Posted on 08/23/2012 8:07:52 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The contest between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama for the presidency will end with a decisive, and possibly even a landslide, victory for Romney in November. Polling data that hasn’t even come close to supporting this contention of mine is of no relevance. Outside of political junkies, the rest of the electorate doesn’t begin paying attention to election races until after Labor Day.
Furthermore, Obama has heretofore outspent Romney vis-à-vis (intensely negative) campaign ads — in spite of the fact that Romney has by far and away outraised Obama in campaign donations. Campaign finance laws preventing Romney from spending a cent of any of the monies that he has raised for the general election until after he formally becomes the Republican Party’s presidential nominee conspire to conceal this fact. However, after the GOP convention in Tampa at the end of this month, Romney’s funds will be unleashed.
In other words, Obama hasn’t really even gotten hit — yet.
These considerations aside, polling phenomenon depicting a razor sharp race or, more incredibly, an Obama lead, is irrelevant simply and solely because it contradicts a few basic facts that partisans of all stripes must concede.
The first of such facts is that Obama is no longer an unknown candidate. He now has a record — a record of which everyone is painfully aware. So, even the most naïve, even the most ignorant of voters, will not fall for the same rhetoric of “hope and change” that Obama endlessly espoused four years ago and that succeeded in mesmerizing legions of unsuspecting Americans who ecstatically consumed the notion that he was a “new” type of politician.
That Obama himself knows this accounts for why he no longer even attempts to speak along these lines.
Secondly, the president’s approval rating has plummeted since the fall of 2008. But not only have Obama’s numbers fallen further and more rapidly than that of any other president, a Pew Research Center poll from earlier this month reinforces what every poll reader knows: Obama’s favorability rating is actually below average for a presidential candidate at this time in an election season. In short, in stark contrast to 2008, Obama is not well liked.
Thirdly, it stretches credibility to the snapping point to think that everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 will vote for him this time around. Not even close.
Blacks will vote for him, certainly, but even within this demographic, his support is not likely to be as astronomically high as it was four years ago. For one, the hope shared by far too many blacks that the election of the first black president would usher in a golden age of a sort for black Americans is now exposed for the patent absurdity that it has always been. Unemployment rates are high overall, but they have skyrocketed among blacks, and black youth in particular.
More importantly, though, Obama’s endorsement of homosexual “marriage” promises to cost him some support among blacks — a likelihood that no less a figure than Louis Farrakhan foreshadowed. Not long ago, the Nation of Islam head — a close friend of Obama’s former pastor of 20-plus years, Jeremiah Wright, and one-time Obama backer — noted in disgust that our 44th president is the first occupant of the White House to sanction this practice. In addition to Farrakhan, there are also black Christian pastors who, in spite of having once endorsed Obama, have now publicly repudiated him for taking this position.
Others who voted for Obama last time around are much less likely to do so this time.
Take Roman Catholics, as a prime example. Although the media has done a splendid job of diverting the public’s attention from it, the Catholic Church has been besieged by the Obama administration. The Affordable Health Care Act — ObamaCare — is an unprecedented attack against both religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Catholic clerics around the country have alerted their congregants to this. Catholics will not be voting for Obama in anything like their numbers in 2008.
Independents constitute another group that threw its weight behind Obama in the last election. Precisely because, as with everyone else, independents now have a track record with which to gauge Obama, there is no way that he will garner nearly as much support from them in November.
Fourth, 2008 marked the end of George W. Bush’s second term. As evidenced by voters’ readiness to cashier congressional Republicans in the mid-terms of ’06 and Bush’s 30-percent approval rating two years later, the country had GOP fatigue.
Matters are otherwise now.
The economy has gone from bad to worse during the course of Obama’s first term. And it is the economy that is voters’ top priority. Even in those polls that show Obama leading Romney, the latter consistently ranks higher in voter confidence when it comes to this most crucial of issues. Small business owners and young adults who owe tens of thousands in student loan debt but who can’t find a job know about Obama’s abysmal handling of the economy better than anyone else. They also aren’t bound to be suckered by him again.
Fifth, when we consider that Republicans are more enthusiastic now than they had been in a long time, Romney promises to elicit every bit as much and significantly more support than John McCain received in ’08. From the rise of the Tea Party to the Republican tsunami of the 2010 midterm elections and the recent explosion of support for Chick-fil-A, there is no conceivable reason to deny this.
There is one final consideration that portends a sweeping Romney victory.
Congressman and former presidential contender Ron Paul has a significant and devoted following of young voters. Their passion is second to none. Doubtless, some of them will refuse to vote for either Romney or Obama. But there is reason to suspect that some of them will. Paul and Romney never showed any signs of having a strained relationship, and even though Paul hasn’t as of yet endorsed the latter, neither has he endorsed anyone else, as he did in 2008. Nor do I think it is likely that he will.
Ron’s son Rand, Kentucky senator and a rising star in the Tea Party, has endorsed Romney. Ron is retiring. Rand is not, and the father doesn’t want to make unnecessary waves for the son. Moreover, Rand has been allotted a speaking platform at the GOP Convention — a turn of events that can only help Romney among young Paul supporters.
Barring any unexpected revelations to the effect that Romney is a killer or a closet enslaver (Obama’s and Joe Biden’s attempts to convince us of this have thus far failed), it looks as if it’s going be a clean Romney victory in November.
