Can Obama get reelected losing the independent vote?

posted at 5:31 pm on September 16, 2012 by Karl

The answer is “yes,” if you believe a number of the polls currently in the Real Clear Politics poll average… but that’s a sizable if. The NYT/CBS poll shows Pres. Obama winning by 3 points among likely voters… but losing independents to Mitt Romney 44/50. The WaPo/ABC News poll shows Obama up by a point, while losing independents by 11 points, 43/54. The CNN/ORC poll (.pdf) shows Obama winning by six overall, but losing independents by a whopping 14 points, 40/54. Ironically, given people’s perceptions of poll bias, the Fox poll has Obama winning overall and winning indies by a similar 5 point margin.

Historically, a candidate cannot win the presidency while losing independent votes. However, it has happened thrice in my lifetime: 1976, 2000 and 2004. These exceptions are instructive.

In 1976, Carter won 50/48, while losing indies 48/52. However, the D/R/I breakdown that year was 37/22/41. The remarkably high number of indies and remarkably low number for Republicans suggests that post-Watergate, a lot of those indies were closet Republicans. In 2000, Dubya won indies 48/46, while narrowly losing the popular vote in a 39/35/26 D/R/I breakdown. In 2004, Dubya won 51/48, but lost indies 48/50 in a 37/37/26 D/R/I breakdown.

None of these exceptions provide much comfort to Team Obama. First, they highlight an overall Democrat ceiling of 37-39%. This was also true in 2008, the worst presidential environment for the GOP since 1976, resulting in a D/R/I break down of 39/32/29. Indeed, the increasing sorting of voters since 1976 suggests 2008′s 32% is a likely floor; this year’s GOP-identifying turnout is very likely to be higher. The 2000 and 2004 results, showing a narrow split in indies, suggest that Obama cannot afford to lose indies by six points, let alone 11 or 14 points.

Does this mean that the polls showing Obama winning overall while losing the independent vote are necessarily wrong, or biased? Not necessarily. Every poll has to be judged on its own strengths and weaknesses in total. Moreover, it is likely that these polls merely prove that Obama’s standing from roughly September 8-12 really did reflect a convention bounce already fading and likely to fade more, but which produced more people willing to identify as Democrats in these polls. I would expect that a week from now, polls may well show Obama with worse numbers overall, but perhaps slightly improved numbers with independents, as the weakest Dems and hardcore liberals shift back to an independent identification.

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Why sure we do. It’s just not a great dog. The fight is still slated to occur. You fight with the army you have not the army you wished you had. The fight will happen. As the old saying goes. “The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.”

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

You fight with the army you have not the army you wished you had. The fight will happen.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

So we get to choose the ones who are going to plunder our homes and destroy the village?

Can’t imagine why you guys are having trouble drumming up the enthusiasm on this one?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

For most of us conservatives there is only one choice and that is Romney. Whether we like it or not and not many do.

You seem to want to exercise an alternative, no choice at all.

How will that benefit anyone?

Charlemagne on September 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I don’t believe that will be in the Romney to do list. Look at it this way then. The next President regardless of who it ends up being will undoubtably become the most hated man on earth. If its 0 , he’s half way there already. If its Romney and he acts on just 10% of the things you and I might want, he too will be hated. Besides 51 days out what’s the alternative. What would you suggest we do? The fork in the road, which one?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

How will that benefit anyone?

Charlemagne on September 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM

There isn’t any benefit either way.

Its a choice without meaning.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Can’t imagine why you guys are having trouble drumming up the enthusiasm on this one?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

sharrrukin, you’re my friend, please don’t lump me in with ” you guys.”

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Besides 51 days out what’s the alternative. What would you suggest we do? The fork in the road, which one?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

You posit that as a choice when it seems clear that the road goes to the exact same place.

Tell me what Romney will do that you realistically think will change something?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Lol! Sorry sharrukin, not sharrrukin. iPad thingy, I can hardly see the type. ; )

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM

sharrrukin, you’re my friend, please don’t lump me in with ” you guys.”

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM

I just meant Romney supporters, regardless of how reluctant. It wasn’t meant as a dig.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Exactly! There is no way he can, In every poll regarding party ID and voting intensity the GOP is equal, to well ahead, in these catagories.

The current media based polls are designed and weighted for a narrative. I heard someone say that in the last week they will have their “come to Jesus” moment and adjust them so they won’tlook stupid.

Tater Salad on September 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Tell me what Romney will do that you realistically think will change something?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

For me, it’s not really as much about what Romney will do as what he won’t do. He won’t be 0. I am happy just to have that. However I do think Romney likes capitalism. I think he will do a fair job of managing that aspect. The Nation is being lost under 0. I hope to simply slow the bleeding. What is the alternative to not voting Romney. Knowing letting it collapse under 0 without even a team change. What would you have happen 51 days out?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM

The problem with letting 0bama win in hopes of his becoming even more unpopular by 2016 is that by 2016, the Dems also have a chance to put together a vote fraud apparatus, amnesty, more legal tools to use against opponents, and other means that ensure that Democrats never again lose an election—no matter how unpopular their policies are with the voting populace.

