Great news: In an alternate universe where the 2012 election is being held today, Romney wins

posted at 8:01 pm on November 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

A silly — but not entirely worthless — addendum to Ed’s post this morning about the dismal new ABC/WaPo for O. Beyond the dumb topline number showing Romney “winning” 49/45 (331 electoral votes!!!) lies some ominous news for The One: He’s losing his base.

* Obama won women in 2012 by 11 points, according to exit polls; today he leads by one point.

* He has seen his lead among young voters (18-39 years old) drop from 18 percent to 2 percent…

* Among those making less than $50,000, Obama’s 22-point lead is now three points.

* The biggest drop is among those professing to have no religion. While this group backed Obama by 44 points, it now supports him by a 22-point margin.

I included the data point on religious unaffiliateds for fun (can’t go wrong tossing atheism into a blog post) even though it’s almost certainly just a proxy for disaffection among liberals generally. The more significant data is the downturn among young voters and the lower middle class. ABC has a bit more about the former:

At the same time, there’s also one core support group in which Obama is hurting – young adults, a group he won by an historic margin in 2008, and strongly again in 2012. The president’s overall approval rating has lost 23 points among adults age 18 to 29 since January, his steepest loss in any group. Their view that the country’s headed in the wrong direction has gained 20 points since May. And in just the past month, opposition to the health care law has jumped by 16 points among under-30s, with strong opposition up by 21 points.

Hard to say how much of that is a direct result of discontent with ObamaCare and how much of it is discontent over other policies influencing their perceptions of ObamaCare. Every poll I’ve seen since the shutdown shows O, like the GOP, taking a beating on questions about his handling of the economy, which is the last subject on which a president wants to see slippage. Lose people on that metric and you’ll lose them on nearly everything. Could be that’s what we’re seeing here — although it would stand to reason that there’s a backlash brewing among young adults to ObamaCare. I’m skeptical that it’s happening already just because many “young healthies” aren’t paying attention to the mandate yet; come next April, when they’re forced to either paying an insurance company for coverage or pay Uncle Sam a fine, you’ll see it then. But the fact that even a liberal cohort like young adults has soured for the moment on O’s big boondoggle shows how much work he has to do to turn things around. Given the other pitfalls facing Democrats on health care, there’s no reason to think he’ll succeed.

Even more intriguing, though, is watching the lower middle class peel away. It’s easy to see why the young might turn on O-Care: Gradually, they’re waking up to the fact that the new health-care regime is built on their premiums specifically, in the hope/expectation that they’ll rarely use the coverage they’re now paying for. They’re the cash cows of ObamaCare, forced to kick in a chunk of their monthly income when decent-paying jobs are already hard enough to come by for a twentysomething. The lower middle class, however, is in a different position. They’re the “winners” in the new regime theoretically thanks to the federal subsidies they’re now in line for. And yet, as Phil Klein points out on Twitter, support for ObamaCare itself among people who make less than $50,000 a year now stands at … 38/59. Maybe that’s a simple function of the fact that the subsidies haven’t begun to flow yet; once people get signed up and get their money from Uncle Sam, things will turn around. I don’t know, though — the woman from Washington state who’s in the news today was crushed when she found out that she was eligible for a federal subsidy but that it wasn’t enough to make her new premium payment a comfortable monthly expense. That could be a recurring phenomenon among the lower middle class — unhappiness that they’ve gotten a little help from the feds but not enough to keep their knees buckling under the financial weight of their new health-insurance obligations. Bad, bad news for Democrats next year if it holds. Exit question: Romney 2016?


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

MoreB

Schadenfreude on November 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM

At the same time, there’s also one core support group in which Obama is hurting – young adults, a group he won by an historic margin in 2008, and strongly again in 2012. The president’s overall approval rating has lost 23 points among adults age 18 to 29 since January, his steepest loss in any group. Their view that the country’s headed in the wrong direction has gained 20 points since May. And in just the past month, opposition to the health care law has jumped by 16 points among under-30s, with strong opposition up by 21 points.

