, or got Bin Laden, etc. Not that they will ever admit it.
Muhammad, Muhammad Ali
Floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee.
I wonder how long-term the time horizon is for Obama’s rope-a-dope strategy.
I also wonder if he can overperform when there’s no pressure on him.
There’s plenty of pressure on him.
As long as he remains black there will always be pressure on him.
I’ve seen times when he’s sorta laid back until the brink of disaster. And then moved just in time to deal with the impending disaster.
But I understand what you are saying.
Skip ahead to 1:10 of this video. Who won the round?
Doesn’t make it any less scary while it’s happening.
Whenever I read the predictions here, I feel like I am living in an alternative (and I suppose drearier) universe.
I think there are a bunch of states that are still toss-ups, and they will decide the outcome of the election. I don’t think any of the models take into account the vast amounts of money that will be spent, mostly on the Republican side, because it is something that has not happened in a national election before.
I expect that the blanketing of the toss-up states with ads will swing enough voters that all the toss-ups go to Romney. Throw in the effects of voter ID, and maybe some non-toss-ups go to Romney as well (I’m thinking Pennsylvania). Between Romney and Ryan, we are looking at a ticket that will govern the country for the next 16 years.
I’m not citing any numbers. All I know is that the GOP has spent shitloads of money already, to little effect. It’s the law of diminishing returns.
http://short-sharp-shock.blogspot.com/2012/06/romney-ad-buys-and-diminishing-returns.html
I think that the amount of money spent will run rapidly into diminishing returns if it is applied to trying to run down President Obama. The public knows who he is, even after the continual attacks of the past 5 years. And a substantial number of independents who are aware of the attacks are appalled at GOP behavior. The public does not know who Romney is; telling the truth is best negative attack there. And that doesn’t have diminishing returns.
The question will be which will be the tossup states. Last week in as statistical hiccup, Nate Silver’s model showed South Carolina as the 15th likely tipping point state. (North Carolina was 10th, Ohio 1st). The question is whether the states in play will broaden over the coming two months like it did in 2008. For example, what’s wrong with Indiana this year besides the fact that it is home to Wellpoint and Eli Lilly, their employees, and their personal networks?
I am also optimistic about the final outcome, but I don’t see any way that the election isn’t closer than before, at least in terms of the electoral college. Even in a best-case scenario, I don’t see Obama winning Indiana again (the polls there are not even close), and it would take quite some shift to have him pick up MO, AZ, GA, or any other state that the didn’t win in 2008.
If you look at where things are now, the optimistic prediction is the same states as before, minus Indiana, with NC and FL as coin-flips. But it might get closer because (i) the republicans really do have a money advantage, (ii) Romney could conceivably do something to his advantage in the debates. Or…he could pull one of his total dweeb moves and seal it for Obama–but even then I think the electoral college math remains the same.
Or perhaps I’m wrong. Which new states do you see Obama winning, Boo, to make your BOLD prediction come true?
Can’t speak for Boo, but he is currently up in MO and w/i 3 points in GA. I think the GOP’s internals for AZ are not looking too hot right now, so yes, AZ is in play.
Regarding IN, with the Senate race being totally deadlocked, don’t count Obama out there. He was way down in INin 2008 at this point as well.
Am I predicting wins in aqll of those states? No, but I would be willing to bet at least one goes his way.
I think IN’s turnaround happened largely because of the amazingly intense GOTV drive by MoveOn and other groups. Will we have that same all-out effort this time, and will the GOP catching up on the technology diminish the advantage?
Has anyone polled the presidential race in IN?
Mitch Daniels’ betrayal on the Right to Work (for Less) law still rankles with many blue collar whites who are already hostile to Mitt “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” Rmoney.
The closeness of the senate race may not just be about Mourdock’s craziness.
Just judging from the collective yawn that greeted the GOP convention, I think Obama is winning enough to have some long coattails. The difference between an Obama speech/appearance and a RyanRomney one is just too overwhelming not to affect the election results. We’ll see if the Dem convention does better, but I think it will stir the excitement that the other one failed to ignite. There will be an Obama bounce that fades some, but RyanRomney have nothing left but ads.
