Quotes of the day

posted at 10:48 pm on November 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

It is highly unlikely that the president can win this election if he is losing Independents by double digits. And there aren’t any indicators suggesting that Democrat turnout will be large enough to compensate for that.

Which leads to the third point: voter enthusiasm and energy is with the GOP. A recent Pew poll had Republicans with a 14-point lead over Democrats in terms of vote likelihood.

Put these three elements together — Obama’s current vote share, Romney’s lead among Independent voters and overall GOP enthusiasm — and it strongly suggests that Romney will win the popular vote.

***

Republicans have never been more confident that President Obama will lose re-election, according to the latest National Journal Insiders Poll, but Democratic conviction their party’s leader will earn a second term still hasn’t wavered.

On average, GOP insiders polled by National Journal gave Obama slightly less than even odds he’ll occupy the White House another four years. The 4.6 average score – based on a 1 (no chance at re-election) to 10 (virtual certainty) scale — was a precipitous drop since the last Insiders Poll, a late September survey in which Republicans pegged the score at 5.8. That poll was taken before the first presidential debate in early October, after which Mitt Romney’s support surged. In April, Republican Insiders rated Obama at exactly even odds…

“This is the first time that I really feel the momentum swinging to Romney,” said one Republican. “It has been a slow progression for the Republican since early September, but it is steady and no matter what Obama throws at him, it doesn’t hurt.”

Said another Republican, “The trend is definitely in favor of Romney — with independents leading the way.”

***

Republicans look and sound notably more energized and exuberant than their Democratic counterparts as they swagger with self-assurance toward the electoral finish line. They point out the recent expansion of the swing states map, with one-time Democratic strongholds like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota suddenly rated as toss-ups, and receiving money and attention from both parties. The GOP also notes that the Quinnipiac Poll giving Obama a big lead in Ohio showed Romney with a similarly comfortable advantage (five points) among Ohio independents—and in a state so closely divided between Republicans and Democrats the candidate who carries independents will almost certainly prevail. Moreover, new unemployment numbers due for release on Friday won’t help the president much if they show another slight decline, but can hurt him badly if they push up once again above 8 percent (as many economists expect)—putting a serious, last-minute dent in the administration argument about steady, relentless improvement.

Meanwhile, the sharply contrasting tone of the two campaigns as they make their closing pitches to the American people hardly suggests greater confidence on the part of the Democrats. Though Romney talks of “big change” and grand plans for the future, the Obama machine continues to emphasize the harshest possible personal attacks on the character of the GOP nominee. Most recently, Democrats have even pushed the absurd idea that Mitt wants to abolish FEMA and to leave disaster-stricken citizens to their own devices. While the Republicans released the single most optimistic and inspiring ad of the whole campaign (a little masterpiece of mood and editing called “Momentum”) the Democrats continue with the surly, hostile, aggrieved attitude that served the president so poorly in the third (and final) debate.

***

If Romney wins, or at least if he peels off a significant number of those who voted for Obama last time, it will be precisely because lots of people “never really voted” for Obama in 2008. As should be painfully obvious, an awful lot of people pulled the level for Obama in 2008 because they were tired of Republicans; because they were bored by the wars; because they didn’t like McCain or Palin, or both; because Obama seemed optimistic and reasonable; because the financial crisis hit in September; because they didn’t listen to a word the Democratic candidate said but were nonetheless convinced by the vapid “hope and change” stuff and the (always empty) promise to rise above “politics”; and, yes, because he was black. (Why this is so controversial is beyond me: I know people who are very proud of themselves for having been, as they put it, “part of history,” who admit that Obama’s race was a considerable factor in their vote, but who recoil when you feed back to them what they just said in plain English.)

One of Obama’s biggest mistakes — perhaps his biggest mistake — was to conclude that he had a mandate for his brand of progressive change. He did not. The Obama campaign was always, in fact was deliberately, divorced from his politics. A smarter, less egotistical man would have realized as much. Obama did not.

***

But let’s say Gov. Mitt Romney ekes out wins in virtually every battleground state. What will Democrats say to make themselves feel better about themselves the next day?

1. The economy just sucked. It was too badly broken for Obama to fix it, or his solutions (targeting banks early on but not forcing them to help ordinary people more) were not sufficient. In retrospect, how could a president possibly win re-election with unemployment this high and with a stream of forecasts about anemic growth over the next year?…

3. Obama fatigue. As much as they liked him personally, they look back at his presidency and feel a struggle. It’s hard to look back at the last four years and smile; his presidency, through maybe no fault of his own, really, was necessary to get the country back on track, but he had to do a lot of things that were very unpopular, and because he governed from principle, and not politics, he paid a price for it…

8. The idea that Obama could have and should have done better, even given all the circumstances he had. His failed to live up to his promises to change Washington. He was not the Obama people voted for in 2008; he couldn’t possibly be that person.

