President Dukakis
How often have you heard a variation on this story? You’re sitting in the bar car of the train back from Washington to New York and bits of a conversation among some beautiful people waft their way across your double bourbon. Obama, they assure one another gleefully, has it “in the bag.” The campaign, they tell another another, is essentially over: it’s just a matter of hopping on the Hope & Change express and riding it — Forward! — to victory in November. It’s a nuisance that we even have to bother with the formality of voting, their conversation seems to suggest: the polls, the emotional weather of the country, God himself (except of course that there is no God) have ordained that Obama must win, has already really won, can you believe what a terrible campaign Mitt Romney is running? What a loser! Alienating 47 percent of the population by reminding them that they pay no income tax and are beneficiaries of government largess: what a moron! Imagine, telling people the truth about the Entitlement State! The man is a gaffe machine. Boy are we going to town on these losers when Obama starts his second term. . . .
Et very much cetera. I ran into an old Yale friend the other night who told me about a party he attended among what he called the bien pensant elite of New Haven. The conversation drifted to the election, and that febrile sense of grateful certainty asserted itself into the proceedings. My friend quietly demurred, breaking the mood of self-congratulation. Could it be that he had a different opinion? He didn’t really think, did he, that anything other than an overwhelming victory for Obama was possible? He simply smiled and suggested that they ask President Dukakis what he thought. I think the party dispersed soon thereafter.
But what do the Wise and Good expect to follow from an Obama victory? That’s what puzzles me. The deficit halved at last? Health care costs reduced? The dollar’s value sky-rocketing? A triumph of Green energy? The seas receding? The Entitlement Tide receding? A solvent welfare state?
There’s always a bit of the sports-fan excitement in political campaigns (I feel some of that myself) but the world did not change when the Red Socks won.
All they seem to hope from Democrat victory is a Republican defeat.
I ponder that question daily. The closest I can come to n answer is tha they must think, okay, the economy will continue to decline, the government will experience fiscal collapse, and our children will inherit a vastly reduced kind of life. But hey, we’ve got abortion and gay marriage!
I think it’s partly tribal. Partly a lazy lack of self examination paired with immersion in a separate factual universe. Partly a refusal to see the failure of the leftist model. The supposedly smart and the supposedly educated are the worst, most intellectually lazy offenders.
We should be worried about the un-educated lemmings who’ll vote for Obama automatically just because he’s got a big chip on his shoulder and is their candidate to “stick it to th’man”.
We should be worried that those 53% who got him into office last time will not change their votes. They simply cannot see themselves ever voting for, “are you kidding me!”, a Republican. I predict another Bush/Gore squeaker.
But, I defer most hopefully to Mr Kimball’s experienced judgment. I want him to be correct. Those of us of a certain age remember Truman in that iconic photograph of himself on the rear-car platform of his campaign train gleefully brandishing that headline, “Dewey Wins!”…..at the time it happened.
How is it that th’ Media ad th’ Pollsters (….all now genuflect….) can get things so bass ackwards?
I think you fail to understand the power of the negative press (MSM) to impress upon the ’47%’ – for good or bad thats what this fight is about. Honesty vs dishonesty. I understand your frustration. I’ve got an 81 year old neighbor that is absolutely frightened by what he sees on the nightly news concerning what Romney and the Republicans have in store for the elderly if they are handed the reins of power. I printed out an article (he has no internet – no computer) about how ObamaCare is sucking off billions of $’s from Medicare to support the ACA. Didn’t bother him one bit – seems the MSM has brainwashed him – his eyes glazed over as he read it and started saying how this was BS – that Obama “would never do such a thing” etc etc. And he isn’t the only one in the neighborhood like that.
And his response about Fox News? “Terrible reporting” To which I asked if he ever watches them – his reply – “NEVER!”. I asked him how he knows Fox is so bad – he said if a US President didn’t like them they must be bad…
Its an uphill battle – but one that must be waged – one mind at a time. Don’t expect to win many – they just don’t seem to comprehend all that often.
Can people be for real brainwashed over the airwaves? I’m thinking they can.