Those ads are wild cards, as are the next economic numbers, but everyone’s seen the ads and the more they’re shown the more they’ll be ignored or resented. Blitz advertising produces diminishing, even negative returns: If I see the ad for the latest magic rag 5 times and don’t want it, I’m not going to buy it because I see it 50 times. If the advertiser has some new and interesting pitch, massive placements might work. But the GOP’s got nuthin. They shot their wad at the convention, and it’s inconceivable that they can come up with anything to offset the boredom and irritation of their hammering.
Their money will buy turnout, but that won’t be enough if the Dems keep playing at the top of their game.
I totally agree. Here’s another good piece on the diminishing returns of political advertising — the comments are also worth reading:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2012/08/06/burning-a-hole/
Obama and his campaign are going to have to specifically work on getting long coattails. And hard enough that those folks will owe him when they get to Congress.
Indiana is South Carolina without the accent or the grits…
There are a lot of states like that. I think that if they had grits at Bob Evans that might help their perspective. Also, Richmond IN was a major center of KKK organizing during the 1920s; some of the descendants of those guys are probably still there.
Not to mention, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is the headquarters of Wellpoint and Eli Lilly and lots of their employees.
Thanks for the response! But I don’t see where you are getting those numbers. There was one screwy poll from Ras that put Obama up one in MO, but two other, contemporaneous polls had Romney up by a large margin:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mo/missouri_romney_vs_obama-1800.html
There hasn’t been any polling of Georgia for a while, but the polls that exist favored Romney by 8-11 points:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ga/georgia_romney_vs_obama-2150.html
Now, maybe with a Boo-sized triple slice of optimism you might see these closing, but we aren’t close yet.
oops, meant this in response to japa21 above.
Boo:
I don’t want to start a pissing match, I’m just wondering what you’d say about the points Stoller makes here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/10-arguments-the-republicans-arent-making-or-why-the-gop-does
nt-mind-losing-in-2012.html
As he points out, it’s not hypocrisy stopping the GOPers from using these 10.
I think he is a stupid shithead.
Does that constitute a pissing match?
I feel like it is beneath me to even respond, but I’ll note that this administration is by far the least corrupt in memory. And that could go back to Truman. The administration is so scandal-free that most of what we’ve seen has been completely manufactured (Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Shirley Sherrod, etc.). As for Treasury officials having connections to big banks and Wall Street, twas ever thus. As for Afghanistan, that’s what he promised. Stoller’s arguments on the mortgage industry and trade agreements are defensible, but he’s being silly when he expects the Republicans to use those against the president.
Frankly, I’d prefer to see the GOP attack Obama on civil liberties and privacy and dissent, but only if they really mean it. Which, let’s be honest, they wouldn’t.
Like I said, a stupid stupid set of arguments.
You mean, like their defense of Medicare?
Yes. Although Stoller wants them to be that disingenuous across the board or it is evidence that they don’t really want to win.
If you read his post, he claims it’s because they really don’t want to win. That they aren’t pulling out all the stops. Might they still win? Sure. But his point is that they(GOP) aren’t leaving everything on the field, to borrow a sports metaphor.
The administration is so scandal-free that most of what we’ve seen has been completely manufactured (Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Shirley Sherrod, etc.)
The three you mention aren’t scandals. He points out Geithner and Daschle. Unless you consider stiffing Uncle Sam not a scandal. I wonder why both of those, especially Geithner, was quickly swept under the rug. Actually I don’t wonder, I know.
probably because they weren’t part of the administration when it came to light and from what I remember wasn’t Geithner’s a clerical error and he repaid it before the confirmation hearing.
Oh yes.
This is also a good description of how a big-time fix works in boxing, only blown up bigger. Both sides win. The loser and his handlers get some money and…if the promoter/manager/etc. that throw the fight are not a total losers themselves..either the fighter that threw the bout or one of their other fighters will get a chance to be champ eventually.
Meanwhile everybody makes a profit, including the media that cover the fight and keep their mouths shut about any funny business going on. Only the marks that pay to see the fix and the other marks that bet on the loser are out some dough. And they deserve it, because they are dumb as sticks.
Nice
See ya in 2016.
Money talks; nobody walks.
Bet on it.
