Green Room

Axelrod: We may not need to win swing-state independents

posted at 11:45 am on October 31, 2012 by

This sounds a lot like wishcasting to me, and frankly, I’m surprised David Axelrod let this slip:

He may not have had much choice, though, not with polls showing strong Romney leads with independents even in the tilted polls of the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac series.  It’s almost certainly not true, however.  It would be true if Democratic enthusiasm was way up and GOP enthusiasm way down, but even those polls showed exactly the opposite.  Axelrod went on to argue that independent metrics depend on how voters identify themselves, implying that these independents are actually proto-Republicans, but I’d guess that was a lot more true in 2008 than now, especially with Gallup showing parity in partisan identification.

It sounds as if Team O is acknowledging that they’ve lost independents.  That’s a pretty big deal in this election.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

How do you win without independents?

ButterflyDragon on October 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Sure, just get Dems to turn out in even greater numbers than 2008 while suppressing GOP voter turnout and it’s a done deal.

/

Doughboy on October 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM

“We may not win these voters but we may not have to win these voters.”

That sounds like an “Abandon Ship” call to me.

portlandon on October 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Keep that razor handy, Davey Boy.

Scott P on October 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

How do you win without independents?

ButterflyDragon on October 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Simple – Have a +8 Democrat turnout like the pollsters are using. Should be a piece of cake, especially since Republicans would walk across broken glass to go vote and half the Democrats would rather watch a Maury Povich rerun than bother to go vote.

forest on October 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

How do you win without independents?

ButterflyDragon on October 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Cheat.

Droopy on October 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

They never moved to the center. Why would they expect to win them??

Obama governed left, and ran for re-election even further left.

He wants to rule the world.

faraway on October 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

There must be a whole lot of Obama phones out there.

Kataklysmic on October 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM

It’ll be very interesting to see what the D/R/I split is on Election Day. They, and pollsters, seem to be counting on ’08 Dem advantages, but every measure seems to suggest they’re wrong.

changer1701 on October 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM

How do you win without independents?

ButterflyDragon on October 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

By suppressing their and conservatives’ votes, and cheating like Hell.

Steve Eggleston on October 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM

It’ll be very interesting to see what the D/R/I split is on Election Day. They, and pollsters, seem to be counting on ’08 Dem advantages, but every measure seems to suggest they’re wrong.

changer1701 on October 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Exit polls will have a D+8 slant…because the only places that will be polled are ‘Rat-heavy areas.

Steve Eggleston on October 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I just hope Ol’ Trotskyrod, keeps his promise and shaves his stache off. It will be hilarious. But, I think, just like Ear Leader, he will fail in keeping his word.

WV. Paul on October 31, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Exit polls will have a D+8 slant…because the only places that will be polled are ‘Rat-heavy areas.

Steve Eggleston on October 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I’ve always suspected that exit polls tilt Democrat because loudmouth activist progressive types are drawn to the pollsters while normal people just want to get home to get dinner on the table for the kids.

forest on October 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM

If 20% of the D’s vote twice, you easily get to a D+8 poll. AND you don’t need to independents.

It’s scary just how right Axelrod might be. Now that he has bet his mustache on it, perhaps we should be especially concerned.

Carnac on October 31, 2012 at 12:24 PM

This is what grasping at straws looks like.

Red Cloud on October 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM

It sounds as if Team O is acknowledging that they’ve lost independents. That’s a pretty big deal in this election.

Yeah, it looks like they are all done and they know it. Zero has the hardcore rabid left and not a lot more.

dogsoldier on October 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM

This is what grasping at straws looks like.

Red Cloud on October 31, 2012 at 12:25 PM

How self-aware of you.

faraway on October 31, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I’d been wondering who to cast as Grand Moff Tarkin. Now we know.

Either that or the ones predicting fraud will be right.

321mdl on October 31, 2012 at 1:03 PM

How do you win without independents?

