That was then:
This is now:
Posted on 05/31/2012 5:47:24 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney may be dead even in the polls, but some pundits insist the president will prevail on Election Day because 2012 is the new 2004.
The story line is President George W. Bush had roughly the same numbers at this point in 2004 that Mr. Obama has today. Mr. Bush went on to win a narrow victory by building a massive ground game that focused on the GOP's base and by relentlessly attacking his opponent, Sen. John Kerry. Mr. Obama is executing the same strategy. What worked for Mr. Bush, the theory goes, will work for Mr. Obama.
The only problem is the theory is based on a false premise.
There are some similarities between 2004 and 2012. Mr. Obama's current job approval and personal favorability ratings are roughly the same as Mr. Bush's in 2004. So are the head-to-head matchups: In mid-May 2004, Mr. Bush trailed Mr. Kerry in Gallup, 46%-48%, while in the most recent Gallup tracking Mr. Obama is tied with Mr. Romney, 46%-46%.
There are crucial differences between the two elections. It is a myth that 2004 was all about maximizing Republican turnout. The Bush campaign also successfully sought to win as many independents as possible and to poach elements of the Democratic coalition. In the end, Mr. Bush received 44% of the Hispanic vote, carried the largest share (24%) of the Jewish vote for any Republican since 1988, nearly erased the gender gap with 48% of the women's vote, and was supported by 11% of black voters, up from 8% in 2000.
If Mr. Obama makes this election mostly about energizing the Democratic base—as he clearly intends to—he will further alienate swing voters who elected him in 2008 and then turned on his policies with a vengeance in 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bush had a successful 9/11 response, a good economy and at that time, a strong position on foreign policy and way.
Obama has a disastrous economy and not much else to run on. He’s completely lost the independents. Even if he is fortunate enough to motivate his base to match the enthusiasm of 2008, he cannot recapture the independents and does not have a demotivated opposition this time. This is definitely not 2004.
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney may be dead, even in the polls.
This claptrap from the guy - Rove - who a month ago said Romney was the one in serious trouble if the election were held that day Obama would win easily. Can we do a graphic of Karl Rove’s likeness as a weathervane?
This claptrap from the guy - Rove - who a month ago said Romney was the one in serious trouble if the election were held that day Obama would win easily. Can we do a graphic of Karl Rove’s likeness as a weathervane?
If that's true, and I don't dispute it, why then do so many Freepers assume a Romney defeat?
Because their guy didn’t win the primary. So obviously Obama’s going to win.
Rove’s a has-been, maybe a never-was.
Whatever is going to happen, it’s not going to be predicted by Karl Rove.
Isn’t he well-off enough to retire? He really should retire.
Go fishing, Karl.
Leave us alone.
Rove was right. Back then, Obama would have won, according to the polling. The numbers are what they are.
I’m with Rush on this one and I happen to think that this won’t even be close, but the polling is currently showing us otherwise. Rove knows that the trends are showing a momentum swing towards the republican camp but all that can change with the events.
I expect stat heads and numbers guys like Rove to analyze this every week and report the findings along with how they “feel”.
I suspect 2012 will be 1932, but in reverse.
Rove is a fat-faced nobody...FOKR
And Kerry was a sorry excuse of a candidate. Bush should have beat him even handier than he did. I don’t care for Romney, but so far he looks like he’s going to make a game of it.
Apples and oranges here, as we’ve never had an incumbent and obvious-to-many marxist out to destroy this nation. That said, 0’s path to winning is only by treachery. The ends justifies the means, and he certainly has a bunch of hidden committees figuring out what kind of crisis to foment, and the timing rollout, to maximize his chances. Along with the usual voter fraud and boxes of ballots to be found on election eve.
“Back in 2004, the consensus on FR was that Karl was “magnificent”.”
I remember that...and I do not retract my previous comment :)
>>>I suspect 2012 will be 1932, but in reverse.<<<
I’ve had the same suspicion, although perhaps it’s just hopeful thinking.
I see Obama as the end of the line of the New Deal. Obama has tried many FDR tactics, including attacking the Supreme Court, flooding the executive with alphabet agencies and programs, spending to “prime the pump,” creating a “brain trust” of helpful “czars” to assist his program, and unrelenting leftist hatred of the rich, the Constitution, and tradition. Obama is seemingly hellbent on instituting FDR’s Four Freedoms, for instance. Obama’s also using Bush as his own personal Hoover. The trouble with all this politically is that the problems today are the creation of New Deal (and Great Society) policy.
