I don’t like to mince words. Mitt Romney is getting slapped around worse than Cory Booker after a Meet the Press appearance. There are redheaded stepchildren and rented mules who are having an easier time of it than the Mittster. In Nate Silver’s model, if the election were held today, Romney would have a 2.2% chance of winning. His chances on November 6th are down to 18.1%, and they are only that high because Silver is still assuming a bit of a convention bounce and some economic headwinds that will keep Obama’s numbers down. In any case, things are bad enough that Silver decided to try to figure out if Obama could possibly do as well or better in November as he did in 2008. Things are bad enough that Chris Cillizza decided to tell us all that they won’t get much worse. Mr. Cillizza assures us that Mitt Romney won’t get blown out, and Mr. Silver basically agrees, although he allows that it’s at least as likely as Romney coming back to win.
Let’s start with Cillizza’s argument. He says that 2008 was a historically good year for the Democrats, which is true. It’s always hard to break your own record for excellence. Cillizza also says this:
“Not only did then-candidate Obama galvanize a national movement behind his campaign, he also benefited from the fact that opponent Sen. John McCain could never get out from under George W. Bush’s shadow or convince the American public that he was well-versed on the economy.”
Obama’s national movement still exists. He’s going to shatter his record for attracting small donor donations, and his sixty-plus field offices in Iowa just started taking people to the polls today. As for John McCain, he was a flawed candidate, but he was revered by tens of millions of Americans, including the vast majority of the press corp. He served his country and he paid a very high personal price, and that counts for something. Mitt Romney appeals to no one. There are no people who revere him. There are no people who think he’s paid his dues. If John McCain had a rematch and took more care with selecting his running mate, he’d do a lot better than Mitt Romney is going to do because he is a much better politician with a lot more innate appeal than Mitt Romney. Which is why Cillizza’s next point is overstated.
…the spending edge that Obama had over McCain not only won’t be replicated but should be reversed. Romney and the Republican party have $40 million more to spend than Obama and the Democratic party in the final weeks of the campaign — a not-insignificant sum split over just six weeks. And that doesn’t include outside groups, where Republicans continue to dominate.
I don’t think Cillizza’s numbers are right. It’s Obama who has $40 million more than Romney. The problem is that the RNC has almost $70 million more than the DNC.
President Obama ended August with nearly $40 million more cash in the bank than Republican challenger Mitt Romney, campaign financial reports indicated…
FEC filings indicate the RNC ended August with $76.6 million cash on hand to the DNC’s $7.1 million.
Obama and the DNC together started September with $95.9 million, The Hill said. The Romney campaign and the RNC had $112 million available.
That’s not chump change, but a $16 million differential isn’t too big of a deal when you spread it out across the whole battleground. It’s the outside money that is worrisome. But the outside money can’t do anything other than advertisements and mailers. The main thing that this money parity is doing is preventing Obama from trying to organize new states like Missouri and Arizona. So, in that sense, it is narrowing the president’s potential upside. But I can guarantee you that Obama would be expanding the map if he had the same money advantage he enjoyed four years ago.
The last part of Cillizza’s argument I want to address is this:
No one — not even the most loyal Obama allies — would argue that the political environment in 40 days will be anywhere close to as favorable as it was in November 2008.
I don’t agree. The president is running against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They are a much weaker pair than John McCain and Sarah Palin. Romney is the worst retail politician I have even seen on this level, and that includes Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle. And Paul Ryan’s Medicare ideas are the most poisonous and ridiculous ideas I have ever seen a major party run with in a national election.
And there’s something else to consider. President Obama has proved himself. We don’t have to wonder about a 3 am phone call anymore. If you look at Nate Silver’s chart, Obama has improved his position the most in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. That’s because he isn’t so exotic and untested anymore. It may also be because Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Obama isn’t going to win in those deep red states, but he has improved his position simply by going to work every day and doing a competent job.
