My working assumption for over a year has been that this election would follow a familiar pattern in American politics. We elect presidents, and then we either fire them or we give them a rousing endorsement. If you ignore 2004, you have to go back into the the 19th-Century to find a counterexample. The only exception to this rule in the 20th-Century was when FDR ran for his third and fourth terms, but the circumstances of those elections were so exceptional that we can’t draw any conclusions from them. In any case, it would be nearly impossible for any president to improve on FDR’s performance in 1936, in which he won over 60% of the vote an his opponent was left with 8 electoral votes. Considering that running for a third-term was controversial and ultimately led to a constitutional amendment precluding such a possibility, it is no wonder that FDR did worse in 1940 and 1944 than he did in 1936.
Almost all pundits, whether they be conservatives, progressives, or corporate-paid in-betweens, have been predicting that this election would either follow the example of 2004 when an incumbent was reluctantly given a second term or the example of 1992 when a president was tossed out because of a weak economy. I have never believed that either scenario was likely.
The reason, in addition to history, is the massive differential in quality between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and the massive differential in the popularity of the truthful positions for which they stand. I have had faith that both quality and truth will ultimately win out in this election. And I believe that that is what we are starting to see. I also believe that if we were still operating in a Fairness Doctrine era, Obama would be clearly ahead in at least forty states. If Obama were white, we had sensible campaign finance laws, and we were operating in an era without the controversy over Roe v. Wade, I believe that Obama would be leading in 49 or 50 states. Even with our economic difficulties, the difference in quality and platform between the two candidates and the two parties is so massive, that only an enormous right-wing media wurlitzer, huge corporate funding, a strong anti-choice movement, and latent racism are keeping Romney competitive at all.
And, yet, despite all these fingers on the scale, Obama is probably going to beat Romney worse than he beat McCain. I predict that before long, we will see a couple of states that no one thought would be in play are polling neck-and-neck, and I predict Obama will win one or more of them.
I can’t say that I predicted that Romney would be a dunce about an assassination in Libya or that a video of one of his fundraisers would emerge and damage his candidacy. No one can predict anything with that kind of specificity. What I predicted is that the quality differential between the candidates would show up and make a decisive difference in the campaign, and that the American people would reelect Obama with enthusiasm.
I believe that is what is what we are witnessing right now. That is what is unfolding before our eyes as we speak.
I will give you 3 states which might surprise: GA, AZ and MO. He might even pull out IN. Latest polling haas him down 6, but Romney was only at 47% which gives a lot of room for Obama to grow.
I also have a feeling we might see a surprise in one of the mountain states. Just a feeling, that is all.
So the Rep gambled that a platform of denial(s) would be the best red meat of all. “Just say no!” declared Nancy Reagan and just as all things Reagan, the new GOP remade her intent and assumed her logic would translate into followers without leaders. Success!
But for many of us, the real red meat that a leader brings home is plans that contain real solutions. Obama has delivered on that. Maybe his delivery has been less than we assumed it would be but he has and he will deliver red meat solutions.
Bill Clinton worked hard to pull all the facts into the Obama story and lay them out for a Country hungry for the best kind of red meat…American success.
Ann’s shrill, ‘just stop it’ is falling on deaf ears.
Thea how come when Gallip asked whether Government was doing too much or too little, 54 percent said too much, and only 39 percent said too little?
Why does every survey that asks whether you would prefer a less taxes and less government services vs. more taxes and more government services indicate most Americans want smaller government?
Obama has no better than a fifty percent chance of winning this election, despite having the media in the tank, and running against the worst politician since Wendell Wilkie!
Incidentally, the reason for this is also the reason that Republicans are generally failures once they get into office. It’s because it’s easy to say hypothetically that you would like a smaller government, but once it comes time to get into specifics, you find it much more difficult to figure out exactly where that reduction can take place.
Wendell Wilkie was an honorable man in an age of political machines the likes of which we haven’t seen in 60 years. A veteran, a businessman, an internationalist, a bipartisan in a partisan world and a man willing to do the hard work of the people.
Your denigration of him says far more about you than about him.
I think poor Wendell got confused with Tom Dewey or Alf Landon. Willkie was a good liberal who nearly switched parties after the election to trigger a party realignment along conservative/liberal lines. It took 24 years, LBJ, and the civil rights movement to trigger that realignment.
actually, he started out a Democrat and switched, partly in response to the horrendous treatment of Blacks by Southern Democrats.