ButterflyDragon on October 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Get 51% of the populace on the dole.

stvnscott on October 31, 2012 at 1:06 PM

LOL! Since 1972 (when Americans began to call themselves “Independents”), only one presidential candidate has won Indies and lost the election. That was John Kerry in 2004. He won Indies by less than 2%.

A candidate cannot lose the independent vote by upper-single or double-digits in swing states (or even nationally) and win an election unless the opposition party stays home in DRAMATIC numbers and has enormous crossover. I’m talking about something on the level of having a David Duke, Malik Zulu Shabazz, or Jerry Sandusky as the nominee. That isn’t the case in this election. Romney actually has a higher favourability rating than Obama and Republicans are much more enthusiastic than they were in 2008.

Only the delusional believe that Democratic turnout will be higher and Republican turnout lower than in 2008.

One predictor of turnout is midterm election turnout. Take a look at the patter:

In the 1998 midterms, turnout was D+2.

In 2000, turnout was D+4.

In the 2002 midterms, turnout was R+1.

In 2004, turnout was R+2.4.

In the 2006 midterms, turnout was D+3.

In 2008, turnout was D+5.

In the 2010 midterms, turnout was R+3.

If this pattern holds, Republican turnout will be higher than Democrat turnout. Even if R turnout doesn’t eclipse D turnout, the pattern still suggests that D turnout will be lower than 2008. This prediction is also backed up by all of the polling data, which shows Republicans have a sizable enthusiasm lead over Democrats. Further, recently released data suggest that many of Obama’s core constituencies (18-34, African-Americans, and Hispanics) are not likely to vote in the numbers that they did in 2008. This is especially true for Millennials.

Resist We Much on October 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Hmm.. Well I’ve been a registered Independent since 2006. Was a Republican before that. Voted only once for a Dem.. In ’86 midterm in Idaho, I think.. Never third party. At least not yet. Don’t want to throw away a vote. Now registered in Broward county, FL and going to do the same as I always do.. R all the way down the ticket… Seems the Dems will never learn. Socialism should never be allowed to prevail in this great country.

Al Hall on October 31, 2012 at 1:11 PM

There is no freakin’ way the Dems are going to see 2008 numbers at the polls.. I should also say the same for the Reps and Right leaning indies as well as true undecideds. There will be more!!
As I said before, I’m a registered Independent. But I’m really just a pissed off Republican.

Al Hall on October 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM

New Hotness: “We may not win (Independents) but we may not have to win (Independents).”

Old Hotness: Obama Adviser: Independents Will Decide Election

Resist We Much on October 31, 2012 at 1:42 PM

LANDSLIDE!

RedNewEnglander on October 31, 2012 at 2:01 PM

and half the Democrats would rather watch a Maury Povich rerun than bother to go vote.

forest on October 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

*gag* Is that the wretched excuse for ‘entertainment’ whose entire premise is “who’s mah bebbydaddy?” The guests are walking advertisements for surgical sterilization…

MelonCollie on October 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The phrase that comes to mind is “whistling past the graveyard.”

LooseCannon on October 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM

He who win the independents by 3+ points is going to win the elections… It is that simple… This means that Romney is going to win the elections…

mnjg on October 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Swing-state independents? We ain’t got no swing-state independents. We don’t need no swing-state independents. We don’t have to turn out any stinking swing-state independents!
/Hackselrod

JimLennon on October 31, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Axelrod on independents in swing states: “We may not win these voters but we may not have to win these voters.”

You don’t HAVE to win any voters… to lose.

Marcola on October 31, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The phrase that comes to mind is “whistling past the graveyard.”

LooseCannon on October 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM

THey’re not “whistling past” it – they’re calling out their strongest constituency – the dead voters.

Without the Independents, the GOTV operation for the cemetery residents just needs to be stepped up. With the dead voting early/often/late they’ll do just fine

krome on October 31, 2012 at 2:54 PM