Posted on 08/18/2012 3:54:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mainstream media and, in fact, all media have made a fundamental error in assessing the 2012 Presidential election.
We continually hear how a majority of people, supposed likely voters, disapprove of the President’s handling of the economy and even more people are disappointed in Obama’s role in the U.S. Federal budget deficit.
In addition, the “real” unemployment situation has everyone shaking their head, not to mention our deteriorating world status as a leading power.
If the election were predicated on all these facts alone, the Obama regime would be in serious trouble.
However, what most of my colleagues are missing regarding this complicated and convoluted campaign is that the end result will boil down to simple mathematics.
Let’s take a step back for a moment.
Four years ago, David Axelrod and his election team focused on the voters, or potential voters, who were most disillusioned with George W. Bush.
Practically speaking, little time was spent on trying to convert people to the Obama philosophy.
Instead, Axelrod and his associates showed young voters that Obama was “cool.” They demonstrated to black voters that Barack was one of them, and to women voters (preferably single mothers), they explained that Obama could feel their pain.
The rest of the economics reflected in the polls was totally irrelevant.
Axelrod and his team knew that if they were able to get the aforementioned people out to vote (the majority), they could win the election.
Fast-forward to the present-day and Axelrod is back in the same position once again. More than a year ago, he left the White House to begin the re-election campaign.
His goal, I believe, is to once again identify the Obama beneficiaries, and just like last time, utilize both technology and shoe-leather in order to make sure these “beneficiaries” vote.
Who are these likely voters that Axelrod is targeting?
Fox News watchers, Friday night cocktail partiers, or even the successful small businessman?
Absolutely not.
Axelrod will focus on the all-time high number of food stamp recipients, the people that are receiving unemployment benefits or those who have fallen off unemployment assistance and have now started to receive disability payments, and the majority who pay no income taxes.
In other words, those that benefit most from the public dole.
With both Obama and Joe Biden making the message loud and clear, Axelrod will also stress that any change in the current administration structure will rock the boat and disrupt the monthly check for all those receiving benefits.
Think about it.
If 51% of the voters are happy with the government’s socialism and 49% are opposed, no amount of voter polls, predictions, or projections will change the inevitable.
Economic pronouncements make good sound bites; however, reality suggests the guy who gives something for nothing is not going to be replaced by the guy who takes it all away.
That’s just simple mathematics.
Tipping point. If successful, this would be the American populace committing collective suicide.
Those on the public dole are, nearly by definition, unmotivated and stupid. They're anesthetized by their TVs into a numb, ignorant state of servitude. And, generally speaking, they love to put the blame for their condition on someone else.
Who will that scapegoat be? As the journalists and comedians who form the sheeple's opinions begin to waver, Axelrod is losing control. The economy's failing, foreign affairs are perpetually on the brink of another war (how many does that make? 4? 5?), and the President seems to be disinterested and incapable of any effective leadership.
Even the telescreens can't hide it. And Obama is a very easy scapegoat.
I think if the election were held today, OMG DID YOU SEE what Kim Kardashian was WEARING the other day?
In other words, we will get the government we deserve.
Math is never simple in American politics. I would not be surprised at all to see Romney win the popular vote on election day, but see Obama win the electoral victory by winning the really big states by narrow margins. It’s never discussed, but if you have the right states, you can win with 11 and lose the other 39.
Exactly. The part of the populace that is living on weelfare is not going to vote for someone who they perceive would take it away from them. And since that part of the poulation has grown immensely, they you are.
I keep on reading on threads that this is going to be a willard “blowout” or “landslide.” I think that’s bordering on delusional. Willard has been doing a lot better since he picked Paul Ryan, and if he continues to play his cards well that buys him a close election and a possible victory, not a landslide.
The warning should be load and clear “DON’T DRINK THE KOOL ADE”. Amen.
The numbers are excellent for Tea Party ccandidates to win the Senate, veto proof. An Obama win, a virtual certainty given the failure of conservatives to put up a candidate, will guarantee his impeachment on any number of charges of violating the Constitution. Pressure by the electorate will be unbearable on the Senate to try him and convict him. We will see the first sitting US president in prison for crimes against the state. That is my prediction.
The author rather superficially puts forward a digest of hundreds of Free Republic posts over recent time. As some here say...... Captain Obvious.
A 2/3 majority is needed for conviction, not just a veto proof majority. We are not going to get near 67 Senators in the next election.
The thought divide is that
What you (and I) are hoping for is that those who believe in the former cannot be sufficiently motivated to outvote the latter in this election. However, I must point out that those who profess to believe the latter are often NOT MOTIVATED to vote. At least 40% of eligible or potential "right-leaning" voters ARE NOT EVEN REGISTERED.
Every election day, I do the Kenny Bunk Poll at the bar of the VFW and/or Elks. The number of grown men (and women) who DO NOT VOTE is staggering. (On Primary Day, fewer than half voted!)
If the Republicans could turn out a lousy 75% of the so-called "base," for state and national elections, this country would be in a lot less trouble right now.
Personal Note: I once lost a school board election in which there was 11% turnout. I still had to listen to a litany of complaints about the school situation for years afterward! I talk to people. I work on Registration Drives. I drive people to the polls. Sadly, IMNSVHO, Many of the "nice;" the "decent people," of this country seem to somehow consider politics pointless, or somehow not worthy of their thought or effort.
The ancient Greeks had a word for a man (or women) who ignored politics, or far worse, who did not vote:
What concerns me most is the potential for high-tech ward-heeler tactics to assure that the deadbeat element does vote.
The Democrats have websites and smartphone apps that show the location of every household where registered Dem’s reside. The next step is to have a goon squad visit each of these homes — carrots, sticks, and absentee ballots in hand, to make sure they are voting, and voting as instructed. This is how trade union organizers coerce workers to “petition” for unionization votes — and why unions tried to do away with secret ballots (since absent goon squad coercion, union often lose). Community organizers, ACORNistas, and SEIU types are well aware of these concepts. Communists do not relinquish power quietly; expect them to pull out all the stops this year.
Obama is going to lose by a landslide.
Especially since those RECENTLY forced on the dole aren't too keen on the meager offerings given to them. They'd rather work.
True, but Texas is one of the biggest, and Republicans count on getting that one.And as far as the bias of the Electoral College wrt the popular vote goes, that bias is the two additional EV for the two senators. You would get 12 EV for winning a state with 10 CDs, but you would get twenty EV for winning 5 states totaling 10 CDs.
As you say, tho, it also depends on your margin of victory in the states you win. If you lose a state, it doesn’t matter that you got 49% of the vote . . .The upshot is that the campaigns naturally focus on the states which might tip by a narrow margin. But as I implied, you’d far rather tip 5 little states than one larger one with the same number of CDs.
That is my prediction.
Sometimes we all dream.
“Those on the public dole are, nearly by definition, unmotivated and stupid.”
One could say that the biggest part of this “on the dole” crowd is seniors on SS and medicare. They are neither unmotivated or stupid...
It’s going to be a close election. It’s going to take a lot of hard work to unseat the usurper.
I do believe that from a pure electoral mathematics point of view, Obama has the advantage.
The millions of people voting for the Tea Party Senate candidates are going to vote for Obama for president? How do you figure?
“Load and clear?”
What an interesting Freudian slip/typo!
Lock and load is more accurate!
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.