Save us, Senator Rand Paul. :-(

Punchenko on November 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Looking at the above posts count me as a proud RDS’er. I did not vote for that man in 2012 altho I would have in 08. Different times call for different leaders. The status quo rolling over from Dubya would have been tolerable compared to the statist quo rolling on after Oboobi’s deficits, executive orders and so on.

AH_C on November 19, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Beyond the dumb topline number showing Romney “winning” 49/45 (331 electoral votes!!!) lies some ominous news for The One: He’s losing his base.

Um, didn’t we already have an election, or was it a bad dream? If he goes to ZERO approval, isn’t he still our Liar-in-Chief? I find all this approval/disapproval stuff puzzling. We’re stuck with the ba$tard.

msupertas on November 19, 2013 at 9:02 PM

That’s because the HA staff (Bruce McQuain most culpably, since he ought to know better) is the one living in the alternate universe, one in which Obama is a conventional Democratic politician who gives a rat’s rumpus about popular opinion, instead of a poisonously narcissistic Alinskyite socialist who has hated this country since his childhood and wants to destroy it in favor of his own collectivist nightmare hell-world.

ebrown2 on November 19, 2013 at 10:51 PM

The “base” is hardly monolithic. There are a range of conservative opinions represented.

Those who think they and they alone are the “true base” of the GOP should ask themselves why they have been dissatisfied with every nominee following Reagan. If they were really the base, they would have had a greater influence.

Or maybe it is some nefarious conspiracy by an Establishment Cabal to thwart the will of the “true base,” then?

Those who believe such nonsense aren’t the base, they are just lunatic fringe conspiracy nuts.

Adjoran on November 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM

GOP know the Corrupt Liberal Liberal Media,,Hollywood & academia will do anything to run cover for the Leftist Democrats, yet they fail to come up with an effective offensive strategy. Meanwhile all their candidates manage to get the ‘foot in mouth syndrome’ and the Left wastes no time piling on. Obama has managed to steal the IL state election & the Presidency twice. Up to his eyeballs ineptness, lies & corruption, the Progressives form their protective circle & spit out the obligatory word RACIST in hope of deflection from the facts.

RdLake on November 19, 2013 at 11:22 PM

The “base” is hardly monolithic. There are a range of conservative opinions represented.

Those who think they and they alone are the “true base” of the GOP should ask themselves why they have been dissatisfied with every nominee following Reagan. If they were really the base, they would have had a greater influence.

Or maybe it is some nefarious conspiracy by an Establishment Cabal to thwart the will of the “true base,” then?

Those who believe such nonsense aren’t the base, they are just lunatic fringe conspiracy nuts.

Adjoran on November 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Congratulations on your compulsive need to define political deviance down and enable the presidency of Barack Obama.

ebrown2 on November 20, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Woo Hoo! sucks to be Obama!

petunia on November 20, 2013 at 1:12 AM

It isn’t Adjoran enabling the presidency of Barack Obama. It’s what he calls the “lunatic fringe” of the so-called Republican base, legions of whom comment at HA, many of whom insist on such a strict standard of conservative purity that they have alienated voters across the political spectrum.

SOME of whom refused to vote for the clearly better man because he didn’t meet their standards. Some of whom even voted for Obama in the ridiculous belief that putting a “RINO” like Romney in the Oval Office hurts the conservative cause more than electing a leftwing radical. Some of whom actually believed that there was no difference between the two candidates.

You can’t fix stupid.

Meredith on November 20, 2013 at 1:25 AM

It isn’t Adjoran enabling the presidency of Barack Obama. It’s what he calls the “lunatic fringe” of the so-called Republican base, legions of whom comment at HA, many of whom insist on such a strict standard of conservative purity that they have alienated voters across the political spectrum.