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I just meant Romney supporters, regardless of how reluctant. It wasn’t meant as a dig.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I’m not a Romney supporter. I only have two options to cast my vote for. It won’t be cast for 0 no matter what. That leaves Romney.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Then tell me what is so conservative about Romney other than his rhetoric? What conservative things has he done in office?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

1. Lived his private life conservatively.
2. Governed as a fiscal conservative, balancing budgets without raising taxes, still managing to eliminate a 1.5 billion dollar deficit.
3. vetoed countless bills designed to advance the liberal social agenda.
Not as conservative as some governors in red states–but MA ain’t TX or MS.

writeblock on September 16, 2012 at 10:12 PM

We know he didn’t get elected that way. He hooked independents on Hopenchange and being black.

This time around he’s trying to see if full lefty will work.

farsighted on September 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM

What is the alternative to not voting Romney. Knowing letting it collapse under 0 without even a team change. What would you have happen 51 days out?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Well from what you describe its going to collapse anyway. Romney isn’t going to change that but he will do the same sort of damage that Bush did to conservatism. Not because he is conservative, but because he will enact progressive policies that will be called ‘conservative’ and they will fail as such leftist policies always do.

The collapse will happen and that hybrid conservatism will be blamed rather than the progressivism that is actually at fault. He will also attempt to delay and save the welfare state which will make things far worse.

If TARP and the bailouts had not taken place in 2008 and the free market had been allowed to operate as it should we would be in a far better position than we are now. The debt has skyrocketed and making a few patches here and there so it can continue to rise, isn’t doing anyone any favors UNLESS there’s a plan.

Sharrukin: So, what’s the plan?
GOP: [laughing] PLAN? There ain’t no plan!

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

You and I both know Conservatism will get the blame regardless of the outcome. The only question that really matters to a Conservative is, is Conservatism to blame. We both tend to agree it is not.

As to what you want to have happen 51 days out, unless I misunderstand, you are willing to have it collapse. Rather than try to stave it off by casting a vote for Romney. I must remind you of the seriousness of said collapse. I am not willing to stand on principles which will not matter should there be a collapse. My take is to be pragmatic and go with the better of the two choices. It is undeniable that Romney is just that. A flawed nom, but a better alternative than 0 and certain collapse. I don’t believe we must collapse only that we can.

So just make it clear to me. Are you saying collapse is better than trying Romney?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:44 PM

So just make it clear to me. Are you saying collapse is better than trying Romney?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I am saying that nothing Romney has said or done leads me to believe that anything he does will change what is coming. It isn’t in Romney, or the GOP to make any real change. They are fakes. A collapse is coming and its better that it happen sooner, rather than later.

I do believe that a collapse is inevitable. The current welfare state is totally unsustainable.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

How will that benefit anyone?

Charlemagne on September 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM

There isn’t any benefit either way.

Its a choice without meaning.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

That’s not true. We pretty much know the debacle that will be another four years of Obama.

We know what we’re getting with Romney – the status quo.

Do we want to give ourselves more time to progress as we have since 2008 with the TEA party and cleaning out congress/senate in relative peace and quiet (status quo) or do we want to fight chaos for four more years and THEN continue the work from the hole that we’ll inevitably be in?

I see a benefit in voting for Romney. Do you disagree with my assessment?

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

That’s still not clear. Collapse is better than trying?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

That’s still not clear. Collapse is better than trying?

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

In 2008 collapse would have been better than what we did, and that is still true. Yes. Let the free market do its thing.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I am saying that nothing Romney has said or done leads me to believe that anything he does will change what is coming. It isn’t in Romney, or the GOP to make any real change. They are fakes. A collapse is coming and its better that it happen sooner, rather than later.

I do believe that a collapse is inevitable. The current welfare state is totally unsustainable.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

The flaw in your reasoning is in thinking a collapse will force conservative policies in ways that are currently politically impossible. Not with the power hunger we have seen among Democrats, in my opinion. It would simply lead to tyranny.

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

The flaw in your reasoning is in thinking a collapse will force conservative policies in ways that are currently politically impossible. Not with the power hunger we have seen among Democrats, in my opinion. It would simply lead to tyranny.

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

With the number of guns in private hands it would most likely lead to civil war first.

bgibbs1000 on September 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Do we want to give ourselves more time to progress as we have since 2008 with the TEA party and cleaning out congress/senate in relative peace and quiet (status quo) or do we want to fight chaos for four more years and THEN continue the work from the hole that we’ll inevitably be in?

Things are not getting better and thats been true for decades. Nothing is changing and the GOP is putting as many roadblocks in the path of reform as the leftists are.

I see a benefit in voting for Romney. Do you disagree with my assessment?

