Looking at the latest polling, it’s hard to dispute that Obama is winning, and Democrats in general are looking OK in swing states. There’s a reason that Romney’s attacks and attacks by his surrogates have been shrill as of late: they read the polls, too.
Of course, all disclaimers apply: it’s still early, things can change, the economy sucks, SuperPACs, you still need to work to get out the vote, etc., etc.
Z. Mulls
It doesn’t matter if enough people are barred from voting. Even if after the fact it’s decided they should have been able to.
David in NY
And the Senate? Is there any way the Republicans won’t win the Senate?
shortstop
Thanks for this. We hear a lot of “Don’t get cocky” in these threads, but with a few exceptions, almost no one here takes victory for granted. Having–and acknowledging–a little momentum is good for morale and actually makes most of us work harder.
karen
I live in Maryland (a blue state) outside of DC and the ads from Crossroads and whoever else is against Obama have multiplied ten fold. I saw one on one channel that was on abc, cbs, nbc and our Fox affiliate AT THE SAME TIME. And this is just early August. I know it’s because the DC Metro area includes Virginia (swing state) so this is nothing compared to what will be after the convention.
It looks like I will be DVRing everything, watching nothing live so I can zip past those ads but I resent it.
JPL
Please change the title!
The NYTimes has an article about Dan Senor relationship with Mitt. Mitt’s foreign policy team could indirectly help the reelection of the President. link
kdaug
@David in NY:
Win the Senate? To what end? Question re: relevancy.
Filibuster/”secret holds” & veto.
Linda Featheringill
Things are looking good. Obama is ahead right now. I read somewhere that relative positions between candidates is pretty well set during the month of July. And I read somewhere else that something like 90% of likely voters have made up their minds already. So, yes. Things are looking good.
My impression is that many of the down-ticket races haven’t been decided yet. We have three months to push those into “our” direction.
I really don’t know enough about these races. Guess I should do some research, hmm?
superdestroyer
The real question to ask is whether the Republican Party can still be considered a national party. If Republicans have no chance of winning a presidential election, is the Republican Party still a national elections. Will the failure of the Repubicans to be a national party allow the Senate to remain in Democratic Party hands and give the House back to the Democrats?
In the long run, wonks and wannabes should be discussing how politics will function after the final collapse of the Republicans. Maybe more attention should be paid to the primary system since the Democratic Party Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary in 2016 could be the next meaningful presidential election.
Linda Featheringill
In the Senate, an overview of the races from DSCC:
http://www.dscc.org/races
In the House, overview of Red to Blue races from the DCCC:
http://dccc.org/pages/redtoblue
Chris
@superdestroyer:
If the Republicans were able to weather the complete abandonment of their policies by the public under Roosevelt and Truman, I’m sure they’ll find a way to weather this storm too.
Corpus Christy
I’m old enough to remember when Mike “Power Walk” Dukakis was ahead in the polls by about 20 pts in the summer of ’88. Then one ad featuring a Dangerous Negro changed everything…
NonyNony
@superdestroyer:
Look – there’s still a chance that the Republicans can win this. Romney will get a minimum of 45% of the vote based on party identification. Any party that can guarantee 45% of the popular vote across most of the country with any idiot at the helm of their presidential campaign is a competitive national force. And even if they could only muster 27% for a presidential campaign, if they can get enough reps in place to control the House then they’re a national party.
You’ve been making some variation of this argument off and on for at least six years. You don’t actually believe it so I’m not sure why you keep saying it.
Patricia Kayden
@karen: I live in Southern Maryland and see all the anti-Obama ads as well. But I don’t really care since I also get to see the pro-Obama ones, which always make me smile — especially the one where The Bot sings “America the Beautiful”. I actually sing along. If he can sing, so can I.
General Stuck
Unless Romney and his surrogates suddenly quit talking out both sides of their mouth to what seems like a manic degree, the only thing that will change is that more people will get to know the man with a forked tongue. Romney now is mired at 45 percent, for every poll, just abouts. People don’t require an Eagle Scout in their politicians, but they do require a politician to keep a single thought in their heads betwixt breakfast and brunch.
Ash
@Corpus Christy:
Well, that and Mike “what the hell is it with Massachusetts candidates” Dukakis also decided to not spend the summer campaigning and instead go back to work as governor, which gave Bush’s more than enough time to define the campaign.