SOME of whom refused to vote for the clearly better man because he didn’t meet their standards. Some of whom even voted for Obama in the ridiculous belief that putting a “RINO” like Romney in the Oval Office hurts the conservative cause more than electing a leftwing radical. Some of whom actually believed that there was no difference between the two candidates.

You can’t fix stupid.

Meredith on November 20, 2013 at 1:25 AM

You are certainly living proof of the last sentence. In your rush to unconditionally surrender every time a Democrat says “boo” to you, do you ever lose your self-respect?

Who am I kidding? Craven leftist enablers never -had- any.

ebrown2 on November 20, 2013 at 1:32 AM

Setting aside the horrific (to the Adjorans and Merediths of the world) concepts of individual liberty and governmental economic responsibility, if the electoral success of Team Red is all that matters, why are the CINO anti-elites so hell-firedly bent on legalizing the ONE demographic that openly despises them and votes against them in land-office numbers?

ebrown2 on November 20, 2013 at 1:51 AM

This is news?!

We have a potemkn village of a data mining website posing as healt care salvation, a solution in search of a problem to begin with,

We have a president in office, re-elected, who is without a doubt the most hardcore anti-American Marxist to ever occupy the White House, who for all we know spends his time in the west wing surrounded by gigolos and blow while Valerie Jarrett pulls the real strings,

We have a Federal Reserve (Thank you, Alexander Hamilton!) hellbent on debasing the ever-loving shit out of our dollar, the end-result of which will be the worst hyperinflation the world has ever seen,

I hear more and more stories on a weekly and sometimes daily basis of out-of-control law enforcement on all levels, including federal, state, and municipal, all of which seem to point at an end-run aroun posse comitatus by militarizing the civilian police force,

And THIS IS NEWS?!

God save us from the legislature pundits.

gryphon202 on November 20, 2013 at 6:13 AM

Setting aside the horrific (to the Adjorans and Merediths of the world) concepts of individual liberty and governmental economic responsibility, if the electoral success of Team Red is all that matters, why are the CINO anti-elites so hell-firedly bent on legalizing the ONE demographic that openly despises them and votes against them in land-office numbers?

ebrown2 on November 20, 2013 at 1:51 AM

The answer is in the questio, e. In order to call oneself “conservative,” one should first define just what it is one is trying to conserve.

gryphon202 on November 20, 2013 at 6:16 AM

Honestly speaking, if Mitt Romney ran in 2016 he would get my vote, RINO though he is, simply based on the fact that Romney was swindled out of the election by the Democrats’ cheating and the perfidy of our lying, lying press. All that is known about Obama today could have been discovered during the last six years, if only a few reporters were interested in doing their jobs instead of licking his taint.

Brendon Carr on November 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM

Honestly speaking, if Mitt Romney ran in 2016 he would get my vote, RINO though he is, simply based on the fact that Romney was swindled out of the election by the Democrats’ cheating and the perfidy of our lying, lying press. All that is known about Obama today could have been discovered during the last six years, if only a few reporters were interested in doing their jobs instead of licking his taint.

Brendon Carr on November 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM

Where do you draw the line? Would you vote for McCain? Rubio? How many times can the GOP get away with lying to you before you say ENOUGH?!

L.

I.

B.

gryphon202 on November 20, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Really, can anyone explain to me why this even merits comment on a blog, let alone in a legitimate news source?!

Oh, nevermind. It was sourced from WaPo. I take back what I said about “legitimate.”

gryphon202 on November 20, 2013 at 7:29 AM

The question is how will Democrats handle this going into 2016. Do they feel that this tarnishes their brand, or just Obama? And if they do feel that it tarnishes their brand, will they be willing to say, “well, we still know what we’re doing, trust us. It’s not us, it’s that The First Black President was a f**k up”?

The Dems will have to walk a fine line here. They can’t afford to really distance themselves too much from The One, but if they don’t distance themselves enough from him, they’ll never win over the Indies.

