The emperor’s old clothes

posted at 8:49 pm on April 18, 2012 by Karl

This week’s screwy CNN poll was at least useful in encapsulating the establishment media’s conventional wisdom about the 2012 campaign: the gender gap and likeability are the keys to Pres. Obama’s reelection over likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney. Unsurprisingly, the reality is a bit more complex than the spin.

Consider the gender gap, as Ramesh Ponnuru does:

Of the eight presidential elections from 1980 to 2008, Republicans won five (four if you exclude 2000). Republicans carried women, albeit narrowly, three times; Democrats carried men twice. Republicans can lose even while winning men, as in 1996. Democrats can lose while winning women, as in 2004.

The evidence suggests that women are more inclined than men to vote for Democrats, but this gap doesn’t consistently help either party. It isn’t the case that the larger the gender gap, the worse Republicans do. Republicans did seven points better among men than women in 2004, when they won. They did five points better in 2008, when they lost.

Obama barely won men in 2008. If this race is at all competitive, he will lose them this time. And that’s not all we can predict. Romney will win among large subgroups of women: those who are married, those who are white, those who go to church regularly. Gender isn’t the principal determinant of women’s votes any more than it is of men’s.

Meanwhile, Doug Schoen compiles the arguments why Obama is unlikely to significantly improve his standing among male voters — and specifically among male independents and swing voters. Harry J. Enten not only dissects the gender gap, but also the race gap:

The good news for Romney and the Republicans is that they don’t need to win in 2012 among minority groups. Latinos and African Americans combined will probably make up a little less than 25% of the 2012 electorate. Whites, on the other hand, will make up somewhere between 72-75%. If Romney and the Republicans continue to lose minorities by between 47 and 90 percentage points, as they did with Latinos and African Americans respectively in 2008, they will have to win white voters by around 20 points, instead of their 12-point 2008 lead. It turns out that there is a precedent for this massive white swing in the face of a static minority support for the Democrats.

Enten points to the midterm results from 2006 and 2010, which is a little risky, given the difference in the likely turnout demographics between midterms and general elections. However, he notes the GOP only needs to improve its margins with white voters by about 8%-10% rather than the 19% improvement the GOP saw from 2006 to 2010.

As for likeability, there is actually little empirical study (afaik) of its effect on election outcomes. However, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza notes that in elections with an incumbent since 1980, Mondale, Dole and Kerry all had high favorable ratings and lost, while Bill Clinton won with middling favorable ratings. I would add that the focus on Obama’s favorables tends to obscure the fact that he also tends to have high unfavorables, close to those of Romney, who has lower favorables, but a fair share of unknowns. Even the CNN poll had Romney’s favorables rebounding as the nasty phase of the GOP primaries ends; Obama, as a universally known quantity, is likely at his ceiling.

As Brendan Nyhan puts it at CJR:

In reality, presidential election outcomes can almost never be attributed to a shift in a single demographic group. Likewise, most campaigns are decided by the popular vote, not the details of the Electoral College. For both reasons, journalists should keep their eye on the big picture. While forecasting models are hardly perfect, they have persuasively shown that presidential elections are shaped by fundamental factors like incumbency and the economy, which tend to move demographic groups roughly in parallel. Obama appears to be overperforming among women now, but campaigns tend to move voters toward the outcomes we’d expect given the fundamentals. The implication is that Romney’s standing among women is likely to recover somewhat. As I recently noted, campaign shocks to candidates’ standing in general election trial heats are largely transitory at this stage of the campaign (link requires subscription). Though the gender gap will persist, Republican women and GOP-leaning independents are likely to find reasons to return home after contraception leaves the news, Romney’s rivals stop attacking him, and the conventions remind them of their partisan loyalties.

Polling at this stage of the campaign does not tell us much, but the media coverage of them says a lot about how the establishment would like to shape the campaign environment. A cynic might observe the media seemingly clings to attacks on the GOP, identity politics and the cult of personality as Obama’s strengths in an anemic economy. Those are not even not even the Emperor’s New Clothes; they are the Emperor’s Old Clothes.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Get ready for it. There are going to be fake polls put out right to this guy’s defeat showing him close or ahead.