***

He thought he had “a gift,” as he is said to have told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He thought he had a special ability to sway the American people, or so he suggested to House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

But whenever he went over the the heads of the media and Congress and went to the people, in prime-time addresses, it didn’t really work. He did not have a magical ability to sway. And—oddly—he didn’t seem to notice.

It is one thing to think you’re Lebron. Its another thing to keep missing the basket and losing games and still think you’re Lebron.

And that really was the problem: He had the confidence without the full capability. And he gathered around him friends and associates who adored him, who were themselves talented but maybe not quite big enough for the game they were in. They understood the Democratic Party, its facts and assumptions. But they weren’t America-sized. They didn’t get the country so well.

***

DAVID AXELROD: “I have put my mustache on the line and I am very confident that I will still have this mustache on November 8.”

***

Perhaps Mr. Romney’s most appealing trait is his optimism: We have problems, a whole lot of them, but they are solvable. Americans have always believed that. Yet the sentiment seems unusual given the current President who won with large Democratic majorities but has spent four years blaming his predecessors for every ill as if they are intractable.

Mr. Romney has treated voters like adults and offered them a true choice about the future. He is promising change, and for once that abused term doesn’t mean for the worse.

***

***



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

I don’t believe that they would ask any progressive groups what the content of their prayers were.

crosspatch on May 17, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Because everyone already knows.

Praise and save Obama and punish the evil right wingers, amen.”

profitsbeard on May 18, 2013 at 3:43 AM

This is a disgusting and diabolical use of a government agency for nefarious ends. Honest Americans in both parties should be appalled and scared by such abuse.

Random targeting of groups due to their political beliefs is more the product of thought police than a republican democracy. Whoever is involved used the auspices of government, a government we own and finance, to despotically and illegally destroy her citizens. That is not only “chilling” but destructive to the very freedoms upon which our country operates.

There is no question this was carried out by Democratic Party operatives and is therefore political in premise. Tax exempt groups applying at the same time received no similar scrutiny and in fact moved swiftly through the process. So the only question I have is who knew what and when? What were their motives?

The President has stated he found out about this last week. Yet last year, before the election this was fairly common knowledge. In fact senior officials in his administration, including Neil Wolin, were directly briefed. Again, who knew what and when? Why was this not disclosed by those who knew- especially given the criminal nature of this activity, which apparently then continued through the election? Did this not rise to something of importance to Mr. Obama either as President or a candidate? Surely such as scandal would be notable in some regard.

This entire sordid mess stinks and not simply as a matter of politics. It undercuts the very premise of our democracy by destroying a voters right to participate in free and fair elections. It adds an element of fear to freely voicing one’s political choices. That’s not just chilling, it has no place in our country and should be punished in the most punitive way to send a signal of zero tolerance for such criminal behavior.

Thus far, President Pedestrian is still sitting on the sidelines muttering how he “looked away” when the parade passed and wants to know what he missed. One begins to wonder who running our country.

Marcus Traianus on May 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Apparently a secret can be kept in DC, especially if it involves keeping your highly paid no show job. No one with a govt job ever gets fired, they get promoted.

Kissmygrits on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Wait, so the IRS discovered these wrongdoings, independently put a stop to them and briefed the Treasury department, AND authorized an IG investigation which then they leaked to the public. But we’re mad because they chose not to make it a campaign issues considering it has nothing to do with Obama’s governance? *yawn*

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Why? Do you have to be that stupid to ask that?

watertown on May 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

re:
verbaluce . . ad nauseum . .
He who argues with a fool (tool?) is an even greater fool.

barton on May 17, 2013 at 6:34 PM

As I recall, Solomon had that figured out almost 3,000 years ago. LOL

yesiamapirate on May 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Ann Barnhardt has a couple of good pieces up about you people.

tom daschle concerned on May 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Three: It’s just what it looks like. The IRS’s higher-ups were all in the tank for another term of Hopenchange. There’s circumstantial evidence to believe that’s true, but if you’re feeling slightly more charitable, you might conclude that it wasn’t Obama himself that they were invested in so much as their own careers. If they blew the whistle on what was happening and O ended up winning the election anyway, then they’re in deep trouble for having tried, but failed, to derail their boss’s chance at history. Not a happy place to be if you’re a time-serving tax apparatchik. So they kept quiet to stay on Obama’s good side.

I go with option Three, above.

Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The goal was to cripple the fund raising of these groups for the 2012 election — and they succeeded.

TarheelBen on May 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Also correct, almost certainly, as goal.