K.T. your post reminds me of the criminal case, in which I was an expert witness for the defense. The foreman of the jury had to ask, once in deliberations, to have a juror excused.
Seems that after a 6 month trial, the juror wanted to know when they get to convict the defendant, because she is sitting in the defense chair, meaning that she must be guilty.
67 counts against this person, and once this juror was removed, it took less than one day to say not guilty on 64 of the counts, and hung 11-1 on the other three, which the judge gave the jury all of one day to decide on, and then pulled the plug and the prosecutor did not file new charges.
Your neighbor sounds easy, KT. Tuesday morning you offer him a ride to the polls tommorow.
Problem solved.
I agree, sadly, with you about your neighbor. I have some good friends who are nice people, but raving liberals. When I try to discuss facts with them, they always fall back on emotion. That’s the sine qua non of the whole problem. Emotion isn’t empirical – it’s that “gut feeling” – don’t bother me with facts. I know what I “feel.”
When I bring up facts about the deficit, they simply don’t believe them. I point out that these are CBO numbers. No dice. The point made to me was,”we’re in such a mess, we’ve got to give Obama’s policies time to work. We don’t want to change horses in mid-stream.” My reply was, “If I were on the back of a runaway horse heading for the edge of a cliff, I think I’d want to change horses as soon as possible.”
I have a friend that told me she was voting for Obama because “Romney scares me” she explained. When I asked her what it was about Romney that scared her, she admitted that she didn’t know what it was, but that he scared her nevertheless. If she is representative of the voting public, we are screwed.
Spot on, Victor. Our country is becoming a collection of tribes. Obama and his handlers see this and are milking it for all it’s worth. Sure has worked well back in Africa.
I think the explanation is simpler than that. It’s more like: “I voted for Obama 4 years ago. I am not going to admit I was wrong, despite this gnawing feeling that things aren’t going well, and promises did not materialize. I am doubling down to show you that I was right. You’ll see.”
Almost right. “I voted for Obama in 2008. I have this gnawing feeling that it’s not working at all, but I’ll NEVER vote for a Republican. However, I’m really busy that Tuesday; I need to wash my dog and re-arrange my video collection, and I just won’t have time to get to the polls, but that’s OK because he’s a shoo-in, and my vote won’t make much difference anyway.” That way they can rationalize that they didn’t vote for Romney, but don’t have to be left voting for something they really aren’t happy about. They can avoid the problem of having to choose between two unsatisfactory choices. They avoid the psychic pain by not dealing with it at all; like Obama did so often in Illinois, they will abstain from voting and absolve themselves of any responsibility (at least in their own minds.) And of course, they will claim that not voting for the One in November wasn’t a mistake AT THE TIME because they believed the polls and knew it wasn’t necessary, as he was going to win anyway. Secretly, they will be relieved he lost, but they’ll never say so out loud.
Realists (and adults) realize that life often requires making unpleasant and unsatisfactory choices because often there is no perfect solution. Idealists (and children and adolescents) still think that there WILL be or SHOULD be a perfect choice. Realists know that life mostly consists of trade-offs; you give a little here to get a little more there. Idealists think there should be a way to have all of everything, to have their cake and eat it too. There are more naive idealists in the Democrat party than in the Republican one, and that may make all the difference.
If government money shows up in your wallet or pocket or a debit card you can spend, and you know you cannot get a job to replace it, you have to vote to keep that money coming. It is a matter of survival. Your loyalty has been bought and paid for. Are you aware the people paying you produce nothing? OK they have alot of guns and armies at their command and own alot of buildings and millions who work for them, and access to incredible info and data bases, but trillions in expenses and trillions in debts, and everything they get (far below their growing committments and expenses)has to be taken by force. And alot of foreign enemies and domestic interlopers. The pattern is not unique to history — in fact it is as formulaic and predictable as a “B” teenage slasher picture. The endless free money is just not sustainable. But when your world view does not extend beyond your next “burp and buzz” you’ve got to vote you’re own purse strings. Wot else ya gonna do? The left has been stringing out elections based on free turkeys for hundreds of years now. They aren’t going to stop now. We’ll have a war. Millions will die. We’ll dust ourselves off. We’ll learn nothing. Then the cycle will start all over.