EconWatcher
Well, there is now one, tiny silver lining in the fact that W lost the popular vote but (by hook or crook) won the electoral college: There appears to be a decent chance that Obama will do the same. The polls seem to show a dead heat in the popular vote, but a possible romp in the electoral college.
Sure, the 27% will still claim that Obama is not duly elected if he loses the popular vote. But everyone else will remember 2000.
Beth in VA
I think the dynamic can change rapidly. I remember in 2008 before we realized the disastor of the “game-changing” pick of Sarah Palin. The press will love the fresh meat of the GOP veep pick.. Poll results will change after that announcement. I just hope the dynamics settle and we see more economic improvement in early fall.
Ash Can
I’d be willing to bet the ranch that Romney’s recent bump in the polls was due to the “You didn’t build that” kerfluffle. Now that people are gradually seeing it as the bullshit it was, and with Mitt not being able to put one foot in front of the other on his trip abroad without falling flat on his face, the poll numbers are settling back down. I also have to wonder what effect, if any, the GOP convention may have upon the great unwashed. Will lower-info voters react to the spectacle of a mob of John Birchers shitting their pants and running around with their pee-pees caught in their zippers?
Although I do think things look good for Obama (not so good, of course, that I’ll relax and stop working on his campaign), I’m very concerned about the Congressional races. Since it’s obvious that nothing can be accomplished with even one house under GOP control, it’s essential to Obama’s agenda that the state-level races pan out. Also, the vote-suppression laws worry me. I’d love nothing more than to see PA’s law get smacked down — and with the bang-up job the state authorities are doing defending it, beginning with not knowing what the damned thing says in the first place, I’m hopeful. I suppose it’s possible that if the Republican Party shits itself sufficiently in the general, a handful of (relatively) moderate GOP legislators might feel confident enough to buck party leadership and actually work with Dem legislators to get things passed, but I’m sure as hell not counting on it.
MattF
We still have the conventions yet to come. I expect the Dems to be pretty well organized– there’s a competent executive in charge, after all–and I’m actually hopeful that the Republican convention will be a shambles, given Romney’s past performance. But we shall see.
redshirt
I’m willing to place a small, for fun only wager – say, 10,000 dollars – that Big O wins. And wins big. Any takers?
The only 2 ways he doesn’t win: Some unforeseen catastrophe that the public somehow blames on him, and 2: Massive electoral fraud.
Neither seems very likely, though there is a small, small possibility.
Jamey
I keep waiting for Republicans to finally wake up and realize that their standard-bearer isn’t a Christian. I mean, did ANYBODY see that coming in our lifetime?
MattF
@Jamey: Consider that 30% of Republicans think Obama is Muslim– so, Romney’s better, by comparison.
the Conster
@Jamey:
This. Everything about Romney’s personal background is really, really weird. He would be the first Mexican-American president. His ancestors fled the country to avoid being prosecuted for polygamy. His religion posthumously baptizes non-Mormons. His god lives on or near planet Kolob. He wears sacred underwear, and would take his oath of office on the Book of Mormon. But REVEREND WRIGHT!
rikyrah
their internal polls must be brutally bad.
gogol's wife
тфу, тфу, тфу, не сглазить, не сглазить, не сглазить
redshirt
@the Conster: Imagine if he was a Democrat! It’s hilarious – and depressing – how deep the double standard is. Worst still is trying to tell a Wingnut that in fact there is no LIBERAL MEDIA but instead paid and in service Corporate Propaganda. Sigh – fighting against Pravda is never easy.
Jebediah
This morning, for the second consecutive time, the pups and I arrived at Starbucks at precisely 5:38. That is an irrefudiable omen that the President sets an electoral college record. (Which means Mitty sets a record, too.)
redshirt
@Jebediah: 538 in the AM? If so, dang that’s early!
the Conster
@redshirt:
My favorite wingnut come back about the “liberal media” is to ask them to imagine if Obama had Palin’s family – a knocked up daughter, children who dropped out of school, live-in boyfriends with drug dealing family members on government assistance who shit talk on Facebook all day. But secret Muslim from Kenya!
cmorenc
@MattF:
In particular, how do the Romney folks handle Santorum’s insistence on a speaking role at the convention, the insistence of Ron Paul’s folks in actively asserting themselves at the convention, and the insistence of the Snowbilly Princess on getting some spotlight time as well?