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

No. I don’t believe he will help with electing actual conservatives nor do I believe he will do anything but cooperate with the expansion of big government.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

In 2008 collapse would have been better than what we did, and that is still true. Yes. Let the free market do its thing.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Agreed, but you are considering what real collapse leads to I hope. It is not good.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

With the number of guns in private hands it would most likely lead to civil war first.

bgibbs1000 on September 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Why do you think the next four years will be focused on grabbing our guns?

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:06 PM

I’m saddened that brave people did not step up to try to take back this once great country. I’m saddened that Mitt is “our” guy, but it is what it is. He is what he is. And most importantly he is not Obama. And Obama unrestrained, with his EOs and a few SCOTUS appointments in near future — he must be stopped. I can only pray being that I live in a deep blue state. I’ll vote, but my prayers carry more weight. Not being arrogant, I obviously have no pipeline to the Lord, but join me in prayer any way you can (Eph. 6:10-12).

Registered Nic on September 16, 2012 at 11:06 PM

The flaw in your reasoning is in thinking a collapse will force conservative policies in ways that are currently politically impossible. Not with the power hunger we have seen among Democrats, in my opinion. It would simply lead to tyranny.

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM

They won’t have any currency worth anything, nor any ability to borrow it. The government is currently at wartime levels of spending and debt. They will be forced to cut, or inflate and that will bring about a readjustment through chaos. It shouldn’t have to be this way but neither party has the slightest intention of taking any real steps to avoid it.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Agreed, but you are considering what real collapse leads to I hope. It is not good.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I know, but if it is left to slide the number of people who even believe in the constitution dwindle through leftist education and dependency. Then there truly will be no chance of anything but socialist tyrants of one sort or another.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Do we want to give ourselves more time to progress as we have since 2008 with the TEA party and cleaning out congress/senate in relative peace and quiet (status quo) or do we want to fight chaos for four more years and THEN continue the work from the hole that we’ll inevitably be in?

Things are not getting better and thats been true for decades. Nothing is changing and the GOP is putting as many roadblocks in the path of reform as the leftists are.

I see a benefit in voting for Romney. Do you disagree with my assessment?

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

No. I don’t believe he will help with electing actual conservatives nor do I believe he will do anything but cooperate with the expansion of big government.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

My apologies for being vague as I don’t think you get what I’m saying. I should have added in there that it is up to *us* to do the work – we will always lose if we expect politicians to take up the initiative. We will always fail if we turn our backs or let up.

So what we do is get people in there that reflect our values. We can do this if we remain diligent, but it will be easier under Romney than it will Obama.

I’m advocating time that we won’t get under Obama. It will also be infinitely harder to do this fighting back Obama’s BS.

You really don’t think the last four years have been more hopeful and showing promise to our cause? TEA Party, the work Breitbart started, better people in the houses and in the wings? None of that is positive??

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

They won’t have any currency worth anything, nor any ability to borrow it. The government is currently at wartime levels of spending and debt. They will be forced to cut, or inflate and that will bring about a readjustment through chaos. It shouldn’t have to be this way but neither party has the slightest intention of taking any real steps to avoid it.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

This is again, assuming post-collapse, Democrats in charge would not turn to such steps as seizure of property, nationalizing profitable industries, etc.

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I know, but if it is left to slide the number of people who even believe in the constitution dwindle through leftist education and dependency. Then there truly will be no chance of anything but socialist tyrants of one sort or another.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Perhaps, but I can’t fight back if it collapses nearly as effectively. Most of my energy will have to go into less high minded activitys. Then even less will get done to correct course. Besides isn’t that what progressives are trying to force? Dependencys on central authority. We can do know good whilst busying ourselves with daily survival. Daily survival will always take precedent over ideals.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 11:15 PM

You really don’t think the last four years have been more hopeful and showing promise to our cause? TEA Party, the work Breitbart started, better people in the houses and in the wings? None of that is positive??

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

I think it is positive but far too late. I would also point out that Obama is why its happening. When the Tea Party guys got elected and nothing changed that took a lot of the wind out of their sails. It would be worse under a Romney adminstration. Would they fight a Romney government? Many of them voted to increase the debt limit though some few fought against it. Boehner delived next to nothing even from a measily $100 billion dollar promise.

Why should I believe they will fight harder against Romney than Obama?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I have to fight back now with my not so perfect army. It is not true for collapse to occur sooner rather than later. The goal should remain to not allow that to happen untill under its own weight it does. We aren’t there just yet. Ther is still an oppurtunity to correct. I am taking it. I am voting for Romney. I have to retire soon. Later.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM

This is again, assuming post-collapse, Democrats in charge would not turn to such steps as seizure of property, nationalizing profitable industries, etc.

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I think they would but they are going to do that anyway given time and I don’t want to give them time. I think its far better to have something happen sooner than to continue boiling the frog. People will fight a sudden change but not a gradual one.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM

I think they would but they are going to do that anyway given time and I don’t want to give them time. I think its far better to have something happen sooner than to continue boiling the frog. People will fight a sudden change but not a gradual one.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Fight it with what, once guns are seized, ballots are meaningless, and some form of secret police are unleashed?