He also met covertly with Roosevelt after the 1940 election about the possibility of forcing a realignment…
DerFarm,
He’s bashing Wendle Wilkie so he can pretend that FDR and his ideas weren’t actually popular.
You are gonna be unhappy on Nov 8. I am gonna be happy.
Good times.
If you were asking those questions in a reality-based manner – trying to understand how Obama is pulling away into a comfortable win despite the results of those polls – you would be asking an interesting question.
But you’re not. You’re going to be completely stunned in November, or make up some cheesy excuses about how Obama didn’t really really win.
The New Black Panthers might be your best bet for pretending you weren’t wrong, but as you point out, there’s always the option of whining about the media.
Pulling away?
Gallup tracking 47-47?
Really? Or is the mainstream media “working the refs”?
Hmmmm,,,
Only suckers cherry-pick individual polls because they tell them what they want to hear.
And in your case, even cherry-picking the most favorable poll only gets you to a tie. What do you think that means?
From your mouth to God’s Ears, Boo.
But, uuuummmmmmm… For Obama to get more EV, he has to take everything he did + at least one more state (or take a state that he didn’t that is more than whatever he loses).
For the sake of argument, assume that Obama takes VA, FL, and NC (pretty good chance at VA and FL, NC ??? not so much maybe but …).
Indiana is out of reach, at least for right now. Arizona is probably out of reach. Missouri? I want some of what you’re smoking. In theory, GA, in practice please overnight your tobacco.
You might be right in 4 weeks. That is an eternity at this point. And I must say, stranger things have happened this year (SANTORUM was a leading GOP candidate?????).
I guess we’ll see.
Are you actually watching Mitt Romney’s campaign?
If Obama beat a war hero in 2008 in Indiana and lost my like 12 votes in Missouri, why wouldn’t he win those states this time around?
Because you haven’t seen a poll predicting it yet?
Mitt Romney is being taken down by his own party at this point. They are ripping the flesh off the bones.
The last time a candidate was savaged like this by members of his own party was when the City Bosses turned on McGovern.
Don’t believe me? Watch.
Actually, I AM watching the campaign right now, and what I’m seeing is the the 47% crap is going over quite well with the Base and the “Independant” RW Republicans that haven’t yet decided. And in Georgia, Missouri, and Indiana the these are the effective majority electorate.
You might be right, Booman. A campaign that is flailing this hard can certainly say enough to kill its chances of getting any of the currently acknowledged swing states, and I suppose enough to put something back into play. But enough to keep the angry white people from wanting the Black Man out of the White House? I’m not so sure about that.
So, yeah. I’m waiting for a poll verification of what your saying.
If Obama beat a war hero in 2008 in Indiana and lost my like 12 votes in Missouri, why wouldn’t he win those states this time around?
Because Obama’s favorables are ten points lower now than they were in the fall of 2008.
Because Obama’s 2008 campaign represented an unusual break from harsh partisan alignment, and the Republicans and Republican-leaners he won last time have mostly gone home to their party.
No, they haven’t.
If the election were held today, Obama would win at least the 53.9% he won four years ago. He’s already polling at 52% in some polls and that’s with undecideds. His favorables have moved into the mid-50’s and he’s running against the most unpopular man in America with the worst favorables of any candidate in recorded history.
I strongly suspect that Obama will clear 55% of the two-party electorate and will probably do better than that.
And he’s not just going to pick up stronger support in states he won last time. Arizona is ripe for the picking and so is Missouri. If things don’t go well for Romney in the debates, keep your eyes on Georgia, too.
No, they haven’t.
Yes, they have, BooMan. Don’t just check your gut; do some research.
Obama’s favorables four years ago were just below 60%. Today, they are about 50%. Realclearpolitics has old polling aggregates, as well as current numbers. Do you think I just pulled the number 10 out of my hat? Go look!
His favorables have NOT moved into the mid-50s; they are at or just above 50. RCP has them at 51.2%
I see a lot of opinion and prediction in your comment, but very little evidence. And most of the factual claims you make are demonstrably false.
If all that was true, the GOP would have become a permanent minority party long ago.
There’s a poll in AZ (by “Purple Strategies,” FWIW) showing Obama down by only 3.
So this may well be starting now.
I was going to say Arizona might now be in play and Obama’s chance in NC has really improved in another poll when Romney has led in almost every poll throughout.
I keep reading Nate Silver watering down Obama’s chances at a landslide by referring to the economy and its historical effect on presidential races.