Chris of Rights on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM

The Democrats will just change their disguise for a while, and pretty soon they’ll be back to talking the same shit like it never happened.

I thought at the time that Romney was a test for America, a chance to vote for someone decent versus a circus performer. The country stuck with the circus performer. It was politically the most disheartening thing I’ve experienced, besides waking up to LBJ as President.

claudius on November 20, 2013 at 8:31 AM

The speculation is not worth too much.

Studies have been done that show the IRS and FEC actions to suppress the conservative and TEA party organizations was enough to give ‘Bambi the election. Now you add in the lying census bureau makes it even worse. This last presidential election was stolen by this administration.

TerryW on November 20, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Not surprised.

In Obama vs Romney it was Obama saying everything (re: Obamacare) was fine vs Romney saying it would be bad and needs to be repealed. Or given the circumstances, it was Romney saying the house is burning and Obama saying no it isn’t.

Easier for people to believe the house isn’t burning because they haven’t been affected by the alleged approaching problem. Hence many people went with Obama because “he couldn’t be doing something that would adversely affect ME”.

Now the website has failed. The integration needed State/Fed/insurers has proven to be very problematic. Insurers, since they don’t have a bottomless source of funds have reacted rationally to the additional required coverages in a prudent fashion so now people see what they thought was their health coverage getting much more expensive in many ways. THIS was not what they thought they were bargaining for.

So now the house fire has reached the point where most everyone is now aware that there is a raging fire but that is not everyone. Hence there are claims and assurances that it is only a minor problem or a glitch and everything will sort itself out Real Soon Now. OR it is someone else to blame.

I think Thomas Sowell might characterize this state of affairs as Stage 1 promise all kinds of benefits, Stage 2 having to deliver all those benefits as promised, Stage 3 go DANG THIS IS NOT WORKING and voters might get really angry…

Russ808 on November 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

That’s because the HA staff (Bruce McQuain most culpably, since he ought to know better) is the one living in the alternate universe, one in which Obama is a conventional Democratic politician who gives a rat’s rumpus about popular opinion, instead of a poisonously narcissistic Alinskyite socialist who has hated this country since his childhood and wants to destroy it in favor of his own collectivist nightmare hell-world.

ebrown2 on November 19, 2013 at 10:51 PM

One of the biggest mistakes made by conservatives and Republican politicians was believing that Obama was some kind of traditional Democrat.

This alternate reality doesn’t mean much. Obama is the president until Jan of 2017.

Kirkian on November 20, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Oh these as$hat “purist like gryphon202. Hey Constitutionalists- why do we have a Senate and House? It was part of the Great COMPROMISE. Why were slaves considered 3/5 of a person for the census? It was part of the great COMPROMISE. So with your myopic purity, there would be no United States at all because in your addled little mind, compromise is unacceptable. So keep looking for that candidate who never varies from your gospel. Know that you couldn’t have voted for those sell outs like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison etc.

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Oh these as$hat “purist like gryphon202.

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Define “purity”. I’m personally sick of that facile bullshit. Jefferson, Washington et al would be “purists” in your book simply by opposing monarchy.

ddrintn on November 20, 2013 at 6:26 PM

^ In other words, on the essentials — the philosophical underpinnings of the system, drballard — those Founders were for the most part “purists”. There are some things for which there is no room for “compromise”.

ddrintn on November 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM

If I’m a purist cause I want the constitution followed, screw you. It’s a label I’ll wear proudly.

gryphon202 on November 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Ok.. letz put this in simple terms. First on slavery- was it pricipled to allow it? If it wasn’t, why did Jefferson et al allow it?
Second, who in 2012 fit your bill as a “purist”?
Third, your claim the founders were purists is ignorant and laughable.
Last, what is not open to compromise?
And of course, now that jerkoffs like you got obama re-elected, how is it to see the actual suffering you have caused fellow citizens by being so pure? What are the chances the IRS begazi fasr and furious criminals being prosecuted by the man you supported being president?