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Perhaps, but I can’t fight back if it collapses nearly as effectively. Most of my energy will have to go into less high minded activitys. Then even less will get done to correct course. Besides isn’t that what progressives are trying to force? Dependencys on central authority. We can do know good whilst busying ourselves with daily survival. Daily survival will always take precedent over ideals.

Bmore on September 16, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Daily survival does take precedence and that is what I hope will change enough that people will wake up and realize that the policies that created this nightmare have to go.

If the government can’t meet its obligations then people will be forced to start fending for themselves and that creates better citizens than dependency does.

Night.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Fight it with what, once guns are seized, ballots are meaningless, and some form of secret police are unleashed?

Sekhmet on September 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

People aren’t going to just hand over their guns. Not yet, but in time they may well do that as more and more laws chip away at the second amendment.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM

I think it is positive but far too late. I would also point out that Obama is why its happening. When the Tea Party guys got elected and nothing changed that took a lot of the wind out of their sails. It would be worse under a Romney adminstration. Would they fight a Romney government? Many of them voted to increase the debt limit though some few fought against it. Boehner delived next to nothing even from a measily $100 billion dollar promise.

Why should I believe they will fight harder against Romney than Obama?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

This is a ridiculous post. If you think there’d be no difference, you haven’t been paying attention the past four years. It would be different because Romney and the Republican Party are on the same page–not specifically, but in general. They are both for drilling, for fracking, for developing nuclear power, for instance. They both would curtail the EPA and the Energy Departments, not to mention Health and Human Service. In other words, they’d shrink government while curbing unelected bureaurcrats’ power. They both would eliminate the extra-constitutional exercises of executive power in general. They both want to avoid weakening the miliary while cutting unnecessary spending.

writeblock on September 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I think it is positive but far too late. I would also point out that Obama is why its happening. When the Tea Party guys got elected and nothing changed that took a lot of the wind out of their sails. It would be worse under a Romney adminstration. Would they fight a Romney government? Many of them voted to increase the debt limit though some few fought against it. Boehner delived next to nothing even from a measily $100 billion dollar promise.

Why should I believe they will fight harder against Romney than Obama?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Small steps. I’ve been saying three cycles minimum to undo the damage that 40+ years of liberal indoctrination has done.

2010 was the first real TEA party election. It went well considering how basic and grass roots it is.

Real and lasting change takes time. It takes time to find good people. It takes time to get out bad ones. Some of these clowns we won’t get another kick at for four years. Does that mean we failed? No. It means we have to be patient.

I’m glad you think it was positive. We’re learning how to win and finding our voices. Personally, I find that exciting and motivating.

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Why should I believe they will fight harder against Romney than Obama?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:17 PM

.
They won’t have to – if the Rs become the MAJORITY party.
You forget that the Ineptocrats run this Government, protected by a complicit media.
All the Tea Party faithful can do is sit and watch. That is the definition of being a minority, not having control. When they do fight the media comes down hard- and only until the Ds become the minority party, only then will anything be possible.
All Romney will do is supply a signature.
Don’t think for a minute the press would allow Romney the same powers that they let this corrupt fraud of a President have.
You think a President Romney wold be alllowed to or even get away with bribing Senators ?

There are two different worlds out there with 2 different sets of rules the game is played by.

FlaMurph on September 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM

The polling is starting to confirm to me that Romney will win the popular vote and lose the election. Obama is focusing on swing states and only needs narrow victories there. Obama will likely win PA and OH and VA. He does that and it’s game over, even with Romney winning FL, NC, WI, CO, IA, and NM. I think Romney wins handily in most red states, and loses narrowly in the swing states.

Obama thinks he can win FL, but knows he only needs those 3 states to get it done. Look for him to poor all his money in OH, PA and VA and win ala Bush 2000.

goflyers on September 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I’m glad you think it was positive. We’re learning how to win and finding our voices. Personally, I find that exciting and motivating.

kim roy on September 16, 2012 at 11:37 PM

I don’t think we have time. Europe is on the verge and given the weakness of the US economy, if they go so will the US. We have the possibility of war in the middle east, the far east and the Iranian situation. QE3 has no cap. Its a never ending fountain of cash to the tune of $40 billion every month as a baseline and it will very possibly be much more. Its an cascading problem where more currency creation forces further interventions. We also have the states and municipalities on the verge of bankruptcy which will force further government intervention. Even now much of their bond purchasing is subsidized by the federal government.

I don’t realistically see at least one of these problems not exploding in the next four to eight years when an accumulation of Tea Party politicians ‘might‘ begin to change things.

Its a day late and $16 trillion dollars short.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:50 PM

They won’t have to – if the Rs become the MAJORITY party.
You forget that the Ineptocrats run this Government, protected by a complicit media.

That incompetance is shared by the GOP.
They have shown no inclination to fight the debt.

All Romney will do is supply a signature.