Anyone who thinks Axelrod, Obama, Jarrett, Holder, Hillary, etc. are nice people is out of their mind.

Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM

“I was not told of this problem at any time before the election … Even if I was told of it, it was an on-going investigation that I couldn’t comment on … When actual evidence was developed that this problem existed, and that laws, regulations, and rules were violated, we couldn’t comment until hearing both sides … Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM

With the acquisition of power, Obama was able to substitute the IRS, and other government agencies, for the thugs at ACORN who enabled his 2008 election.

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM

The question is – “who benefits”?

The answer is – Obama personally (his re-election), the Democrats and their big govt. liberal agenda.

It is laughable to think this was being done without their knowledge. It’s like thinking all the traffic lights you’ve come to recently are now magically changing “green” just as you arrive by sheer luck. The fix was in. And even if you didn’t order it, it gets NOTICED.

Saltyron on May 18, 2013 at 12:44 PM

From the NY Times article:

In that context, he said, the screening of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny was not the scandal itself but “just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups — and political intimidation — in this administration.”

Here the NY Times is trying to limit the damage to the Obama Administration but these are career bureaucrats that have been working there long before Obama was elected in many cases. This is a culture of coverups and political intimidation that penetrates the entire “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. The NY Times here is trying to limit the scope and blame only Obama. But we see the same sort of coverup and dishonesty in the New York state government and the government in New York City.

This is a systemic problem with the entire Democratic Party and it needs to be portrayed in that way.

crosspatch on May 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Simple answer; it probably would have made the difference in our last election.

The idea of reforming the tax code is nothing new, with 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney among the most recent to try by proposing a more across-the-board or “flatter” tax rate with fewer deductions and loopholes.

Romney was riding high in popularity on this issue and loathing for the IRS is fairly ubiquitous across the political spectrum. So combined with the first debate, could Obama’s second campaign withstood a wide-ranging scandal which got extensive coverage on an important economic issue? Or is the real scandal in covering up the fact they knew and were deeply involved in this issue? That’s hard to say and speculative. But it sure became a non-factor with no impact- which was ultimately the Obama Campaign’s intent.

As to the cover up, I suspect we are about to find more people close to the president who had very intimate knowledge of what was going on. Anyone heard from Jim Messina lately?

Marcus Traianus on May 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM

And let us not forget the leaking that the IRS did to ProPublica… funded in part by Soros… it isn’t just the rectal exam level of information, down to prayers conducted by organizations… but the ‘inadvertant release’ of such information to political groups.

Also the IRS getting its hands on your healthcare info. Isn’t that sweet? Can’t yo just wait until THAT INFORMATION gets leaked by the IRS? Because the same lady who headed up the political rectal exam unit is now heading up the Obamacare enforcement unit.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM

The clinton’s used the IRS as a weapon when they were in the White House and I imagine many more did the same thing with the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover was at the helm. After his death they found he had files on tons of people.

mixplix on May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Asking a question like that equates to the intelligence of a snail.

mixplix on May 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Very simple. These guys are smart. Once the election is safely stolen, as 2012 was stolen by the Democrats, it does not matter if Obama’s henchmen (and in this case, henchwoman) broke the law. Since their side has control of the Government, no one will be prosecuted and the regime remains in power and the election remains stolen.

The IRS was instrumental in stealing the election and the election will stay stolen no matter what happens. That is all that these totalitarianists care about.

Rogervzv on May 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I’m really not surprised, it’s time to leave this place.
Not sure where to go, but it’s time.

mmcnamer1 on May 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I go with the option that most public employees vote Democrat. As an observation. Dems are risk averse – not all, but definitely the majority – “Let someone else tell me what to do; when I’m in power, I’ll tell others what to do.” They think alike – just as most secure university positions are held by Dems, so are most government positions. Rs are in the minority. (Guess we’re too busy creating real jobs, working two jobs to stay off the gov’t welfare, coaching, heaving forbid – going to church or a gun range, etc.”

Stolen election or not, this crew will stay in power – no one will impeach a minority president or a woman.

MN J on May 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Now the IRS is like the labor unions.
Basically they are political organizations that force you to donate to them.

esnap on May 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

SERIOUSLY? You are THAT stupid that you have to ask?!

easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Every time the main page of Hot Air loads, I see this question, and think, “That must be a rhetorical question!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Every time the main page of Hot Air loads, I see this question, and think, “That must be a rhetorical question!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Then again, you have Exhibit A for why you sometimes need to ask rhetorical questions…..

Wait, so the IRS discovered these wrongdoings, independently put a stop to them and briefed the Treasury department, AND authorized an IG investigation which then they leaked to the public. But we’re mad because they chose not to make it a campaign issues considering it has nothing to do with Obama’s governance? *yawn*

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3