Unless the Romney folks can find a way to buy or massage these folks into willingly, gracefully lowering their respective profiles, the pageant might prove a bumpier one than the smooth coronation the Romney folks would vastly prefer.
kay
@NonyNony:
I think the Mansfield choice to roll out the tax attack is interesting.
Obama isn’t sticking to friendly, “safe Dem” counties. He’s wading right into areas where Romney should be leading. They’re either confident or deliberately trying to intimidate Romney. Obama is actively seeking a fight.
I think it’s smart politics. He keeps forcing Romney to follow him. The conventional wisdom was this would be a “base” election, but Obama is doing persuasion events, not safe “base” events. He’s forcing Romney to venture out and take some risk, and I don’t think he’ll do it.
The assumption was we’d be relying on turn out in Dem counties, but Obama isn’t running that campaign. Weirdly, ROMNEY is running a base campaign. Obama’s approach is much more confident, and much riskier.
Roger Moore
@David in NY:
Yes, there’s some chance that the Republicans won’t get a majority in the Senate. The last I saw, it was supposed to be about a 50% chance that the Democrats would maintain at least 50 votes in the Senate, which would just barely give them control if they also control the Vice Presidency. The Republicans look as if they may have hurt themselves again by picking extremist Teabagger candidates who will make some races a lot closer than they otherwise would be.
Culture of Truth
If I may quote David Gregory, “This race COULD NOT BE any closer!”
WOW!!!
Nina
It’s funny. I visited Freak Republic earlier today, and they were touting an outlier Gallup poll that shows Romney ahead in swing states. People in the thread were congratulating themselves and saying that they didn’t see how Obama could top 40% without voter fraud (I know).
It’s like we’re in completely seperate realities.
danielx
@David in NY:
The very question. Obama will be able to do nothing if there’s both a Republican House and Senate; he’ll only be able to prevent some of the more insane Republican ideas from being put into practice. Plus there’s the whole threat of impeachment thing, which some of the Republicans would do tomorrow if they thought they had the votes. Ridiculous, but when has that ever stopped them?
@redshirt:
The only 2 ways he doesn’t win: Some unforeseen catastrophe that the public somehow blames on him, and 2: Massive electoral fraud.
I wish I could see either of these two things to be as unlikely as you.
In the case of item 1 – I’m well aware of my tinfoil hat tendencies, but more grotesque conspiracies have been proposed (see Operation Northwoods) and some even attempted (plots against FDR). To point out the obvious, 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush, politically speaking. He was headed for being a mediocre (at best) one term President until then. If 2004 has been as close an election as 2000 (and many say it was as close or closer, see Ohio), Karl Rove for one would have been perfectly okay with another 3000 American dead if it would have guaranteed a W victory. Provided they were the right (wrong) Americans, of course. Ther are any number of amoral right wing billionaires who would go along with and finance an “unforeseen catastrophe” if they thought they could get away it, and on the evidence they probably can.
Paranoid? Absolutely, but twenty years ago anybody who said the crimes for which Richard Nixon was driven from office would be eventually legalized would have been dismissed as paranoid and crazy. Anybody who said the NSA would engage in wholesale warrantless wiretapping of Americans would have been dismissed as paranoid and crazy. Anybody who said the President would arrogate to himself the right to execute American citizens without charges or trial would have been dismissed as paranoid and crazy. Anybody who said the Republicans would tamper with “the full faith and credit of the United States” by refusing to raise the debt limit would have been dismissed as crazy and paranoid. Anybody who said…but you get the idea.
But let’s say that’s all a product of my fevered imagination. That leaves…
Item 2 – I give you the recent Pennsylvania voter ID law, which “has called into question the ability of more than 9 percent of the state’s registered voters—some 750,000 people representing more than President Obama’s margin of victory in the state in 2008—to cast their ballots this year.” Quote from the 7/24/12 online edition of Forbes.
Pennsylvania GOP House Leader Mike Turzai allowed himself to be captured on video saying that the voter ID law he shepherded through the legislature “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
All this with absolutely zero incidents or investigations of voter fraud in the state among any demographic.