Something else to look at are Nate Silver’s charts on the projected popular vote and the projected likelihood of victory. Both charts show a basically uninterrupted upward trajectory for Obama from June until today. The only downward slope in the charts is from an adjustment Silver imposed to counteract a possibly temporary post-convention bounce. Every day the campaign goes on, Obama’s projected share of the vote goes up. We all know there must be a ceiling, but it’s anybody’s guess when Obama will hit it.
What’s limiting the size of Obama’s potential victory are two factors. The first is that Romney and outside groups have enough money to keep Obama pinned in the battleground states. The second is that there are only a few states out there that Obama narrowly lost in 2008. To win more than one or two extra states, he needs get his share of the popular vote up to the very high 50’s, which is not easy to do. Romney will give him a shot at it though. I have seen nothing from him to indicate that he will stop bleeding before Election Day. Early voting might even be a curse.
What models and conventional wisdom can’t measure is a disaster of the magnitude of the Romney/Ryan campaign.
Three factors. You left out drones.
Nice.
Go count the comments on LGM and Balloon Juice today. Count the ‘I’ll vote for Obama if it matters posts…
There’s a feedback loop being set up, where the safer Obama’s re-election, the greater the temptation-moral imperative-impulse to cast a bullet ballot or vote third-party at the top of the ticket. And that affects the margin.
It may not matter. Probably won’t matter in terms of win-loss. But there are people to whom it matters that it may not matter.
The Left, fissiparous creature that it is, is always looking for a reason to split.
The Conscience Whigs are coming. This at least has the advantage of being a not-silly issue to split over.
It will be a very insignificant number who opt out, I think less than 1/2% nation-wide, and Romney is likely to lose far more to the purity trolls on his end in any case. But I’ll add it’s the kind of blogging event that pisses me off: the whole fight was set up by a dumb set of replies to Conor Friedersdorf’s hissy fit, a man who was going to go out of his way to find a reason not to support Obama in any case. So why give it all this attention? Dumb.
So why give it all this attention? Dumb.
Because it goes to the heart of a generations-old issue on the Left generally. Friedersdorf’s not really the issue.
A fight as old as Kautsky and Bernstein. Whether, and how much, you can participate in the (corrupt, compromised, dirty) political process, and not betray the Revolution. Whether M. Millerand should, can, must, go into the Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet.
Then, it was whether the ten-hour work day just pushes Der Tag further into the future.
Now it’s whether advancing social democracy is worth it, if it comes at the cost of not shrinking, or even strengthening, the national-security state.
This will go round and round long after we’re all gone, unless and until the Heavenly Jerusalem, or the One Big Union, or the Worker’s Paradise descends in the meantime.
Lenin advocated coalition with moderate left parties in inverse proportion to the radicalization of the majority of working people. To wit:
http://onebookafteranother.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/lenin-left-wing-communism-an-infantile-disorder/
A piece on Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder.”
Given the limits of our current electoral system, that won’t really matter.
Is it just me, or does anyone else here in the commentariat get the sense that BooMan is enjoying his blogging a little more than usual these days?
It is just you. Boo is his usual taciturn, humorless self.
Stroke of genius putting loveable Bay Buchanan out there for those not getting enough charm from the boss.
Sununu is another gem.
Yes, and Jennifer Rubin. I bet Ann keeps her eye on that one.
Booman, I hope you’re right.
I spent 40 years from TX to SC and I don’t believe a word of it …. but GOD, I hope you’re right.
I hope he’s right too. I’m thinking though that Nate’s statistical model is improving mostly due to some Romney meltdown and Obama’s ground game in the swing states. That organization knows how to map out a plan and execute it.
But in most national poll composites I see (which isn’t a lot I admit), I don’t see Obama making much of an upward move north of 50%. And it appears to be a stubborn ceiling. Unless that shifts, I don’t see how this election turns out to be significantly different than 2008.
Agree with Taibbi This Presidential Race Should Never Have Been This Close.
Why stop there with “this one”? No presidential race in the modern era should have been close. In fact, if the world could vote, I’m pretty sure I recall 85% voting Democratic.