So I should put my trust in Boehner and McConnell?
These are the guys who you think will deliver the goods?

There are two different worlds out there with 2 different sets of rules the game is played by.

FlaMurph on September 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM

True.

However the GOP and Romney like progressive policies and when they try to pass them the Democrats will support them the same way they did with amnesty under Bush or the nonsense John McCain passed with his various bills.

Many of the GOP members will vote for a Romney bill when they wouldn’t vote for one from Obama.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:55 PM

WolvenOne on September 16, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Great post…

MGardner on September 16, 2012 at 11:59 PM

I don’t stand alone when I say it is frustrating and seems like a waste of time voting. The swing states determine the winner, and since I live in Libtardia (California), I am outnumbered by idiots who will vote for a (D) no matter what. The Founders couldn’t forsee that the President would be determined by a few states. They should have combined the electoral system with a popular vote. The winner of the popular vote takes 50 points (one for each state). Additionally, I would like to see the candidate who wins the most total counties, get 50 points as well. It will certainly make election night more interesting and voters will know that their votes were not wasted.

Decoski on September 17, 2012 at 12:05 AM

I don’t stand alone when I say it is frustrating and seems like a waste of time voting. The swing states determine the winner, and since I live in Libtardia (California), I am outnumbered by idiots who will vote for a (D) no matter what.

Decoski on September 17, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Maine and Nebraska do it differently.

Maybe that would be a better system.

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 12:14 AM

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 12:14 AM

That is certainly better than what we have now, but I worry about how gerrymandering might muck up the works. Best to have a popular vote worth, say 50 points, that would be added to the electoral system.

Decoski on September 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM

The polling is starting to confirm to me that Romney will win the popular vote and lose the election.

How do you figure? Romney is +2 in the Rasmussen swing state polling. Right now Romney could take Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Virginia and Michigan in November away from Obama without losing a single state that McCain carried in 2008.

Races are basically tied in those states. Wisconsin and Oregon might also be in play.

crosspatch on September 17, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Heck, the migration of electoral votes to Utah, Arizona and Texas from 2010 reapportionment is like adding an additional state to Romney’s total.

crosspatch on September 17, 2012 at 1:37 AM

Romney is losing because his messages have been successfully twisted by the media as “hypocritical”.

That’s what you get when you nominate a flip-flopping politician.

Many of his attacks to Obama also return back to him.

Sad.

Get out and hear what people in your community are actually saying. Unfortunately for Team Romney, many people are resigned to take the Obamao pill given the current situation in ME.

Romney can’t just rely on the current messy socio-political situation that are seemingly working against Obama. Romney has to create a “dramatic” message that make people turn to him as a real alternative.

Yes. Drama. In this political environment, you need to develop a well-orchestrated, dramatic imagery that will hopefully help people to realize how dangerous it is to continue to be led by a liberal, pacifist leader like Obama.

Yes, it must be well-orchestrated: timing is important.

Reagan successfully did that in 1980.

Sadly, Romney is a stiff candidate who can’t make an positive, inspiring speech. His Egypt statements have been generally viewed as “rumor-mongering”. Romney’s timing is always late.

TheAlamos on September 17, 2012 at 2:06 AM

I don’t realistically see at least one of these problems not exploding in the next four to eight years when an accumulation of Tea Party politicians ‘might‘ begin to change things.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Lol :)…the delusion….

jimver on September 17, 2012 at 3:31 AM

TIME FOR ANOTHER STICKY-NOTE CAMPAIGN.

Not just at the gas pumps – but in the grocery stores too.

You never know how many people it might influence.

stenwin77 on September 17, 2012 at 5:03 AM

TheAlamos on September 17, 2012 at 2:06 AM

Wow, I disagree with practically everything you just said there. What planet are you on? Romney is doing great for a challenger to an incumbent. Basically the race nationally and in swing states is a dead heat. Nothing I have seen today changes my opinion. Still looks like Romney +5 points to me in November.

crosspatch on September 17, 2012 at 5:04 AM

Many of his attacks to Obama also return back to him.

Sure. Romney could say “the sky is blue” and his “attack” would “return back to him” by some reporter asking about his “sky gaffe”. There is a lot of media fabrication attempting to give an appearance of a misstep when there isn’t one. The people are smart enough to see through that and know exactly what is going on.

Get out and hear what people in your community are actually saying. Unfortunately for Team Romney, many people are resigned to take the Obamao pill given the current situation in ME.

I don’t even know what that means but it is clear that Romney is more attuned to what people in our communities are saying than Obama is. Heck, Obama is losing support across the board in traditional Democrat voting groups.

Romney can’t just rely on the current messy socio-political situation that are seemingly working against Obama. Romney has to create a “dramatic” message that make people turn to him as a real alternative.

Yes, that is true, but he isn’t going to do that right now. That would be stupid. Why give Obama two months to counter it? I don’t expect to see Romney out with anything dramatic until at least the first debate in October.

You seem to be one of these left wing shills arguing for Romney to lay his cards out prematurely. I don’t think Romney is going to fall for that one. This is a big league campaign.

