Posted on 08/08/2012 1:37:18 PM PDT by neverdem
The conventional wisdom in the presidential race is that President Obama is a clear favorite. We hear this from the pundits in the press, we see it in the InTrade odds, and various predictive models built around the polling averages tell us this.
But I disagree.
For starters, I believe it is based upon a historically naïve view of summer political polling. Yes, Obama enjoys a modest lead in the nationwide vote, as well in the swing states, but consider the bounciness of the polling in 1968, 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, and 2000. It is not hard to see that political polling before and after the conventions looks different – in ways that endure beyond the traditional “convention bounces.”
There is another problem with the received wisdom, which is that it is built on the assumption that all voters are equally persuadable. They are not, which is why President Obama’s three-point margin over Mitt Romney needs to be understood in the context of where he actually is in those polls.
For the last two months, President Obama has bounced around between 46 and 48 percent of the vote in the national polls, as well as most averages of the state polls. Impressive? Hardly. Forty-six to 48 percent is really just the core Democratic coalition, which every Democrat has held for the past quarter century.
The old Democratic party broke down in 1968, the start of a long presidential exile. The party managed only one victory out of the next six; worse, it saw the collapse of its traditional New Deal coalition built on the Solid South, the white working class in and around the big Northern cities, and farmers/ranchers in the West. Slowly but surely, the party rebuilt itself into the coalition we know today – dominated by racial and ethnic minorities, upscale white liberals (especially activist groups like the environmentalists and feminists), government workers, and young voters. It was in the 1988 election that we saw the party coming back from the brink, and every cycle since then the Democrats have enjoyed a floor of about 46 percent of the vote, built around roughly 90 percent of Democratic support, 40 percent of independent support, and 10 percent of Republican support.
If you look carefully at the national horserace polls, you will notice that these are the only people supporting Obama over Romney, more or less. And if you look carefully at the presidential job approval polls, you will notice that these are also the only people approving of his job performance, more or less.
In other words, Obama’s polling right now suggests that he has only locked down the core Democratic vote; what's more, those not currently in his voting coalition tend to disapprove of his job as president. Indeed, the Gallup job approval poll finds him with just 31 percent support from “pure” independents, i.e. those with no party affiliation whatsoever.
It is extraordinarily difficult for incumbent presidents to win the votes of people who disapprove of the job they are doing. Hence, this race is Romney’s to win.
But it is not his to lose. And that's an important distinction.
It is difficult to overcome the hurdle that Obama faces – to win voters who think you’ve done a bad job as president – but not impossible. Richard Nixon in 1972 won a significant chunk of his disapprovers because the McGovern-Shriver ticket was not a serious option. Lyndon Johnson managed the same in 1964, as he made the Goldwater-Miller ticket out to be a threat to humanity itself.
The 1964 election is particularly important to understanding the 2012 campaign. I have argued in the past that, bereft of popular legislative achievements, a sound economy, or a manageable deficit, President Obama is left running a version of LBJ’s 1964 campaign. Johnson was worried that passage of the Civil Rights Act would spark a backlash that would keep him from his goal of the largest victory in history. Hence, the “frontlash” strategy, designed to make typically Republican voters (mostly moderates in the Northeast) scared to death of Goldwater. “The stakes are too high,” LBJ warned the country in ad after ad.
Obama is basically running this campaign. If LBJ made Goldwater a threat to western civilization, Obama is trying to make Romney into a corporate raider who will bring about a new feudalism.
This points to Romney’s challenge, and it is a significant one. Obviously, he needs to remind swing voters of all the things about the Obama tenure that they do not like, but he also must counter Obama's negative campaign. He cannot allow himself to be tagged as a capitalist pig whose only goal is personal enrichment. Instead, he must aggressively and constantly push the idea that he is a decent, public-spirited man whose background is precisely what this country needs.
This is why a bold vice presidential selection is a good start. A vibrant, articulate conservative who can make the positive case for a change would be an important signal that Team Romney understands it is not enough to get the country to say “no” to Obama, but also say “yes” to Romney. Beyond that, while the Tampa convention should toss out plenty of red meat to conservatives, it must dedicate much more effort to promoting Romney as the best leader to fix our problems. Similarly, during the ad wars and the fall debates, Romney must not focus singularly on the case against Obama – the president has made that himself over three years of bad governance – but dedicate substantial effort to making the case for himself.
By Election Day, there will be two stories about Mitt Romney. The one, which we have already heard from Team Obama, portrays Romney as a heartless capitalist. The other is a case still to be made, from Team Romney, that he is a pragmatic problem solver who understands the private economy and can fix it.
If a majority of voters think that Romney’s story is closer to the truth than Obama’s, then Mitt Romney will be elected the 45th President of the United States.
Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold.
Mr. RomneyCARE could not win against McCain.
And NOW ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE is despised.
We'll see.
“various predictive models built around the polling averages tell us this”
I’d like to see those. I smell BS.
Gallup Analysis: Obama’s Chance of a Loss Greater Than a Win:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-obama-romney-election/2012/05/17/id/439463
Or at least reassess my impression of the character of this country.
And then I'm going to take as much of my life off the grid as I possibly can.
Romney had better get busy and start acting like a conservative in order to differentiate himself from the current denizen of the White Hut.
But...but...it's his turn this election cycle.
I could handle that.
“The conventional wisdom in the presidential race is that President Obama is a clear favorite. We hear this from the pundits in the press, we see it in the InTrade odds, and various predictive models built around the polling averages tell us this.”