I get what Taibbi’s saying, but Obama could be FDR incarnate and running against Stalin or Hitler’s mangled corpse and still not break 65% of the vote in today’s era.
Taibbi’s wrong. It doesn’t speak to the brokenness of the system.
It speaks to the existence of evil in the world.
It speaks to the fact that people are complicated and not all nice, and some of them are not at all nice, at all.
People are not just hedonistic calculators. They’re not just utility-maximizers.
They’re Protestants, and other things.
They’re white, and other things.
They’re Northerners and blue collar workers and Yankee fans and fathers and motorists and gardeners, and other things.
They have many self-interests. Some of which the left speaks to. And many it does not. As a result, it doesn’t get 99% of the vote. Never going to, either.
We won’t even get close until we learn to tell more than one kind of story.
You’re never going to get to 99%. I think 70% would be about the maximum anyone could ever get to. Basic conflicting needs and interes and the fact of that resources are not unlimited mean that some folks are always going to be unhappy and so looking for an alternative. That’s probably a good thing, as it keeps the political system dynamic and sensitive to social change.
Booman Tribune ~ Yes, a Blow Out is Possible
What other types of stories would you tell?
And if people have conflicting interests, isn’t the political system not always going to be perched somewhere near the 50-50 mark as each side tries to build a winning coalition of less conflicting interests?
It is only when one side (and only one side) is grossly incompetent at building a coalition of less conflicting interests that a blow-out can occur, and in this case we are defining a blow-out as a margin of only 55-45 or greater.
But in reality most elections are contests between two flawed individuals/parties/sets of interests where one is only marginally better that the other at coalition building, because both inherit an existing infrastructure of support somewhere on the lines of Romney’s infamous 47 to 47 with 6% undecideds.
a purist does well to get 1% because he/she appeals to such a narrow segment of the community who live very compromised lives. Would Jesus Christ get 10% if he stood today? He’d be crucified first, or hit by a drone…
If racism, sexism, religion and personal, private adult behaviors were left out of political discourse, how would that 50/50 split be maintained?
In most democracies you have right and left wing parties that represent, broadly speaking, people with property/assets/equity/businesses or high level professional skills (knowledge capital) and those who don’t – who rely on their labour, often manual, and generally hourly paid rather than salaried, or who are employed by the state or otherwise dependent on the state for at least part of their income.
In most societies, the left has a natural majority as there are generally more people without substantial assets than there are people who own businesses etc. However most people want to be rich and thus aspire to and often identify with the propertied classes even though they themselves may have relatively little. Or they are directly dependent for their job etc. on the propertied classes and may feel under pressure to identify with the interests of their employers etc.
Power for those with property is mediated mainly through their private wealth, better educational opportunities and better connected networks of contacts. Power for those without significant property or professional standing is dependent on their Union or more directly on the state intervening on their behalf to maintain some semblance of a level playing field though public educational, health care, housing, transport and social welfare provision and laws which guarantee consumer, human, employment, and patient rights.
That is why the Right always wants to reduce the power of the state by reducing taxes, regulations, and “entitlement programmes which proportionately benefit the less well off more. The Churches also find themselves in competition with the state for the loyalty, affection, and dependence of the less well off without which thy would have no power. They thus oppose laws which empower people to make choices independently of church teaching regardless of whether those making the choices are members of their churches or not. Essentially they seek to criminalize behaviour not in accordance with their theology, or at least prohibit the state from facilitating it. The rich make common cause with the Churches as they have a common objective to limit the power of the state.
Thus “racism, sexism, religion and personal, private adult behaviors” are an integral part of the political processes used by the Right to overcome their natural minority status and divide and rule the majority. If they were removed from political discourse it would be much harder for the Right to overcome their natural minority status within a democracy and politics would be dominated by liberals/socialists seeking to increase the power of the state to balance the powers that private wealth confers on the wealthy.