If this isn’t evidence that massive voter fraud and/or disenfranchisement is going to at least be attempted – not only in Pennsylvania, but in Florida, Ohio and other states – I don’t know what would serve as such evidence.
So to repeat, I wish I could be as positive as you are. But the Republicans are not interested in free and fair elections, they’re interested in getting Obama out of office, following which – if they succeed – they will sit down on the smoking ruins of the electoral process and decide what to do next.
Nothing would make me happier than to be proved wrong. But if I were you, I wouldn’t be quite so eager to wager ten large on an Obama victory at this point, let alone a big one.
From the Devil’s Dictionary by that prophet Ambrose Bierce, a definition:
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
@EconWatcher:
ROFL.
amk
My prediction – Obama wins with over 300 EV’s and + 5% on PV. Senate remains in dems control with 52-55. House is going to be marginal with whichever party pulls it off.
Ed in NJ
A quick visit to the wingnut sites reveals that once the Rmoney PACs start to spend money, everything will fall their way. Of course, they also think that Rmoney is secretly way ahead right now because of poll bias and because their one liberal friend in the middle of red country doesn’t have an Obama sign in their yard this time.
redshirt
@danielx: I’m super confident. I won’t even entertain grand conspiracies of the type you mention – I was speaking more about economic collapse in Europe, or asteroid strike or something.
As for voter fraud, it’s a real concern. But the DOJ is actively fighting against it, as well as groups like the ACLU. It’s not going unanswered, and in fact should be reason to be even more active in signing up new voters and working to get folks to the polls.
While super confident, I’m not taking anything for granted, since I want to see the Republicans crushed at all levels and in all ways possible. I want the Dems to go for the jugular, so I’m fired up. Ready to go also too.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Corpus Christy:
The GOP has been airing ads of one particularly Dangerous Negro since 2008. He’s still more popular than anyone they have, by a long shot. This Dangerous Negro is smarter than they are.
JoyfulA
@karen: I’ve read that in Virginia, presidential candidate Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) is polling 7% when the polled aren’t limited to Obama and Rmoney.
Robert Sneddon
@kay: Money. There was a political operative and fund-raiser back in the mid-90s who explained it as (IIRC) “It costs a buck to make a point. It costs five bucks to refute it, mostly.”
Governor Romney’s big-money backers have already coughed up hundreds of millions of bucks and nearly all of it has gone to counter the attacks by President Obama’s campaign rather than directly attacking Obama. It’s going to cost them more megabucks to launch attacks into Obama’s own turf, so to speak. I can imagine that come October the money taps might get switched off as it becomes clearer to them that they’re throwing good money after bad and their preferred candidate can’t win.
Chris
@JoyfulA:
Ah, for the day when one of their own finally ratfucks them by pulling a Nader.
jibeaux
@Ed in NJ: Why, I believe you’re referring to VICTORY and UNLIMITED CORPORATE CASH!
jwb
@Ed in NJ: I don’t have my Obama sign in my yard or on my car yet and won’t until after the convention.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
@Jamey:
This would explain why Romney’s not eating at Chik-Fil-A.
redshirt
@Robert Sneddon: Stimulus spending! Trickle down prosperity!
Tractarian
The Pollster poll of polls now has Romney leading for the first time – ever.
And this is the day you choose to declare
victoryan indisputable lead???jwb
@Robert Sneddon: If Romney’s support collapses, as I am more and more convinced that it will, I’m guessing the money will go to a desperate attempt to shore up the House and Senate drive enough conservative voters to the polls that they can limit the damage to the other down ticket races.
shortstop
@Tractarian: You’re so cute. Retake eighth-grade civics, learn about the electoral college and get back to us.
Dumbass.
shortstop
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God: I thought that was because the chicken didn’t look homemade.
Shawn in ShowMe
@jwb:
I’m surprised that wasn’t their strategy from jump, considering their spiritual leader Grover Norquist handed down the blueprint months ago.
Mnemosyne
My Rush-Limbaugh-listening, Fox-News-watching father who hasn’t voted for a Democrat since Nixon is telling every pollster who calls him that he’s voting for “Dr. Ron Paul.”
Take that as you will.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Corpus Christy: Obama is the dangerous negro and no one ever accused GH Bush of utter incompetence.
amk
@Tractarian: The real pollster of pollsters y’day.