Romney’s timing is always late.

They are fast when they need to be. They pounce on the OFA gaffes pretty quick (“she never worked a day in her life”, “ate a dog”, etc.) but again, you are pressing for Romney to lay his cards out early. Reagan was behind by 7 points on October and had been falling farther behind the entire month of September (Gallup numbers). Romney right now is 3 points down in the Gallup 7 day tracking and the gap is closing. Romney is +1 today in Rasmussen after being -5 a week ago. So Romney is headed in the right direction without having to unveil his big story. The sooner he brings it, the more time the Democrats have to twist, spin, and frankly, lie about it.

Romney got hammered in the press for daring to challenge Obama’s awesomeness. I think everyone saw through that, too, and except for members if the left wing media, believes Romney said exactly what needed to be said.

Why don’t you mosey on back to Daily Kos and update your diary.

crosspatch on September 17, 2012 at 5:16 AM

Sharrukin,

So you want to bring down the country even further in hopes of causing a Great Conservative Awakening? You are gambling with the fate of a nation, and your blissful confidence that everywhere will turn to free market capitalism is incredibly naive. You come off like an Obamaniac’s mirror image – blind faith in capitalism as a religion as opposed to socialism. What if there is no crash thanks to good luck or the democrats start really cracking down on dissent? If your theory is wrong, you’ve helped screw over the US economy and hand the democrats more chances to wreck havoc in the world.

Do you even care about the people whose lives will be ruined? The economy is bad enough already, and you want to make it a full replay of the Great Depression? (Funny, I don’t recall any massive conservative resurgence occurring then) Some people are talking about civil war – are you ready to watch your family die in such fighting?

You need to read some Burke and get some perspective on this radical revolutionary mindset you are portraying.

OmegaPaladin on September 17, 2012 at 5:19 AM

Apologies to Winston Churchill, but, Republicans are the worst party out there, except for all the others.

txmomof6 on September 17, 2012 at 5:36 AM

Karl:

You had me until you said this:

would expect that a week from now, polls may well show Obama with worse numbers overall, but perhaps slightly improved numbers with independents, as the weakest Dems and hardcore liberals shift back to an independent identification.

What?

“harcore liberals” are going to shift back to an “independent” identification?

In what world?

If they are “hardcore liberals,” why would they call themselves independents?

I don’t get that.

mountainaires on September 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Decoski on September 17, 2012 at 12:05 AM

If it “seems like a waste of time voting,” then just SURRENDER, MONKEY.

Geezus.

That is precisely the argument that Team Obama is making to you.

Don’t vote; it’s just a waste of your time. We’ve got this.

STOP THE INSANITY.

mountainaires on September 17, 2012 at 7:35 AM

mountainaires on September 17, 2012 at 7:35 AM

I am not surrendering, “monkey”. You probably didn’t bother reading the context of my post which tells of my frustration at the Electoral College system where a few swing states determine the winner and I’m stuck in Libtardia where I am vastly outnumbered by people who vote for anyone with a (D) next to their names.

Decoski on September 17, 2012 at 7:44 AM

Poll shows Obama and Romney TIED in Colorado; SO not good for Obama in the numbers here:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colorado-Romney-Obama-Tied-In-New-Poll-Obama-Underperforming

And, consider this short but critical look at the polling propaganda:

D + 13? Really? In What Universe?

Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves a serious disservice. Virtually every one uses a polling sample that is so heavily-skewed towards Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign. Of course, that is a feature, not a bug of the polls. The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling.

Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday’s CBS/New York Times poll, for example, uses a D+13 sample of registered voters. This is absurd.
In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7.
In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0.
Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008.

Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama’s support.
CBS does apply a Likely Voter screen to the head-to-head match up. The LV sample is D+6, similar to the make up of the 08 election. In that, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points, 49-46. In the RV sample, which more than doubles the proportion of Democrats to D+13, Obama leads by 8 points, 51-43. See the simple relationship there?

[...]

This election, it isn’t so much about polling as propaganda. The polls are simply a tool being used by the media to try to depress GOP turnout and give a powerful lift to Obama’s obviously lackluster campaign.
The polls confirm that the media aren’t really biased. Rather, they are active players for the other team.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/16/cbs-obama-leads-in-d-13-poll

mountainaires on September 17, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Oh look, another Obama concern troll. On the off chance that sharrukin and the ABRs aren’t hired OFA Tokyo Roses, here’s some reasons why conservatives must vote in this election:

1) Obama hates you. Literally. He’s an activist lib and it’s in his blood. Woodward’s book confirms that O think the Tea Party is “crazy.”

2) Do you really want to hear O’s voice for another 4 years? He’s told so many smug lies to us, that I can’t bear to hear another O speech. I’m not even sure I can listen to the debates.