I happen to know quite a few people who are on SS disabilty and/or food stamps, and NONE of them are voting for Obama. They hate him, blame him for their lost jobs–some have been without work for 3+ years–and consider Romney their only hope for ever having a job again. They hate getting government money, they hate having no work to do, and they hate being lumped in with the 47% who are bought-and-paid for by government. This is a larger thing than many realize, because there are a lot of people who pay no net taxes after the Earned Income Tax Credit, who actually get not just all but more than the whole of the taxes they paid through the year, who don’t even realize they are part of that 47%. They pay income taxes, just look at their paycheck stubs! The point being that a lot of these ‘bought’ people aren’t going to stay bought. They don’t want to squeak by on Medicaid and food stamps, but being out of work is a vicious cycle; because you have no job employers won’t hire you–too great a risk. Their only chance is a much improved economy, and that’s why they’re voting for hope, and not Obama.
genuinely insightful. the (il)liberal mindset won’t bear contrast because wouldn’t survive honest intellectual challenge – wishful thinking demands voluntary blindness. Come November, “fellow traveler” Democrats main drive is shutting down dissent.
I actively participate in elections, even when there’s a no-hoper of a candidate on my side (google Ottawa-Vanier Riding in Canada). There is always the excitement of participating in a blood sport.
The situation in the US is Soooo polarized … thank you lefties …. that it has become more important to defeat the opponent than secure a plebiscite for ones own policies.
Agreed.
Point-scoring here seems to trump wisdom.
What they expect, Mr. Frary, is that things will continue on as they have been. They think that the government will continue to spend money and run programs and that America will just keep on doing what it’s been doing. Too many people are psychologically unequipped to be able to accept the concept that America can “end” as we know it, and that it’s possible that suddenly the money may become worthless or all those programs can come to a shrieking halt.
There were studies done on Jews who were living in Germany before the Final Solution was started–many of them clung to the familiar and the comforting illusions of normalcy even in the face of mounting evidence that the culture had dramatically changed, right up until they were herded into the railroad cars.
They weren’t stupid–they were simply unprepared to accept the changing conditions and adjust accordingly (like getting the Hell out of the German equivalent of Dodge, as many did). Most Obama voters and too many other Americans are like that–it’s part of the human condition.
“…like getting the Hell out of the German equivalent of Dodge…”
Jews weren’t persecuted in just one town, they were persecuted all over Germany. And then the former Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, etc. as each of those was occupied by German forces.
Therefore, the German equivalent of Dodge was GERMANY itself, then Greater Germany as the Third Reich grew.
INVERT everything you just proposed.. that’s what people are GOING TO GET.
No, not just ‘defeat republicans’. I think a big part of independents which made a recent change in the polls in swing states, they aren’t automatically pro-Obama and they aren’t ideoloques. But they observed Ronmey for more than a year, and they decided they like him and trust him even less than Obama. And I think that 47% business was a large factor in it.
If what you say is true, then it’s a tacit admission that the entitlement classes have achieved an absolute majority. And if that’s true, it’s game over for America.
Um, that’s Sox, not socks.
Personally, I think the election will all come down to turnout.
Will the 18-30 year olds come out big again for Obama, doubtful.
Will Evangelicals hold their noses and vote heavily for a Mormon, doubtful.
Mr. Kimball,
It is my understanding that the “Pauline Kael” moment to which you refer was about Nixon’s victory, not Reagan. At any rate that is how I’ve always seen it in print.
And IIRC, she was quoting someone else.
I believe that the possibly apocryphal story about Pauline Kael involved the immediate aftermath of George McGovern’s crushing defeat in 1972. Whether or not it’s true it accurately reflects the environment in which self-appointed elites on the left reside. To paraphrase the late M. Scott Peck from one of his “Road Less Traveled” books they inhabit a hermetically-sealed bubble rebreathing their own fetid exhalations. The cure: popping the bubble and subjecting them to fresh air and sunshine. Let’s hope that happens on the evening of November 6th.