So we have Romney. A rich guy. A flip-flopper. Not really a conservative. Someone from the Northeast, from a rich family. FDR was seen as a lightweight himself at the time, and there was a lot of mistrust and suspicion of the guy by the Democrats. When he got into office, though, there was a whirlwind of change.
My hope is that Romney, if elected, will metaphorically rip off his suit and institute a conservative revolt. It would be a surprise, but the spring of 1933 was a surprise, too. Romney’s past may not tell us much when he steps into the Oval Office and has the power of the presidency at his fingertips. At least I hope so. And as I’ve been told in the past, hope is not a strategy.
God help us.
I'm anticipating that within 60 days of Romney's inauguration, we'll witness something similar. Romney will have to blaze ground different from FDR and his followers because it was their solutions that caused these problems.
I suspect there will be a total paradigm shift and a total break with the past. Can mild mannered Clark Kent Romney rip off his suit to become Superman? We'll see.
Because they really, really hate Mitt Romney.
Obama is running as a self-acknowledged leftist.
The last two guys to do that were Mondale and McGovern.
Of course, neither of those two had the advantage of running as an incumbent...
Gee....that’s quite a screed from a nobody guy (or gal) but then this is kinda like a blog so anything goes.
When you’re making mid-six figures on your political smarts, get back to me. Until then I’ll consider the words of the guru over yours.
:)
“Rove was right. Back then, Obama would have won, according to the polling. The numbers are what they are.
I’m with Rush on this one and I happen to think that this won’t even be close, but the polling is currently showing us otherwise. Rove knows that the trends are showing a momentum swing towards the republican camp but all that can change with the events.
I expect stat heads and numbers guys like Rove to analyze this every week and report the findings along with how they “feel”.”
_________________________________________________________________________
Then how does Rove help himself by having to change his tune about what’s happening? If he has no idea what the pulse is from one month to the next, he’s no more an analyst that just a copy reader. He sells himself on his “expertise”, and expertise in analyzing trends isn’t to just parrot data from one month to the next. he just reads the latest batch of polls and then goes on TV and sells the results he reads as though he himself had been wise to it all along. After all, this facet is what compels Fox News to pay him big bucks - they’re buying his alleged expertise in being able to be IN FRONT of the curve, which he almost never is. If he has to keep changing his point of view based on the last month’s polling he’s not an analyst - he’s just a reporter. The difference between Rush and Rove is that Rush hasn’t budged much from his belief that Obama is in serious trouble and always has been. Rove is the weathervane I think he is, swaying with what he reads and sells the results as though he was able to predict it all along.
Karl Rove: Best known for taking what should have been two landslide victories and turning them into the narrowest of escapes. Seriously, George W, Bush should have won 2000 and 2004 easily but Rove’s bungling almost cost both elections.
That was then:
This is now:
This is true.
The last few 'Rats who managed to actually become incumbents all pretended to be much more centrist than they actually were (Obama, Clinton, Carter).
Of the three, Obama is the one who has really let the mask slip as he heads into his re-election campaign.
My point is that self-acknowledged leftism has been abandoned by the 'Rats as an electoral strategy for decades, and for good reason.
Karl Rove is as useless as an old bag filled with silly gas.
Oh ....
Scores of millions will NOT vote for Bishop-backstabber
Milt Romney, the presumptuous author of RomneyCARE,
but will in its stead write in the name: Gov. Palin.
If you’re going to judge political smarts by paycheck size then you should start following Opra.
As many have pointed out over the years, here in FR and elsewhere, the guy with “political smarts” transformed a landslide in 2004 to a near-defeat.
Maybe I’m wrong in believing that’s what happened (though I don’t think so), but I’m not alone in believing that’s what happened.
Your reverence for his “political smarts” is based on what, exactly?
How much money he’s made?
And BTW, for the record, my post #8 was not a screed, it was just a simple post, with an opinion that you obviously didn’t like.
Here is screed:
a : a lengthy discourse b : an informal piece of writing (as a personal letter) c : a ranting piece of writing
I have written screeds here in FR, but post #8 is hardly a screed.
You should read more; it might do you some good.
You are blaming the victims of Team Romney.
Have YOU forgotten Mr. RomneyCARE's Dirty Tricks in 2008?
"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"
"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"
"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"
"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"
"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"
And THAT is the tip of the proverbial iceberg:
Novak: "Fred Thompson drop-out rumors traced to Romney campaign"
Now he's just a bastard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.