The purpose of which is to de-legitimize Romney.

wildcat72 on April 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM

As I’ve said before:

In this case The clothes have no emperor!

massrighty on April 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Obama’s bite is worse than his bark. He ate a puppy.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:55 PM

well said massrighty “the clothes have no emperor! is spot on.

CoffeeLover on April 18, 2012 at 8:56 PM

That’s the “Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week, don’t forget to order the woof and boeuf” photo.

vityas on April 18, 2012 at 8:56 PM

CoffeeLover on April 18, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Thanks.

massrighty on April 18, 2012 at 8:58 PM

He ate a puppy.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:55 PM

That explains why he goes around America marking his territory !

burrata on April 18, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Was the puppy that Obama ate murdered humanly? Was it a free-range gluten-free organic puppy?

I wonder.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:55 PM

That explains why he goes around America marking his territory !

burrata on April 18, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Yep. he is we weed up all over.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM

I hope that Bo is not woked by 0bama.

jukin3 on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM

The emperor’s old clothes…………

…………are made from Dalmations!!

Cruela/Barack/DeVille!!
(snark)

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Yep. he is we weed up all over.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:59 PM

If Obama had a son , he’d look like this

burrata on April 18, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Sounds like the MSM are Circling the Presstitute wagons,
around Hopey for 2012!

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Get ready for it. There are going to be fake polls put out right to this guy’s defeat showing him close or ahead.

The purpose of which is to de-legitimize Romney.

wildcat72 on April 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Yeah, but they can only fake it so much. CNN looks like a bunch of dopes now with their Obama +9 push poll.

Just keep tracking Rasmussen and Gallup and see if the others reinforce those numbers. Rasmussen will probably be more reliable with likely voters, but Gallup is also solid.

The Count on April 18, 2012 at 9:08 PM

burrata on April 18, 2012 at 9:04 PM

OMG that is one ugly mutt.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM

A cynic might observe the media seemingly clings to attacks on the GOP, identity politics and the cult of personality as Obama’s strengths in an anemic economy.

and attacks on institutions that Americans trust. Trotting out 2 yr old photos in the wake of a Secret Service scandal and “voila’” –my how those Secret Service womanizers and military trophy seekers are all effed up…..

sarc of course.

ted c on April 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM

The emperor’s old clothes…………

…………are made from Dalmations!!

Cruela/Barack/DeVille!!
(snark)

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM

101 Dalmatians were skinned alive to feed and cloth the emperor.

And Obama admitted to eating a puppy who didn’t harm anyone but just wanted a family to live with.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Burrata@ 9:04
Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaa,, now that is nasty hehe……….

angrymike on April 18, 2012 at 9:21 PM

The emperor’s old clothes…………

…………are made from Dalmations!!

Cruela/Barack/DeVille!!
(snark)

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM

sooo vicious :)…OMG, my abdominal muscles hurt, more laughing that a human can handle :-)…

jimver on April 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM
————————————-

101 Dalmatians were skinned alive to feed and cloth the emperor.

And Obama admitted to eating a puppy who didn’t harm anyone but just wanted a family to live with.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 9:15 PM

SparkPlug:Ahem,lol,remember when he killed that defenceless poor
wittle fly,that should of been a wake-up call right
there!(sarc):)

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Canopfor is on fire tonight:)

Electrongod on April 18, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Obama eats dogs. I’m singing that all the way to november.

OBAMA EATS DOGS !

teacherman on April 18, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I think Obama is going to have a problem with turnout for the demographic groups that vote for him. The people I know who support him arent all that enthusiastic about it and the I inherited this mess/it would have been much worse meme has worn pretty thin.

ldbgcoleman on April 18, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Of the eight presidential elections from 1980 to 2008, Republicans won five (four if you exclude 2000). Republicans carried women, albeit narrowly, three times;
=============================

Thats why,Team Obama is soooo busy trying to put a wedge inbetween
the Women Vote for the GOP!

Obama’s women problem
April 12 2012
**************

With polls showing Mitt Romney losing ground with women voters, many in Washington have been buzzing in recent days over

Romney’s “woman problem.”