3) The libs have even more reason to stay home, but they’ll vote anyways despite failures at home and abroad, Gitmo, drone strikes, extrajudicial killing, and wiretapping. Why? Because that’s the ONLY way to win and influence policy in a democracy. The Unions and blacks understand this and will blindly vote for Obama in Stalin-like numbers (90%+) despite the fact that Obama has made their lives worse. When I talk to libs about his failures, they say, “well no one else could have done better”. Even if the entire country fell into the sea, they’d claim that Romney would somehow sink it deeper into magma. They are suicide bombers who don’t care what happens to them as long as their guy wins. Sadly, thinking people lose. Don’t think; just vote.

4) Romney is one of the nations more competent managers. He has a record to back it up.

5) Paul Ryan

6) Local elections matter alot too. I live in Wisconsin and we’ve been at war for two years straight, voting every 6 months of so. We’ve won freedom from our families, and the CTU strike just across the border proves it. But it can’t be only us who cares.

xuyee on September 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM

freedom -for- f=out families

xuyee on September 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM

So we get to choose the ones who are going to plunder our homes and destroy the village?

Can’t imagine why you guys are having trouble drumming up the enthusiasm on this one?

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

There’s only one kind of person that decides to even get out of bed while claiming that all around him are wiley, conniving scoundrels with little integrity. It’s a wiley, conniving scoundrel himself! He gets out of bed because he figures he can “one-up” the other scoundrels and come out ahead.

You contradict yourself sir- unless, of course, you fully acknowledge that you are that same scoundrel in which case, you have no standing in an honest debate regarding peoples’ intentions.

sharrukin on September 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

as to your question yesterday, Romney’s most conservative act while in office is he actually cut spending while governor of Mass. He meticulously went thru the state budget and actually cut items out of the budget and reduced actual spending/programs. Not even Ron Reagan did that. That’s what Ann coulter said anyway (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-03-21.html)

beselfish on September 17, 2012 at 8:13 AM

If they are “hardcore liberals,” why would they call themselves independents?

I don’t get that.

mountainaires on September 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM

to skew the poles and help create “surrender monkeys”? just a guess.

beselfish on September 17, 2012 at 8:16 AM

This is a sample of how Reuters spins what should be positive news for candidate Romney. He’s actually about to address immigration reform (aka Amnesty).

“While national unemployment is 8.1 percent, Hispanic unemployment is over 10 percent. Over two million more Hispanics are living in poverty today than the day President Obama took office,” Romney will say.

His campaign is trying to recover from a week in which Romney made a political issue of the deaths of four Americans in Libya, prompting criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that he had botched his reaction to a national tragedy.

Obama also has enjoyed a bounce in support from the Democratic National Convention in late August, forcing Romney to play catch-up in a race that appeared to be turning against him.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/09/17/romney-to-vow-to-fix-us-immigration-system/#ixzz26jR5AnPX

Isn’t Reuters the group that staged those pictures in Lebanon of the bombing victims with the same lady in different locations?

PappyD61 on September 17, 2012 at 9:07 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colorado-Romney-Obama-Tied-In-New-Poll-Obama-Underperforming

That article also showed Obama basically in the lead in all the swing states.

It doesn’t matter if Obama is underperforming or not if he still wins the state.

Great, Romney can get elected President of Colorado. Yipee.

Ramp it up Mitt!!!

PappyD61 on September 17, 2012 at 9:10 AM

What is an independent these days besides a retardate of sorts?

Uh…I dont no who I’m gonna vote four till I git in that voting boot–kind of thing?

Sherman1864 on September 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The statistical question Karl is “Can Obama get elected losing the Independent vote without serious Republican crossover to make up the losses” The answer is no and this election will contain an all-time low of crossover voters. Even the black Republicans will not crossover after the last 4 years. That leaves just his base and that is not enough if he loses Independents especially if he loses them by large numbers as he is now.

Conan on September 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

According to the records i have been able to find a president under 48% in a state on the 1st day of Oct.before the election with no major third party running losses that state.also the records state that most undecided who are still undecided on Oct 1st vote for the challenger. Does this mean that Romney will win??? No but it does make for very interesting thinking.

logman1 on September 17, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Well just thinkiing of history and how a people loose their lands.

Can B. Obama and the commie open border Democrats win if the independent Americans vote for Romney and the Republicans,,,,,

Well depends on how many of the illegal immigrant wage/vote slaves vote.

Ask any decendant of Apache who owned the lands of your American Southwest on how it goes with unlimited illegal immigration from Mexico.

History is the only teacher of worth.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on September 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Can O get reelected while losing the independent vote? Depends on the dead people turnout.

The Zoo Keeper on September 17, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Too, if the goole and yhaoo front pages, the NY Times, LA Times, Time Mag. , and NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS all have that Obama wins in polls as they no. one news item, you have to know it running scared media on command of the DNC to tell one more big ass commie Democrat Party lie.

They lie, they are commies its what they do.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on September 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM

For all of Axelrod’s pushing the “inevitable” narrative to the MSM there are some facts that can’t be overlooked:

Independents – Romney wins them in almost every poll.
Right Track, Wrong Track – overwhelmingly negative 30/60.
Voter Intensity – GOP is at least 10% ahead.
Party ID – Equal between R’s and D’s.

and lastly, no poll has Obama been above 50%.