Yes, that is the meme of the minute, but it is a lie, for Obama is going to lose in a landslide, the LSM and dems know it.
How do I know? Simple, their inside polls which reveal the truth, points to a Obama disaster come election night.
Nappy as head of Homeland Security, has emergency ordered many millions dollars worth of riot gear which must be in place before the election. Why? She and they know that conservatives are not going to go on a riot rampage if Romney loses. But, she and they also know when Obama loses, all the lefty trash and Holder’s people are going to go berserker.
Or, far fetched maybe, Obama just may refuse to step down, declare martial law and impose a dictatorship.
“Oh, Obama is hated enough that Romney will win with out the base this time. That is the key....he will not win a second term because by then the dems will give their people someone to vote for and we will still have someone the base can not stand....great thinking.”
My worst fears realized. Plus, IF Romney wins, during the 2014 election the GOP will lose major seats in the House and Senate which will make the situation even worse.
We would be much better off to make conservative gains in the House and Senate this fall, but for Romney to lose. Then our gains would increase in 2014. So, in 2016 we can finally get a conservative the base will support and repair damage done by 8 years of the Obamination. Also, especially after 2014, the congress WILL hold Obama in check. IF he keeps up his urinating on the COTUS...he will be impeached and convicted. I would LOVE to see that happen. That would be much sweeter than a lousy Romney victory - which IS NOT a victory for those of us that are conservative.
“Romney had better get busy and start acting like a conservative in order to differentiate himself from the current denizen of the White Hut.”
Appropriate that you said “acting.” Because with Romney it would be acting. He has never been conservative, and shows no sign of ever going that direction.
I wished we could get all “conservative” members of the GOP to hold an alternative convention in defiance of the RNC and the establishment that gave up Romney.
The country won’t make it to 2016 intact with a second Obama term...and even supermajorities in the House and Senate will be irrelevant because the first black President will rule by fiat regardless of any votes taken by Congress and regardless of what the Constitution says. He will be an elected, defacto, dictator.
If Romney loses, Not only does Holder stay, Hillary stays, 2 more radical communist judges are likely to be appointed. May not even be any more elections after that, so we won’t have to worry about how good or not-so-good our candidate is.
“Or, far fetched maybe, Obama just may refuse to step down, declare martial law and impose a dictatorship.”
The military would NEVER follow such a directive....I can be 100% certain of that.
“The country won’t make it to 2016 intact with a second Obama term...and even supermajorities in the House and Senate will be irrelevant because the first black President will rule by fiat regardless of any votes taken by Congress and regardless of what the Constitution says. He will be an elected, defacto, dictator.”
Please seek professional psychiatric help. You are delusional to the point of being scary....I am not being sarcastic. The union WILL NOT be destroyed as you suggest. IF Obama keeps ignoring the COTUS he will be impeached and convicted.
Also, what does his being “black” have to do with anything? He is just evil because he is evil...not because he is “black.” That kind of (could be easily interpreted as racist) rhetoric needs to cease. Obama is evil with evil policies....that covers it enough. Please leave race out of things...that is for liberals to spout that kind of talk.
Don't be silly. Self identified conservatives are at least forty percent of the electorate, and the self identified independents, aka unaffiliated, are not far behind them.
That is the key....he will not win a second term because by then the dems will give their people someone to vote for and we will still have someone the base can not stand....great thinking.
How are the rats going to get back all those working class whites that they have truly alienated with their energy and environmental policies? Those are bread and butter issues. They want to close down the coal industry and block drilling and fracking for gas and oil in the name of Gaia. They are writing off a huge chunk of their former base.
As I have written elsewhere on this forum
I’m not that sure that Romney was that liberal or just a pol blowing in MA’s wind. IIRC, Mark Kirk moved to the right after he was elected to the Senate from Illinois. He was one of the biggest RINOs in the House from a northern Chicago suburb. Gillibrand from upstate NY went from moderate rat sleeping with rifles under her bed to one of the most hard left members of the Senate.Romney was my last pick for the nominee. If he governs from the left, he can be primaried. The Tea Party spirit isn’t going away.
.....And bring the reality of revolution a lot more closer.
My worst fears realized. Plus, IF Romney wins, during the 2014 election the GOP will lose major seats in the House and Senate which will make the situation even worse.
Stop worrying and recall that redistricting was done in a way that almost insures that we don't lose the House. The rats are defendinding at least 23 seats in the Senate this year and 20 seatsin 2014, IIRC.
We would be better off to make conservative gains in the House and Senate this fall, but for Romney to lose. Then our gains would increase in 2014. So, in 2016 we can finally get a conservative the base will support and repair damage done by 8 years of the Obamination. Also, especially after 2014, the congress WILL hold Obama in check. IF he keeps up his urinating on the COTUS...he will be impeached and convicted. I would LOVE to see that happen.
So you would be happy with two more Justices like Sotomayor and Kagan? Romney governed like a liberal in MA. We don't know how he will govern in the White House. He's campaigned in 2008 and 2012 as a conservative to a very different population than MA's population. When an electorate changes, don't be surprised if the politician changes. Check Mark Kirk from Illinois in the House and the Senate. Ditto Kirstin(sp?) Gillibrand from NY.
You need two thirds vote to convict in the Senate. Impeaching Clinton made him more popular. We could have impeached Holder and made rats defend Holder while they campaigned to retain their seats in the Senate. Forget about impeaching rats unless we have more than the two thirds needed to convict. The rats have no honor.
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.