But what about 1936? The economy wasn’t going gangbusters then, either, but the electorate nevertheless backed FDR in numbers not seen before or since. Isn’t this election more like 1936 where the economy is concerned than any other post-WWII election?
might be.
I remember quite clearly, my grandmother saying that she voted Republican every election of her life … except when the nation needed FDR.
I think she cribbed the saying from someone else, but I can’t find the reference.
Nate Silver doesn’t, but the assumptions built into his model do tend to treat the economy as it affected past elections. It is good that he is not bending the model to fit this election. That makes it useful for future elections.
And to have a 9%-10% probability of a landslide this far out given the depth of historical data in Nate Silver’s model is not what I would call watering down.
Also, it will be good for Obama voters to believe it’s a close election and turn out in record numbers again, just for the effects on the downticket races.
GDP growth was over 10% in 1934, 1935, and 1936.
The economy was still hurting, but people could see things dramatically getting better in FDR’s first term.
I might be showing my age but, you know that phase in any presidency where you get absolutely sick of seeing the president’s mug? I’m getting that way about Mitt Romney and he’s not even president.
That line Peggy Noonan had about him reminding her of Nixon made me look. And there it was: That look of impetuous entitlement Nixon had around his mouth, I could almost hear him saying, “You won’t have Mitt Romney to kick around any more!”. Nixon took himself too seriously too…
I might be showing my age but, if you know who Peggy Noonan is and you are willing to admit to taking her advice on the subject, that’s really saying something about the GOP candidate.
McMahon’s ad blitz turns Connecticut Senate race into battleground
No.
Independents and Democrats undecided …
UConn/Hartford Courant Poll Shows McMahon, Murphy In Dead Heat
That the “reporter” wrote about ad blitzes instead of something that actually happened, and was perhaps discussed in an ad, as the motive force in an election is a dead giveaway that he’s an unreliable source.
Off Topic, but hilarious a comment about the HuffPo article on Orly Taitz’s attempt to keep Obama off the Kansas ballot:
What do you expect from someone name after a French Airport?
I wish I had your confidence. Right wing news outlets keep showing the two guys neck and neck, or very nearly.
Prof. Sam Wang
Romney’s trying to change the subject again — he’s finally releasing his tax returns
NO, he is not releasing his tax returns. He ALWAYS said he would release 2011. He is going to get someone to say what is in his 1990-2009 returns.
He has released nothing new.
Ha! Romney overpaid on 2011 (didn’t take all of his available charitable deductions) to get his rate up (barely) over 14 percent. Does he really think that’s going to help him?
I have no doubt that he’s already prepared an ammended return to get the rest of that deduction. The one he released is entirely for show.
Not to mention I get the Völkischer Beobachter in my cable package whether I like it or not.
I didn’t consider any history other than the fairly recent past to come to much the same conclusions.
Before the rise of the Tea Party I thought things would be a bit closer due to the growing disenchantment for BHO over several things the reader need not be reminded of. Since then however, I’ve put my eggs in the “fear of rightwingnuttery” basket, which has had the beneficial effect of inducing the disenchanted to stay in the BHO fold, and could also add what I’ve long called “CONverts” to it.
It’s things like what Ryan experienced today that prompted consideration of the latter product of the fear, and the examples hardly end there. ALong with the war on seniors and their kids, grandkids, etc their undermining of retirement programs are, we’ve also seen them wage war on women, gays, workers, brown/black people, etc, etc, etc, all of which have members that are “cons” (well, except the blacks in significant numbers), just as surely as that “47%” of moochers we have in this country does.
They went far too far with their “ME ME” meme, because many of their own are now considering their own best interests due to their actions, as well as inaction.
And given their voting down of the recent jobs bill directed at veterans, it’s hard to think of what group outside of the 1% they haven’t offended while in their service.
The only question remaining to be answered in my book, is when will the loathing become as widespread, obvious, and palpable as the fear. You injected a pretty good dose of it into the “internets” earlier today, but far too many still give them more respect than they’ve earned or deserve under the circumstances or over what they currently represent.
Ronald Reagan!!!
What about Reagan? He lead Carter the entire election. There was no mythical comeback.
led*
Fail again, Nick. Shouldn’t you be “fired” by now, what with all your lies and being wrong and whatnot?
Obama has always demonstrated a wealth of character and integrity. The biggest revelation in this election is the strength of bigotry and racism in America. The support for republicans at all levels is tribalism rooted in nasty selfish hatred and it is past time to put a lid on the festering brew.