Eat your heart out.
Chris
@jwb:
How do you figure it “collapses”? You think it’ll dip below 45%? I have a hard time imagining the GOP base letting go of its Obama hate.
shortstop
@Mnemosyne: OT, I find it hilarious when Paulbots refer to him as “Dr. Paul” as though he were their personal gynecologist. (Dean supporters also did this to a far lesser extent.) Paul hasn’t practiced medicine in umpteen years and the content of his current life is nothing but politics, so the honorific seems stilted and pompous to me in this context.
Roger Moore
@kay:
I think a big chunk of it is that nothing rallies the base like the idea you’re going to win. Going hard for uncommitted voters, or even for wavering members of the other side’s base, projects that kind of confidence.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@cmorenc: Speaking of GOP conventions; there will be Ron Paul with all his delegates and Romney declared dead meat in the general. I expect we will be eating a lot of popcorn over that convention.
jibeaux
@Mnemosyne: The detail that kills me about Ron Paul people is their insistence on the Dr. part. It’s eccentric in a cute way, like if I said I’m voting for Barack Obama, Esquire.
shortstop
@Roger Moore: Good observation.
General Stuck
@amk:
Not to mention internals that show Obama is more likeable by up to a 2 to 1 advantage. (see last USA Gallup number) at 60 -30 .
Unless Romney changes that situation, it is only a matter of time till people turn their branes on for making decisions on who to vote for. And the history is long on that factor of likeability clearly breaking toward a candidate they personally like, especially swing voters. It is the calculation of who you want on your living room teevee near daily, for the next four years.
It’s about the economy stupid, unless it isn’t.
Mnemosyne
@shortstop:
@jibeaux:
My dad just looooves to annoy people, so I think that’s why he insists on the “Dr.” I don’t think there’s any way he would ever vote for Obama short of a traumatic head injury, but if he wants to throw his vote away on Paul instead of voting for Romney, I’m all for it.
General Stuck
@Chris:
I think it would take a lot, ‘to collapse’ that prevailing GOP vote of 45%, but not out of the question, if Romney doesn’t get his shit together, to a minimal degree. And even then it will be dicey, when the Obama team starts mass producing ads of a Romney then/now theme. It will strain every shred of the currency of credibility a POTUS candidate needs to win.
He is going to have to release his tax returns, also too. Or else the clamor will become so intense as to blot out most other factors. It is key to his single selling point being able to create jobs. Then comes the content of those returns he will have to explain in an election about the economy/money matters of all kinds.
jwb
@Shawn in ShowMe: Yes, me too. But one of the problems they have is that with the saturation strategy they have adopted every ad spent on the presidential race is not just money not spent on the other races; it actually means there is no slot on TV to run ads for the other races.
Mnemosyne
@Chris:
I think the potential collapse would come from Republicans either staying home or voting for a third party or write-in candidate. As everyone except people on the far left seem to realize, getting your opponents to either stay home or vote third party has essentially the same effect as getting them to vote for your candidate. Any non-Romney vote is a vote for Obama, even if that vote goes to Ron Paul.
@Roger Moore:
Not only that — being seen as a “winner” is one of the things that can sway swing voters to your side. Nobody wants to say that they took forever to make their decision and picked the losing side.
Bobby Thomson
@Linda Featheringill:
Dukakis had a 17 point lead after the Democratic convention in July.
Kerry led Junior in most July 2004 polls.
jwb
@Chris: Collapsing by conservatives not showing up to vote or choosing to vote for protest candidates.
kay
@Roger Moore:
I agree. The idea that projecting doom and gloom prevents the base from becoming complacent has never made sense to me. I think people like to vote for a candidate who projects confidence. I consider myself one of the activist base and I have never once been inspired to do anything by pessimists. I try to avoid them. I’m not motivated by fear. It repels me a little. I feel as if people can almost SMELL it. I know people are motivated by all sorts of things but fear is a loser for me. I just find it generally corrosive as an attitude.
doug
And we haven’t even seen evasive, sweaty, bullying Mitt try to debate Obama. Mitt’s no McCain on the podium, and Obama won’t let himself be bullied.
Get out and vote!
Bobby Thomson
@Jamey: Mormons are Christians. Not mainstream Christians, but they are Christians.