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Are you even aware that 90% of the people you know would be unable to vote under the constitution as originally written? How pure is that?

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Last question for all the constitutionalists- how many elections will you win when you close :
Dept of education(no more pell grants)
Health
Hud
Vetrans administration
NASA
Social security
Medicare
Medcaid
State colleges and universities.
If you’re strict constitutional, you could dispose or gut all that. How many votes u win? Remember- if you Don nt win you can’t change sh!t

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Are you even aware that 90% of the people you know would be unable to vote under the constitution as originally written? How pure is that?

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Try again, dumbshit. I said I want the constitution followed as-written. NOT “as originally written.” I’m okay with the amendment process, although there are a few I wouldn’t mind seeing repealed.

Ok.. letz put this in simple terms. First on slavery- was it pricipled to allow it? If it wasn’t, why did Jefferson et al allow it?

Principled? Yes. Moral? Not according to the belief system I follow. At the time, it was something the framers of the constitution struggled with. I don’t think it was Thomas Jefferson, but at least one of the men present at the constitutional convention did predict America would go to war over slavery. I wish I could remember who it was. In the end, we fought a war and shed blood over the question. If that doesn’t mean anything to you, then there’s an ideological gulf between you and I that will not be bridged.

Second, who in 2012 fit your bill as a “purist”?

As you are accusing us, the complainers, of being “purist,” I find the premise of this question laughable, but I’ll go with it. In 2012, I was a voter without a candidate.

Third, your claim the founders were purists is ignorant and laughable.

Considering that the people I most admire in the country’s founding were those ultimately responsible for writing and ratifying the constitution, I think this ill-begotten attempt at snark is utterly and completely idiotic. Since it was not even phrased in the form of a question, I have nothing else to say regarding it.

Last, what is not open to compromise?

Life/death? Freedom/Tyranny? We’ve compromised America away, dumba$$. With every new executive order and regulation, there’s less and less remaining that makes America special/exceptional. Some people are saddened by this. Others cheer it, and are therefore my sworn enemies on the battlefield of politics.

And of course, now that jerkoffs like you got obama re-elected, how is it to see the actual suffering you have caused fellow citizens by being so pure? What are the chances the IRS begazi fasr and furious criminals being prosecuted by the man you supported being president?

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Ohh! For a second there I had you confused with an Obama voter! You could definitely contend with them in a race to the bottom of the gene pool. So you don’t like Obama, and you think I and others like me are responsible for getting Obama re-elected for pointing out how the GOP is helping to advance his agenda?

DrBullshit, GFY. You’r part of the problem.

gryphon202 on November 21, 2013 at 2:57 AM

Last question for all the constitutionalists- how many elections will you win when you close :
Dept of education(no more pell grants)
Health
Hud
Vetrans administration
NASA
Social security
Medicare
Medcaid
State colleges and universities.
If you’re strict constitutional, you could dispose or gut all that. How many votes u win? Remember- if you Don nt win you can’t change sh!t

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM

I don’t know if you realize it, but you are not making a case for moderation. If anything, you are making the case for tabula rasa, apparently unwittingly telling us that America is dead and why. You and Obama deserve each other.

gryphon202 on November 21, 2013 at 2:58 AM

And for all you dumba$$es pushing moderation, was McCain moderate enough? He lost! Was Romney moderate enough? He lost! You can’t change things if you don’t win? Yeeeeah. Riiiiiight.

gryphon202 on November 21, 2013 at 2:59 AM

The really sad thingbis how purists can never ever propose actual solutions. I think that’s why you stay mired in the past, thinking itvwas some kind of utopia. “Oh ifvonly we had Reagan!” As $ hat. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law, biggest tax increase and worst divorce law, so he can’t stand up to your standards. So I really am interested- who would you vote for?