The Right makes great play on the importance of property rights as mediated through the markets which it calls “freedom” and which it contrasts to decisions made by state which it characterizes as communism/red tape imposed by unelected bureaucrats – conveniently forgetting that those un-elected bureaucrats work under the direction of elected governments, as opposed to private sector bureaucrats (managers) who work under their direction…and in their direct interests.
Right wingers regard themselves as the wealth creators conveniently forgetting that the wealth is actually created for them by the people who work for them and within a framework of laws and physical infrastructure provided and enforced for them by the state not to mention the often non-renewable and finite natural resources they consume in the process. They seek to force the state to act in their interests by threatening to withdraw their capital and invest it elsewhere this making things even harder fr those without capital/jobs.
Globalisation has enabled them to play off one state against another in return for their investment thus weakening the role of state in societies more generally and strengthen the hand of the rich versus the poor. Because the population of the world is increasing and technology is making production less dependent on labour, there is a secular decline in real wages worldwide, and a concomitant increase in the power of the global elite relative to the majority in all states. A globalised economy without a concomitant globalised polity to regulate it and act in the interests of the poorer majority means the rich have essentially changed the ball game and bypassed and marginalised the state institutions which had traditionally sought to level the playing field for all.
So the national level political processes we see today are gradually becoming irrelevant. The real decisions are being made in the Boardrooms of Goldman Sachs et al on a global basis playing off one government against another. The Right has won by taking the ball and playing on a different pitch altogether – one currently not amenable to democratic control. What we are seeing today in the US Presidential election is mostly a sideshow.
(Now, aren’t you glad you asked?!?)
So we agree? A majority is easily achieved by the wealthy/power/elite through various forms of manipulation and emotional blackmail. Until a majority is squeezed enough that dumpster diving replaces grocery store shopping. Then the people revolt and replace some of the power elite with a new power elite that throw the people some crumbs for a while.
That’s partly true, but the bigger problems is that the global elite are now virtually beyond all democratic control and there is no Global polity to Govern them.
The other problem is that the gradually increasing inequality between rich and poor is creating periodic demand crises where the economy crashes because no one has enough money to buy stuff. The rich can only consume so much – growth in the general economy can only happen if general purchasing power increases and the reverse has been happening. For a long time declining real wages were supplemented by increased private borrowing, and then that because unsustainable and crashed.
For growth to become sustainable again we actually have to reduce income inequality to sustain real demand. Unfortunately the political system is now so skewed it is highly unlikely that income inequality will actually be reduced, and so we are all condemned to recurring economic crises..
I think this part of Taibbi’s piece is more accurate:
The mere fact that Mitt Romney is even within striking distance of winning this election is an incredible testament to two things: a) the rank incompetence of the Democratic Party, which would have this and every other election for the next half century sewn up if they were a little less money-hungry and tried just a little harder to represent their ostensible constituents, and b) the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio the Occupy movement has been talking about since last year.
Was really recommending the whole article — and often try to select snippets that don’t lessen the surprise, thoughtfulness, and humor of reading the whole thing or doesn’t turn-off Democratic partisans enough that they have a knee-jerk response and refuse to read it. In retrospect, should have lifted a bit from his brutal take-down of Mitt — that’s what get politic partisans to click and read.
That said, agree with you as to where Taibbi nailed the Democratic Party.
Yeah, still waiting for Taibbi to demonstrate the slightest clue about organizing in our political system.
So a new video is out of Romney talking about how Bain would “harvest” the companies they buy for profits. Perfect timing – just when the 47% thing is starting to fade a bit they get another video reinforcing the same image.
I wonder if we’re going to keep seeing these little “discoveries” about Romney trickle out over the next 5 week. Maybe ending in an actual tax return or two.
One other comment on that video was Romney saying it take 8 years to turn a company around. And yet he criticizes Obama for not turning the economy around in 3.5 years.
If the Obama campaign even has the tax returns, I think it unlikely they will leak them unless the race tightens appreciably. Lots of downside risk to that, and I could even see Rove leaking some in order to try to pin it on Obama. He did similar things in Texas, accusing the opponent of one of his clients, for instance, of bugging Rove’s office when it was Rove himself who placed the bug.