Mnemosyne
@Bobby Thomson:
I forget, which one was the presidential incumbent, Dukakis or Kerry?
ETA: If anything, those numbers show that it’s Romney who historically should be way ahead in the polls. IIRC, even Mondale was ahead of Reagan at this point in 1984.
For the challenger to be this far behind the incumbent at this point is not a good sign for the challenger.
General Stuck
@Bobby Thomson: @Bobby Thomson:
Neither one of those were incumbents, so if Kerry was leading incumbent Bush in July, more the better that the current incumbent is leading the challenger now.
edit – or what Mnem said
kay
@Roger Moore:
Obama can’t ask volunteers in R leaning counties to go out and persuade unless he’s willing to do the same thing. I’m glad he’s not hunkered down in safe Dem counties running the campaign political media insisted he had to run, which is “turn out your base and hope Romney screws up”
That’s not appealing to me. It’s defensive and crouched.
shortstop
@kay: Yes, this. A minority of people do work harder when they’re scared or worried, but most people respond more to a candidate who shows confidence and coolness.
shortstop
@Mnemosyne: Okay, but if I meet your pop, I’m going to ask him how his last pap smear went, ’cause I love to annoy people, too. ;)
Mnemosyne
Also, too — Gallup looked at previous polls of presidential races between incumbents and challengers and concluded that Obama’s got this.
Mnemosyne
@shortstop:
He actually would love that. He loves to argue with people who disagree with him. That’s probably how I ended up a liberal Democrat in a family full of Republicans.
(Well, that and my naturally winning and accommodating personality, of course.)
AliceBlue
@kay:
Exactly. I contribute small amounts to the Obama campaign when I can, but I can’t stand these “if you don’t contribute $13 RIGHT NOW, we’re DOOMED!” e-mails.
Bobby Thomson
@Mnemosyne: The point wasn’t “Oh no we’re DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!”
I was responding to the comment that the cake is generally baked by July. That’s definitely not true.
Cacti
@Mnemosyne:
Unless there’s a big game changer before November, it’s all lining up for Obama to win handily.
Romney holds the McCain states and flips IN and NC. Obama wins with around 330 EV.
Roger Moore
@kay:
I see it as being something like the carrot and stick thing. For long-term success, people need to be motivated by both positive and negative emotions. If you try to use only rewards for success, people eventually get complacent and think they can afford to sit one out because they already have what they want. If you try to use only punishment for failure, they eventually get drained and can’t keep it up anymore.
But if you use both, you can keep more people motivated for longer. The ones who are starting to get complacent can be motivated by the fear of what the other side will do if we lose; ones who are getting drained by constant fear can be re-energized with the positive emotions of what they can earn by winning. I think this is why incrementalism can be a powerful strategy. It provides both positive motivation (we can get more of what we want if we win) and negative motivation (the other guys will roll back our previous victories if they’re in charge).
JoyfulA
@JoyfulA: I’ve just read NBC saying Goode is polling 9% in Virginia and that even 2% for Goode would make the state impossible for Rmoney.
jwb
@Mnemosyne: The 1992 and 1980s elections would be the ones to look at as a comparison. In 1992, Clinton started out quite a lot behind. In June, Perot with 39% to 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton. Perot dropped out during the Dem convention, and Clinton exited with a large lead 56%-34%. Throughout the rest of the summer, Bush never exceeded 38%. (Contrary to common belief, when Perot re-entered the race in October, he took almost all his support from Clinton not Bush.) Even without the complicating factor of Perot, it is clear that Bush was not well liked. The 1980 election is also interesting. This article has a nice little breakdown and it shows that Reagan pulled ahead of Carter in June and remained ahead until the Dem convention. June: 37-32; post-GOP convention July: 45-29; post-Dem convention August: 39-39. Carter was then slightly ahead until just before the election. But here again what is striking is Carter’s low levels of support (and high number of undecideds) until after the Dem convention.
danielx
@redshirt:
Knock on wood, and I hope you’re right. However – and maybe I’m wrong and you do recognize this – something we can never forget is the following:
Movement conservatives do not believe in the electoral process or democracy (small d variety) if it’s not producing the results they want. They are true believers and they never stop working towards what they want.