Tater Salad on September 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I think one number we are over looking is Obama’s approval number. And I think the media polls are definetly trying to skew things so Obama is above 50% in polling soon.

And that can not be true.

People are hurting, and they have been for a very long time. What is up with Obama’s approval numbers going up lately.

That is the number that decides it.

Obama is nasty and mean. We need to have ads showing him at his most petty so people will remember.

I think that is where Bill caving to pressure and supporting O has helped O.

Bill Clinton who was impeached for lying under oath, literally a convicted liar… and he still convinces people he is telling the truth.

Unbelieveable.

petunia on September 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Obama’s destruction is of the kind that is deliberate, Malevolent. But due to that, it has a short shelf life. Its failures are quick to materialize and thus quick to point the finger to the origination and cause. People can turn from it and recover much faster from this kind of destruction.
Then there is the malignant slow creep of socialism that destroys the character and the strength of the nation. Taking peak producers out of the workforce early and taxing the weaker producers heavily to provide for their multiple decades long vacation and medical care. Effectively punishing the young who start with little to provide for the older who have had decades to build their wealth. Obama puts that socialism at risk of collapse. Romney will shore it up and make it a longer term problem for future generations to suffer through.

I really do not see the end of the nation like many of you. I see financial crisis building the next bigger financial crisis which builds yet another yet bigger financial crisis. All because the can must be kicked down the road. Romney is kick the can down the road. Obama is face the can, the can kicks our asses down the road, then we can recover starting from a position other than built on fake sand.

astonerii on September 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Man, I have been watching your arguments, and I give you credit for trying, but wow, I find you so myopic.

The one piece of the puzzle I have seen you consistently – CONSISTENTLY omit is what 0bama’s re-election would do to the make-up of the Supreme Court.

You are trying to make the case the Romney would cause lasting damage, while 0bama’s would be fleeting, and I just think you’re 100% wrong.

How can you spend all this time and energy, and fail to understand the semi-permanent – ONGOING damage that more 0bama SCOTUS appointments would cause, long after he is gone?!?!?

Not trying to insult you, but I am seeing a serious lack of three-dimensional thinking on your part. I feel that you can’t see the forest for the trees. I feel like that if we played 3-D chess (a fad during the ’70s), I would run your tables using a pawn – and I’m not very good at chess.

cane_loader on September 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Sharrukin,

So you want to bring down the country even further in hopes of causing a Great Conservative Awakening? You are gambling with the fate of a nation, and your blissful confidence that everywhere will turn to free market capitalism is incredibly naive.

OmegaPaladin on September 17, 2012 at 5:19 AM

The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Obama: “We’re Going To Reshape Selfish, Mean-Spirited America…I’m Not Interested In The Suburbs. The Suburbs Bore Me.”

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/09/obama-were-going-to-reshape-selfish.html

M2RB: Demi Lovato

Resist We Much on September 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The one piece of the puzzle I have seen you consistently – CONSISTENTLY omit is what 0bama’s re-election would do to the make-up of the Supreme Court.
cane_loader on September 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM

You do not pay much attention then.

Romney is progressive, his views are progressive.

he had the opportunity as governor to appoint judges to the bench, not state level Supreme Court Justices mind, but your average run of the mill judges that those Supremes are frequently pulled from. You would think he would put conservatives on the bench, giving a broader base for future supreme court picks to possibly be a bit conservative. But he did not. 20% were Massachusetts republican progressive, the rest were Massachusetts liberal progressive and several were out and out fanatic leftist Massachusetts activists. Then he even left dozens of open seats for his democrat successor to fill.

Nothing forced him to chose these people. No, the board did not give him other names, yes it was his board, his selections on the board, it was 100% controlled by the executive branch of the Massachusetts government. Thus 100% his responsibility who they handed him as names. He chose progressives to head the board, so they would give him progressives, because he is progressive!

Nothing forced him to start marrying gays in Massachusetts. The Supreme Court told the legislature to take care of it. The legislature wanted to put a constitutional Amendment to the people before doing so. Romney, in his infinite respect for rule of law, over road the legislature and began marrying gay couples through executive fiat. Thus undermining family values, the law, and the legislature in one fell swoop.

So, yeah, Obama will put pathetic people on the bench. Then so too will Romney.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

“Tell me what Romney will do that you realistically think will change something?”

Stopping the EPA and the Energy Department from implementing the rules they have “waiting until after the election to implement”.

This doubling of gas prices the last 4 years is just the beginning of how badly our Federal Government, headed up with Obama appointees, is working against the middle-class.

RADIOONE on September 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Dang! There is a reasoned discussion here of, not which candidate is better, and not whether the US gov’t will fall, but how it will happen, how fast it will happen and the depth of the resulting tyranny.

flicker on September 17, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4