To quote Arthur Gilroy, “Bet on it.”
This bears repeating and going viral –
“One other comment on that video was Romney saying it take 8 years to turn a company around. And yet he criticizes Obama for not turning the economy around in 3.5 years.”
…although part of me suspects this is just strategic trash-talking designed to dispirit any Romney voters who may peruse this site. Reminds me, in a way, of your ingenious rat-fucking of Larry Johnson and his whitey tape.
I’m happy Obama is up in the polls, and I agree Romney is a terrible candidate, but this thing isn’t over till the votes are counted. Four debates and a month of unknowable domestic and world events lie ahead. Maybe I’m just too scarred by the 2000 and 2004 elections, where the country elected a fucking idiot, but I’d rather have not have Dems dance on the Romney/Ryan grave a month before voters in most states cast their ballots.
What the models really don’t measure is the likely collapse in voter enthusiasm on the GOP side. They’re going to get beaten like, well, rented mules. Their protests about biased polling notwithstanding, they’re about to have to accept it. They don’t like Mitt, the tea party movement lost its outsider appeal and appears to be mostly spent, and these are people who have convinced themselves that they are so surrounded by enemies that the entire world seems to be against them. (They’re right about this last point.) This may turn out to be the election that moved evangelicals back out of politics altogether… it was great when they could win, but it’ll be dirty business again now that they can’t.
As terrible a candidate as Romney is, the truth is that they are losing on the fundamentals: they have no policy goals that voters like, and they can’t sidestep that fact all the way to November. As long as extremists control their party, they will keep losing badly. As soon as moderates take the party back, evangelicals really will quit in droves. Their coalition is shattered, and this time I don’t think it’s coming back.
That’s what their protests about polling are about – they’re worried (scared sh-less) about their voter turnout and impact on down ticket races.
Booman Tribune ~ Yes, a Blow Out is Possible
It’s easy to forget it now, but Obama in 2008 really wasn’t all that more experienced than Sarah Palin at running anything major, and a lot of moderates worried that being a gifted orator wasn’t a sufficient qualification for running a country.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and Obama has proved himself to be reasonably competent at running a major administration and two Presidential campaigns. Romney can’t run on his record as a Mormon Bishop, as a
vultureventure capitalist, as a Massachusetts Governor, or as a hero of the Olympic movement. He can’t pose as an ordinary guy from next door or as a war hero, as an animal lover or as a champion of good causes. He appeals to people who want to get rich and don’t care about who they hurt in the process. Who claim that what’s good for them is good for everyone whether they like it or not. There’s a constituency in that, but how big is it?please, Frank! Harvard Law Review for starters …
How many employees did he manage there? I’m not disputing his brilliance as an editor, orator or lawyer. But he never ran a major business or a state and had only 2/3 years experience as a senator at the outset of his campaign. At the time he had no major economic, foreign policy, military or business experience to speak of. Nearly all those weaknesses have now been addressed.
I don’t know how many ppl work for the Harvard Law Review (shall I find out for you?).
I’m just pointing out that how you set up the issue is misleading. Barack Obama had already a lifetime of working with people – both as colleague and in a leadership position. In fact his capacity to work cooperatively helped him advance to leadership. Yes, the 2008 campaign was his first large scale operation. Compare that with Sarah P managing her part in the 2008 campaign. It’s not magic, it’s talent and practice, and Barack Obama already had plenty of practice.
We’ve always known the Achille’s heel of the Right is that they always believe in their own hype.
It looks like their chickens are coming home to roost?
Following the money, and it’s exit from Romney’s campaign it’s also good to remember that Obama has more bucks in his war chest and the media is required to provide the lowest buy in for campaigns but can charge the highest for SuperPack money. The example I saw was an ad Obama might buy for $125 would cost a SuperPac $900!
In the final 39 days, Romney is getting less campaign money to take him farther and the donors for the SuperPacs realize they’re being milked.
didn’t know that, very interesting