They may not go as far as pretext-for-coup d’etat-type plots and conspiracies, but short of that…
After all, deliberately transferring wealth and political power (the same thing, basically) from the middle class to the top 1% – more accurately the top 0.1% – is no conspiracy. It’s happening right out in the open, has been for thirty years and is getting even more blatant as time goes on, i.e. Citizens United.
I won’t say I’m fired up, exactly, but I do find it encouraging that the Dems (Obama’s campaign in particular) seem to have gotten a spine transplant from somewhere. It’s a refreshing change after years and years of watching feeble protests against Republican tactics. Listening to Republican squeals about dirty campaign tactics which consist of pointing out obvious truths is even more refreshing.
It would be more refreshing yet if Obama and the Dems would permanently get off their kick of asking the Republicans:
“Will you promise not to hurt us and ask for more and try to make us look bad if we give you everything you want?”
They are never going to negotiate in good faith and they are never going to admit they are getting everything they want in legislative negotiations. The Republicans play hardball every minute of every day. Why has it been so difficult for Democrats to recognize this and play the same way?
Then too, it would be nice if Obama would finally get the Department of Justice and the SEC off their lazy asses (incompetent too in the case of the SEC) and send some bankers to fucking jail, and not in any Club Fed either. Maybe in a second term when he doesn’t need Wall Street any more…
Hey, I can dream.
shortstop
@Cacti: That’s exactly how I think it will come out statewise, except I think Romney will take FL as well as IN and NC. I’m giving Obama 303.
jwest
The fact that there are so many people here who believe Obama has a chance at reelection is breathtaking.
People will want to study this after the election. Is it possible for Balloon Juice to set up a journal where the regular commenters can put their thoughts down each day leading up to the election and immediately thereafter?
Also, each journal should include where the commenter receives the bulk of their information – TV news, newspapers, blogs, etc.
Do this for posterity.
shortstop
Yay, Doug’s up! Have some coffee and settle in.
Beth in VA
@Tractarian: yeah, scary
rikyrah
@the Conster:
you are on point.
Yutsano
@jwest: Give me one reason to vote for Willard. Just one. I’ll wait.
Jebediah
@redshirt:
Yes, 5:38 in the am. I start work at seven so the poor doggies have to get up pretty early for their walk.
jwest
Yutsano,
An argument about who to vote for wouldn’t be productive. I’m simply interested in the process that leads otherwise intellegent people to ignore all the facts and think their candidate is doing well.
Also, it would be interesting to get the immediate reactions afterwards to see where they thought they were misinformed and ill prepared for the ultimate eventuality.
amk
@jwest:
You talking about romneybots ?
redshirt
@jwest: no answer then, right?
Roger Moore
@Yutsano:
His skin is just the right color of pink, unlike the dusky hue of that other guy. You didn’t say that it had to be a good reason, or one that would be persuasive to you personally.
colby
@jwest:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/presidential-swing-states-(fl-oh-and-pa)/release-detail?ReleaseID=1781
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/31/1115407/-Daily-Kos-SEIU-State-of-the-Nation-poll-Everyone-agrees-the-political-media-sucks
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/obama-barely-ahead-in-florida.html
Who’s ignoring what, now?
Listen, there’s no problem with predicting a Romney victory. Some polls indicate that it’s a strong possibility, almost all show that the race is close enough for it to happen. But the only way you can say that people predicting an Obama victory are “ignoring facts” is to, well, ignore them yourself.
TenguPhule
Mitt Bot Fail.
I will always go for Made in America over a Mexican Import.
Yutsano
@jwest: You can just admit you got nothin’ and move on.
So November 6th when Willard loses the Electoral College you’ll be happy to eat your crow? I have a few recipes…
grandpa john
@Bobby Thomson:
That is your opinion and there are several denominations that are Christian who do not agree with you. mainstream or not, you are either a Christian or you are not.
shortstop
@grandpa john:
Or maybe they’re not. ;)
redshirt
Here you go Jwest. More liberal propaganda:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/pew-obama-national-lead.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
superdestroyer
@NonyNony:
But the whole idea that demographics drive politics is being shown with every election. As the NY Times reported last week, the Republican party is already dead in California. Now the changing demographics of Virginia has turned a red state to a swing state.
Everyone should be able to to realize that if the Republicans have to compete in Virginia that there is no way that Romney can win.
Is the real legacy of Bush II is that he gets to be the last Republican President.