Pauline Kael comment was about Nixon winning in ’72, not Reagan winning in ’80.
I’ve always heard that Pauline Kael said that about Nixon, but whatever. I heard variations on that from people around me during the Bush Jr presidency. It’s also interesting to note reactions when a lib mouths some known “fact”, but is immediately shot down with a true fact. Or when their opinion on something is rejected and shown to be misinformed and foolish. Great fun!
It has been my personal experience that when you crush a lib’s “facts” with true facts, the very next words from the lib’s lips are an insult on my intelligence, the quality of my ancestry, how racist I am, and how it is not even worth continuing a civil conversation with an ignoramus such as myself. That is why I often do not even bother trying to hold intelligent discussions with libs.
Yes, indeed – as my Logic 101 professor in college used to say, “if you’re in an argument with someone and they can’t refute your logic with facts – watch out for that ad hominem attack. They’ll do it every time.”
And you know what? He was right!
I would agree with your assessment except for one critical item, cheating. There is a reason democrats fight voter ID so much, and are making such a big deal of trying to clean up voter rolls. They cheat heavily in urban districts.
we dont necessarily need voter id, but we do need to tie biometric identifiers to each ballot to stop fake ballots with no real voter and single voters voting multiple times.
That would not stop illegal aliens from voting. There are millions of illegals living in the U.S., and many of them vote (illegally) in U.S. elections, usually by mail. Requiring voter ID at the polls is fine, but most voter fraud these days takes place in absentee voting. That’s where we need serious reforms.
Legal aliens shouldn’t be voting either.
The overseas Military vote is to be calculated and reported in Spain by a George Soros owned company. Get ready for “a massive swing in military vote patterns”. As reported by Soros that is. MASSIVE vote fraud is in the works. Just like Chavez does.
Obama Wins Re-Election
Just to acclimate you to the shocking HL. According to just about every single poll–good, bad, ugly, friendly, enemy or whatever–Obamney & Rombama are tied. Tied! This after all the lies, corruption, stupidity, economic collapse and tyranny of the O admin. Folks this stupid deserve to be oppressed. But the bigger story lies in the nicknames I’ve given each candidate.
They’re tied because–as butt head Wallace used to say–”there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” the Democrat President and the Republican challenger.
ROGER KIMBALL: President Dukakis. “In other words, I am sticking with my prediction that Romney will win and win big. I even have a few modest bets on the race. Of course, it’s possible that Obama will win. It was possible that Michael Dukakis could have won, too. He had the illusion of momentum, just as Obama does.”
Problem is, a) Obama’s no Dukakis; b) Romney is no Bush (cripes, that’s really saying something, too); c) the press now is not the press then; and, most importantly, d) the U.S. now is not the U.S. then.
That’s silly. tHere are a million differences between them.
Unless you’re a libertarian, or a paleo. If the former, please remember that our founders were not. If the latter, I hope one day you realzie what the rest of the world is really like.
@7
I do not, for one nanosecond, believe Any of the polls from Pravda. They lie, manipulate, and shout over anyone with a fact. Deception is a tool of the desperate, their failure is going to be epic.
If you can’t tell a dime’s difference between the candidates you shouldn’t be allowed to vote
Based on past experience, I always add 5% to the Republican side in any poll.
For real life example, see the election of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA).
haha Is that you, CW?
Roger writes:
“When Ronald Reagan was first elected, the story goes, Kael found herself in a state of dumbfounded consternation: how could this be? How could this ignorant right-wing war mongering B-actor have been elected? The electoral result was not just mistaken, it was impossible. ‘I don’t know anyone who voted for him,’ quoth la Kael.”
I thought it was about Nixon in ’72. Not that it matters a whole lot; the point is well taken, even if the story is apocryphal.
Hale Adams
Pikesville, People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland
Welcome comrade. I serve in the same gulag. O’Malley, O’Bama, Oh my.
Yes, the O Team welcomes all to the PROM…well mostly illegals, and other Gimmedats; particularly if you’re willing to vote more than once.
It’s not all that bad though, thanks to the “stimulus” we got York Road repaved 10 years before it needed it. Love the ride.