They’ve got it backward: It is Barack Obama who has the bigger problem with women.
*******************
********************

When he took office in 2009, Obama’s job approval rating with women had reached 70 percent;

today it has slipped to 49 percent — a precipitous decline of 21 points.

This is why the president has been working overtime to court the women’s vote —

weighing in on whether women should be admitted to the Augusta National Golf Club (even though nobody asked what he thought); publicly taking the side of a female Georgetown University law student in her spat with Rush Limbaugh; and forcing religious employers to provide coverage for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-women-problem/2012/04/12/gIQArl5pCT_story.html

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Oh-oh, here he comes
Watch out pooch
He’ll chew you up
Oh-oh, here he comes
He’s a dogeater

faraway on April 18, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Obama’s bite is worse than his bark. He ate a puppy.

SparkPlug on April 18, 2012 at 8:55 PM

…Hasn’t Moochelle said “You are what you eat”?

KOOLAID2 on April 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Oh-oh, here he comes
Watch out pooch
He’ll chew you up
Oh-oh, here he comes
He’s a dogeater

faraway on April 18, 2012 at 9:34 PM

faraway:A nice ditty,Puppys Hauling Oats Brigade!:)

canopfor on April 18, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Dear America, Our Orwellian President Fails on Energy
by Sarah Palin on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 6:23pm ·

Last Friday, former energy trader and now Fox News host Eric Bolling and I hosted a Fox special called “Paying at the Pump,” which offered President Obama solutions to reduce prices at the pump and get our country on the path to real energy security.

A genuine “all of the above” approach to energy independence is, of course, a multifaceted plan. It includes conservation and sensible private sector investment in sound alternative energy, and it absolutely must involve unleashing our domestic energy production. We cannot ignore the need to drill, baby, drill; frack, baby, frack; and mine, baby, mine. Those who are concerned about the environment and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil should encourage the development of natural gas as a clean and plentiful bridge-fuel to a more renewable future. We have enough clean, green natural gas in America to be energy independent for many decades—whether we use it for natural gas cars or natural gas power plants. We also need to look at our oil refining capacity and our regulations there. We must cut the job-killing, anti-domestic energy regulations of Obama’s EPA and IRS which create such burdens and uncertainty. Finally, Eric pointed out that we must do something about the Wall Street speculators. I know this is a touchy issue, but Eric’s points are valid. Obama’s Federal Trade Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission appear to have no teeth in dealing with this because they haven’t cracked down on the president’s friends on Wall Street who are creating unnecessary oil market volatility. Eric suggested that we could reduce the problem of speculation by raising energy margin requirements.

In his press conference today, President Obama seems to have latched on to Eric’s idea of dealing with speculators. But the president proposed an outrageously expensive “fix,” claiming that he needs a boatload of tax dollars and bureaucrats to merely apply common sense to regulating oil trades and enforcing the authority the CFTC was already granted by the Dodd-Frank bill. This is ridiculous, and it’s not enough. Keep in mind that cracking down on speculation is only a small part of the solution. The key remedy is still drilling.

Basically, President Obama’s idea of an “all of the above” approach to energy is really “none-of-the-above” to the resources we use right now to power our economy. Take for instance the Obama EPA’s war against coal production (which he promised when he was a candidate), which will ultimately leave us with higher electric bills and less electricity. Because his cap and trade legislation got sidelined, Obama is now using his EPA to accomplish the same destructive goals by imposing draconian regulations aimed at crippling the coal industry. According to the Associated Press, Obama’s EPA will soon “force 32 mostly coal-fired power plants to shut down and threatens to close 36 others” and will eventually remove from our power grid enough electricity to power 11 million households. Just ask Californians how much fun “rolling blackouts” are. I suppose we can look forward to more romantic candle-lit evenings ahead as America moves backward with less energy, which must be more of Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy. I hope the folks up North have a hearty wood supply for their fireplace warmth, and that those in the Southwest don’t mind sweltering in the summer heat. Air conditioning takes up an awful lot of electricity; and in Obama’s America, energy will be scarce. As Mark Levin has pointed out numerous times, Obama’s policies will ultimately de-industrialize America.