AG
I think that we won’t have to stay up long on election night, but that the victory will be in the 4-5 point range and that Obama will lose states from 2008 (Indiana – certainly; North Carolina – likely; Florida – possibly). I get the sense that opinions are too firmly set this year for the numbers to break heavily in Obama’s direction, even if Romney’s campaign collapses in October.
that’s why my prediction is bold. It defies common wisdom. Remember on election night that I have made this prediction for over a year now. So, I will be judged on that, and I welcome the judgment.
Indeed it is, and I hope you’re right. I’m cautious by nature.
At what point in the campaign would it make sense for the
Obama campaign to stop trying to increase electoral college margin,
and start trying to have congressional/senatorial coattails ?
Is there much of a chance of getting control of the house back ?
I do worry that at least the first 2 years of second term could actually
be pretty grim if the congress and/or senate are run by the R-Knuckleheads.
=r
Those are not in conflict. Energized supporters of downticket candidates help boost the popular vote.
Well, the truth is that they are making zero effort to expand the Electoral College through the expenditure of resources. They are organizing on the ground, but they aren’t doing (non-internet) advertising in or visiting McCain states. They are focused on defending their 2008 turf because it is way more than sufficient.
But the race won’t change in any McCain states through a little more advertising or a few more visits. It will just change on its own accord as people give up on Romney.
I recommend a little effort in Arizona, Montana and Missouri to help the Senate races there.
A visit to Georgia and some ads would spook Romney, and I’d do it for that reason alone. There’s at least one congressional district I’d visit in South Carolina to help boost registration and motivation. I’d also focus on Wisconsin and Indiana because senate races there are going to be close.
But, really, it’s about winning Ohio and Virginia, and that’s all she wrote.
We can win back the House, although it won’t be with any kind of cushion.
The chances are increasing with the GOTP boldly reaffirming their intention to sabotage progress.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/republicans-scoff-at-white-house-theory-that-obama-victor
y-will-break-gop-fever.php?ref=fpa
The ‘breaking of the fever’ may be determined by how big the loss
is – if the dems take the house, hold the senate, and then reed
does fix the filibuster rule enough that some big legislative stuff
can get done, that could be the thing that breaks the fever, or at
leasts catalyzes some change in the Republican party and mind set.
However, Citizens United and the state of the Supremes may temper that.
I am daring myself to be hopeful on these fronts.
-r
The crowd at the Convention site is wild with enthusiasm. Energy level just amazing and they’re all having fun. The sight of Jeff Bridges mixing drinks, as only he can do, is hysterical.
There’s going to be a bounce for all Dems from this Convention.
“I’ll have a caucasian, Gary.”
Why the Obama campaign is cautiously confident in victory
General rule is that the POTUS incumbent wins a second term. Takes a strong opponent, with a clear, simple, and positive message, and an incumbent that contributed to a problem, along with being unable, incapable, or unwilling to fix it, for the challenger to win.
The reasons why it appears close is the MSM needs those advert dollars and CU increased the amount of available advert dollars. If the MSM were honest about the current state of the race, even Adelson would turn off his GOP money machine.
Romney has no political chops and Whitman and Fiorina demonstrated that money can’t make up for that deficit.
This graph tells the big story on how vast the OfA ground game is. It already swamps Romney. Now maybe I’m wrong, but it sure as heck takes more than 2 months and however much money Romney has to get field offices up and running effectively right?
Besides which, the money will be divided up and Romney camp will have to use some of it for adverts right? Unless the Romney camp expects to completely outsource it’s ad campaign to RNC and SuperPacs?
“Obama’s Ground Game”
http://mischiefsoffaction.blogspot.ie/2012/09/the-asymmetric-ground-game.html
Don’t overread this. Republicans have a permanent network of churches that function as field offices in addition to their formal field offices.
but rather realistic.
I’ve seen the debates as the proverbial straw that breaks the pachyderm’s back since Mutt became the heir apparent to the rightwingnut throne.
I’ve also thought that the straw would most likely be in the form of “thanks for your contribution to Obamacare”, or somesuch, which the apparent embrace of it at the convention only makes more likely.
And then BHO can use all the lies and BS he’s been spreading to beat him within in an inch of his political life, which will end election day after much agony.