As I remember it, Willlard sealed the deal when Willard's elitist buddies like crazy Annie Coulter, Matt Drudge, and a print interview with purportedly coherent and lucid Bob Dole thrashed the hell out of Newt right before the Florida Primary.
This is how the New York Times reported that thrashing with a link to my vanity which was posted on this forum.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/conservatives-criticize-drudge-for-anti-gingrich-assault/
Yes, then Governor Reagan had the advantage of being a life-long actor, narrator, radio and TV personality and speechmaker, and it showed.
It saddens me if you are dismissing Reagan's character and emphasizing him as actor.
Romney is the one with more acting skills than character not Reagan. Romney is the one who has handlers who write his script by political calculation not core principles.
No one changed their positions like Ronald Reagan, he started out as an FDR New Deal liberal. But Reagan NEVER took the defense nor did he ever spend much time explaining or apologizing for his positions.
Reagan knew who he was and what he stood for and did not need any handlers to massage his position nor put words in his mouth.
The American people loved Ronald Reagan because he was a populist who connected with the common citizenry.
Barry and Willard are both condescending elitists although each serve a different set of elitist masters.
Whether Willard can project himself as a leader of the common citizenry better than Barry in a one on one debate is an open question in my mind, no matter how many elitist cheerleaders would try to convince me otherwise.
Thanks for adding that part in Vet. It bears repeating.
"Which still doesn't mean we should let up, quit volunteering/contributing/talking to friends, etc.." -2ndDivisionVet
You COMPLETELY misunderstand my statement ... I worked for President Reagan (and Carter) as an Army intelligence analyst during the Cold War. I know better than most people what a great president he was. I was merely discussing his skills as a debater, which is what we were talking about, weren't we? And President Reagan had many aides (I was one of them, albeit a minor one), or "handlers" in your terminology, all modern presidents do. The days of Presiddnt Abraham Lincoln and two clerks he paid out of his own pocket are long gone, believe me.
I was talking about more than debating skills but the ability to project oneself as a leader which may be difficult to perceive but easier to understand when two men meet and are in the same room.
History tells us that Washington projected himself as leader particularly how he carried himself and how he rode a horse.
When Eisenhower entered a room, it was understood by his presence that he was the leader and that he was in charge.
It is probably not fair to compare Romney to the likes of Washington, Eisenhower or Reagan but the fact is that this nation so desperately needs a leader of such stature.
I don't think it will be close...I agree with this guy. Zero has already been promising to give away everything to anyone and he isn't moving up in the polls.
While I share the sentiment of the author, I think he’s missing/misstating some points. First of all, Jimmy Carter’s and George Bush I’s numbers were much lower than Obama’s (i.e. Job Approval); George Bush’s certain fell faster and further than Obama’s, as Bush I had the highest ever rating after the Gulf War (unless Bush II surpassed him after 9/11, which may well be the case.
At any rate, it’s not how far the Job Approval has fallen that matters, but where it is at the moment. Obama has been polling at around 46/47 for quite awhile now. Bush was at 49.5, and won by 3.5 points, so unless Obama’s Job Approval falls between now and the election (one can hope, but it’s been consistent for quite awhile), it looks like it will be a contested election. It seems to me that turnout will be the key. If it is indeed the case that Republicans are more enthusiastic than the Dems, then Romney’s got a good chance, but I think it will be close.
The other point is that while it’s true that Obama stands to do worse in the groups the author pointed out (baring something absurd from Romney that causes him to crash, or a war springing up, etc.), Obama has 7+ points to play with. So yes, he’ll do worse, but will he do more than 7 points worse?; that’s the question.
Akin does not have the entire MSM to hide behind as Clinton did. He is right out there in plain sight, naked as a J-bird for them to hit from every angle. Sorry, your argument doesn’t carry water.
EXACTLY!!
That’s why the fag shooter of the guard has vanished from the ‘news’.
If it had been an abortion clinic guard been shot, the ‘media’ would be all ZIMMERMAN with the perps organization!
I've seen this tactic used...
And just WHO comes up with this 'rating'?
I tend to believe NOTHING the 'media' says about Obama!
Yes, like forgiving 1 Trillion in student loans for their votes.
We can compare against 2004. Obama is doing about 2 or 3 points worse than Bush was. The same sources were coming up with the Job Approval numbers.
I’m skeptical of many polls, in general, mostly because they seem to use ridiculous poll assumptions (i.e., #of Democrats like it was in 2008), but the Job Approval numbers seem to have been pretty accurate for years now. So I use that as a bottom line, and based on that, the election looks close, certainly winnable for Romney (not way up for Obama, as many media people seem to think), but it’s hard to see a significant win unless Obama’s Job Approval numbers go down.
That could happen, and they’d only have to go down a little bit, like 2%, to potentially make a big difference.
Romney can still win this, but it will likely be close.It will not even be remotely close. Romney will win this thing and it will be over before 10pm Eastern election night.
Reagan had a one or two point lead as late as 3 days before the election. He went on to win handily. This one will not be that close.
I agree with you. I’m tired of the continual disparagment of “people receiving a government check” or the “50% that don’t pay taxes.” Obama has certainly given all Americans plenty reason to vote against him on lots of other fronts.
There's more than JA that's going to be in play.
Just wait until WMR actually IS the Republican candidate.
The media long knives WILL come out.
It ain't gonna be pretty.
Obama is going to FORGIVE student loan debt!! That will have even FREEPERS voting fo him!!
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.