But we don’t have to look to the future to feel the pain of Obama’s energy policies. Look at our current gas prices. The Obama administration is locking up federal lands to drilling. The EIA reports that production and sale of fossil fuels on federal lands dropped by 6% last year under Obama. Other studies show a 12% decline. When you hear the president boast of all the “new” drilling going on, he’s talking about production on private and state land that was in the works long ago and is not under his control. He doesn’t tell you how his administration has done everything in its power to strangle resource development with regulatory red tape and foot dragging on the permitting and leasing process. We hear his endless claims that we only have “2% of the world’s oil”—sometimes he adds “reserves” to that—but know that the White House is playing games with semantics. The Obama administration is using a subset of “proved oil reserves” to make it sound like America is energy poor! They’re deliberately distorting the true picture of our massive recoverable oil resources—most of which is on federal land that the government has locked up to responsible development. In short, the president is deceiving the public. As I’ve said before, the energy production “facts” and numbers President Obama repeats are skewed, deceptive and downright Orwellian.

Ironically, President Obama likes to remind us that global factors outside of our control affect the price of oil, but he never seems to make the connection that this is precisely why we should increase our domestic supply of oil by drilling here where environmental and worker safety standards are stricter than any foreign country from which we purchase oil, and that our increased domestic supply would put downward pressure on the price of oil. If Obama doesn’t think increasing the supply on the market affects the price at the pump, then why did he ask the Saudis to increase their production? And Brazil? Why did he open our Strategic Reserves last year to lower prices at the pump? Common sense tells you that, of course, increasing the supply of something has an affect on the price.

President Obama refuses to acknowledge this obvious truth because he doesn’t want to do what needs to be done. He isn’t interested in drilling, fracking or mining for the resources we actually use to power our economy. His idea of an energy plan amounts to dumping more of our tax dollars into the bankrupt green energy companies that his campaign donors invested in. It’s crony capitalism on steroids. He’s also in favor of “investing” your tax dollars into algae because he believes pond scum is the wave of the future. He also tells you to deal with gas prices by merely inflating your tires; getting a tune up; and, despite your work needs or the size of your family, ditch your larger vehicle for one he deems acceptably small. But what about the $4 per gallon gas prices that are devastating the budgets of American families, crippling our small businesses, and increasing the transportation costs of all goods shipped in America and thereby increasing the prices of everything we buy? Barack Obama’s answer to your pain is basically, “give me some flexibility here…” because “change isn’t easy.” Well, actually it is. It starts with getting rid of this energy illiterate administration.

Today, on Tax Day, our big, wasteful, and largely useless centralized government is taking hard-earned money from 85 million Americans.

The Republican Study Committee reports: “According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the country will work 107 days this year just to pay for federal, state, and local taxes. By their calculations, a larger share of Americans’ income will go to taxes than food, clothing & housing combined!”

And what do we get in return on our investment in big government? More marching orders from the faceless bureaucrats in D.C. More crony capitalism for the administration’s favored friends. More expensive conventions, vacations, parties (and Colombian hookers?) for the profligate Obama administration. Less energy security. Less allowance for resource development. More EPA regulations to de-industrialize our country and kill jobs. More opportunities shipped overseas as we allow others to produce for us that which our government refuses to allow us to produce for ourselves!

Aren’t we tired of this by now? Candidate Obama promised us a sensible energy plan to get us to energy independence. President Obama has failed to deliver it.

He fails to understand the fundamental truth that there is an inherent link between energy and prosperity, and energy and security. Oil prices affect everything in our lives, including where we send our sons and daughters in war. Developing resources here grows our economy, decreases our trade imbalance, creates hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, and secures our union by eliminating our dependence on dangerous foreign regimes who use our energy insecurity as a weapon against us. Access to secure domestic energy will make us a more peaceful and prosperous nation.

Obama doesn’t understand this—just as he doesn’t understand the dangers of his wasteful spending. Our energy policy is also linked with our fiscal and monetary policies. In light of America’s unsustainable $16 trillion debt, there’s more talk about dumping the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which is the currency used to buy and sell oil. If that happens, we’ll feel the pain of inflation everywhere—especially at the pump. That, in turn, will trickle down to everything in our economy. Those living on fixed incomes and retirement pensions and annuities will feel the pain especially hard. So, this is one more reason to get government debt under control with sound monetary policy that doesn’t try to “inflate away” our debt with currency manipulation and gimmicks like quantitative easing.