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM

And if you didn’t support Romney you are an obama voter. Ireturning to your theoretical pure world, why don’t you address the actual suffering of actual Americans that suffer due to your inaction?

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 8:46 AM

The really sad thingbis how purists can never ever propose actual solutions. I think that’s why you stay mired in the past, thinking itvwas some kind of utopia. “Oh ifvonly we had Reagan!” As $ hat. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law, biggest tax increase and worst divorce law, so he can’t stand up to your standards. So I really am interested- who would you vote for?

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM

And if you didn’t support Romney you are an obama voter. Ireturning to your theoretical pure world, why don’t you address the actual suffering of actual Americans that suffer due to your inaction?

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Let’s make a few things abundantly clear here, Dr. Baloney.

First, it’s none of your goddam business who I voted for, but if you must know, I took what I thought would be the most expeditious route to get Obama out of office. You can do with that nugget of info what you will.

Secondly, my utter disdain for Romney-as-retail politician doesn’t even have anything to do with the topic of this thread! If Palin had run and lost in 2012, and the headline here read:

Great news: In an alternate universe where the 2012 election is being held today, Palin wins

I would feel the same about the abject and total absenceof newsworthiness. I really don’t give a crap if Romney would win now, just like I don’t give a crap if any theoretical GOP candidate would win now. It’s wasted effort on AP’s part to even write about it, and contra HotAir, I DO believe it is an absolutely worthless poll — irrespective of my feelings regarding Romney.

gryphon202 on November 21, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Third, your claim the founders were purists is ignorant and laughable.

drballard on November 20, 2013 at 11:04 PM

You squishes with your constant recourse to that “purist!!!!” garbage are the laughable ones. Washington and Jefferson both were purists. They would NOT compromise on the basic nature of the system that was to be put into place. Is there anything about which you squishes will draw the line and say “compromise isn’t possible here”? Anything at all?

The really sad thingbis how purists can never ever propose actual solutions.

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM

The “purists” propose solutions all the time. It’s you squishes who do nothing but sit back and do nothing but b1tch. What’s the squish answer to getting rid of O-care? Is it, hmmm…compromise a little so O-care works better or at least isn’t as outright sucky? There’s your squish way.

ddrintn on November 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

My solution is two-pronged and simple:

Article V Convention

State-level nullification

That make you happy, Dr. Baloney?

gryphon202 on November 21, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Dear. PLEASE NAME ONE POLITICIAN YOU WOULD SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT. You can’t answer can you?

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

You tsll me how you get to a Convention and I’m all ears as$ hole

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Actually just tell me which candidate past or future meets your standard. That alone is worth it.

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Dear. PLEASE NAME ONE POLITICIAN YOU WOULD SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT. You can’t answer can you?

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

You tsll me how you get to a Convention and I’m all ears as$ hole

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Actually just tell me which candidate past or future meets your standard. That alone is worth it.

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Blow it out your cakehole, Doc. I don’t have to explain shit to you, you worthless poseur. How you “get to” a convention is in Article V of the constitution. Read it. And as for who I’d support for president? I put principles over personality, so I’ll support individuals who share my principles, which apparently you do not. So kindly get bent.

gryphon202 on November 21, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Wow. Someones got their little feelings hurt. Im sorry you cant debate witb men. I can see why your life is so successful. Is this really what you consider a winning philosophy for life? As for being a poseur, tell me how refusing to answer a logical question is being anything other than a losers tactic? Your parents must be proud of you.

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 10:03 PM

But please when you pull your thumb out of your mouth, we’d love to hear which politicians share your superior principles. Do tell.

drballard on November 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM

We should know by now that the ability of the current RNC to lose is limitless.

It is pointless to imagine scenarios in which Romney could have won. He lost to McCain and then to Benghazi Barry. This is not even a cold-case – it’s case-closed.

virgo on November 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2