Obama fails to understand this. He’s failed us as the nation’s stakeholders, and that’s why we must replace our CEO at November’s ballot box. As one audience member in our Fox special said, “I can’t fill my gas tank with hope and change.”

Wake up, America. November is around the corner. Change is easier than you’ve been led to believe.

- Sarah Palin

CoolChange80 on April 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Of the previous ten elections moderate Republicans also lost five times. The last moderate Republican to win was Nixon who was forced out of office.

Mitt by that metric will lose.

Last election McCain was Obamas lap dog. Every time a Republican said something Obama objected to McCain joined Obama in criticizing the Republican. Can not us Obamas middle name Hussine, can not talk about his pastor of twenty years, can not insinuate Obama is a Communist, can not talk about Bill Ayres or any other people Obama had close relationships with.

Now Mitt is doing exactly the same thing. But expects to win???

Mitt will not win. Not by what he is doing now.

Which peeves me off. I detest Obama and want him out. But no no no. Select the worst possible candidate who will lose on all the important issues. I mean really April and I already know Mitt is toast. Insane.

Steveangell on April 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM

oops, I may have stolen that without realizing it. That was weird.

faraway on April 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Steveangell on April 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM

One major disagreement. Other than being a national defense conservative, Nixon was a progressive.

chemman on April 18, 2012 at 10:08 PM

OBAMA EATS DOGS !
G’night everybody !

teacherman on April 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Polling at this stage of the campaign does not tell us much, but the media coverage of them says a lot about how the establishment would like to shape the campaign environment.

Chuck Todd broke out the pom-poms yesterday upon seeing the Pew poll putting Obama a few points ahead of Romney:

Pew has Obama up 4 on Romney, 49-45. http://bit.ly/HZZjP3 // Gallup looking like an outlier. Live by the #dailytrack…

He was awfully quick to declare Gallup the outlier wasn’t he?

So happy was the Chuckster he went on to praise Pew’s crosstabs:

Pew does a TERRIFIC job of presenting their crosstabs. Dig in junkies. http://bit.ly/I2Lyeq // be sure to look at the demos BY gender

Nice work Chuck, junkies have their marching orders. Chuck was challenged on his immediate praise of Pew however. He made it clear he is privy to the internals of some unknown campaign:

@RobbieSherman77 i think CNN is outlier-ish on their lead actually. Internal numbers I’ve seen and heard about have race closer to Pew

Gosh I wonder whose internals Chuck could have seen.

msmveritas on April 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Polls shmolls,
put boots on the ground voting day.
Stay vigilant!

I am getting involved locally, just to observe,
and be noisy if necessary.

PaleoRider on April 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Get ready for it. There are going to be fake polls put out right to this guy’s defeat showing him close or ahead.

The purpose of which is to de-legitimize Romney.

wildcat72 on April 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I’m sure they’ll have lively debates on whatever has replaced Journolist deciding whether to either i) make polls look like Romney has a lead to get democratics giving to Bammie and amping up the GOTV or ii) make polls look like Romney has no chance to depress Republican turnout and make them think there’s no hope.

Decisions, decisions.

slickwillie2001 on April 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Once again a Hot Air punderati takes a Leftist’s insane garbage and treats it as a legitimate postulate, to be reacted to and reasoned about.

How can one read this garbage and continue wasting time on the rest?

Consider the gender gap, as Ramesh Ponnuru does:
Of the eight presidential elections from 1980 to 2008, Republicans won five (four if you exclude 2000).

rayra on April 19, 2012 at 3:00 AM

Obama’s father teaches him that one becomes what he eats, so, he feeds him dogs, snakes, and grasshoppers!! That finally explains this snake!!
This dog!! this grasshopper!! This Fraud!!

Marco on April 19, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Polls can be taken to get any results you want. Forget the polls and just remember what damage this fool has done to our country in a little over three years. Four more years of this guy would be devastating to the country. Secondly we just can’t afford him.

savage24 on April 19, 2012 at 5:43 PM