Little O has even gerrymandered my district so that now, for the first time in my life, I will be “represented” by a Gimmedat (The Honorable Elijah Cummings).
Oh boy…lots more free stuff. I can hardly wait. And I only have to pay about $1000 more per year in my state tithe.
Come to Maryland, and see what the fuss is all about.
KY
Sparks, People’s Republic of Maryland
Vote for the redistricting of the Congressional districts on the referendum in November. No matter what some complict judge finally does with the Congressional Districts it couldn’t possibly be worse than what the O’Malley Regime and their Legislature enablers have concocted.
Roland Park commune of the Democratic People’s Republic of Maryland; An entire state controlled by rampant voter fraud in just four of it’s jurisdictions for over thirty five years and counting.
thank you for the advice nickel…i will do that.
if ever in sparks area and in need of a safe house, try prices groceries and liquors. code word is “i may not be fast, but i’m furious”
good luck in roland park. balto city property taxes must really make you feel good about paying your fair share so that others don’t have to.
Yeah, if it didn’t take so long to get my money from the bank to Intrade (21 to 28 days), I’d be betting big on Romney(shares are going for $3.10-$3.40).
Yes, President Dukakis indeed. Part of the trouble of this analysis (apart from the fact that it was Nixon’s win, not Reagan’s that Pauline Kael was referring to) is that Romney is running with the style of Dukakis. Still, we can hope that this turns out to be like 1980, when so many knew that Carter was inadequate but were not ready until the very end to believe Reagan would be better.
Slightly off topic but very important: when President Obama said that he learned that he couldn’t change Washington from the inside and that the changes he wanted had to come from the outside, I believe he was speaking in code. What I believe he really meant is that he couldn’t change the nation within the constraints of the Constitution that requires he work with the other branches, but could only bring about the changes he wanted when he worked outside the constraints of the Constitution and ignored the other Washington branches.
I’m sure the most important item on BooBoo’s agenda for term 2 is getting the court packed to the left.After that its a guaranteed ride to nowhere for all of us.
Excellent point: governing inside/outside (the Constitution). I have seen it made by no one else. But it explains an otherwise inexplicable comment.
Right in every way except “it would be a repudiation of their entire world view.”
My favorite Hayek quote . . . . “We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected.”
Which is to say that Obama’s loss, in my opinion, would change few minds about how things ought to work. Rather, it would confirm, in their mind, the believe that we rubes are always ignorant and sometimes dangerous.
“Rather, it would confirm, in their mind, the believe[belief] that we rubes are always ignorant and sometimes dangerous.”
Probably correct, Stephen. But the latter belief is what some of us now live for, being dangerous to heartfelt but utter stupidity.
Inadvertently, a good bumper sticker: “Please keep your dangerous, heartfelt stupidity within your four walls.”
I sure hope you’re right, but I came here looking for a more substantive argument–something other than “Romney will win because the other side has deluded itself.” Please give me more.
The whole reason they vote for Obama is because they’ve deluded themselves for years, with the help of the press. Yes, they live in a bubble filled with unicorns and unlimited money. They are divorced from reality, of course. But they’ll still be voting in November.
Forget Pauline Kael, are you old enough to remember Super Bowl III? The NFL’s Baltimore Colts were 13-1. The AFL’s Jets were 11-3 but regarded as the 3rd best team in that league – there was even talk after the Jets had upset the 12-2 Raiders of having a different playoff system in the AFL to ensure the “best team” went to the Super Bowl. The NFL’s Packers had absolutely CRUSHED two different AFL opponents in the first two Super Bowls. Nobody but NOBODY expected the Jets to win, except Joe Namath who “guaranteed it.” The Colts were something like 27 point favorites.
The Jets won 16-3.
Forget guarantees, there are none. Forget the polls, just like the odds makers and the pundits, they don’t matter. The teams still have to play the damn game. The only way to win is to show up and play. The Jets did. Just make sure you show up on Election Day and make sure as many pro-Romney friends as you can do likewise. That’s all any of us can really do.
The October debates are this year’s political Super Bowl, though I suspect that the hardcore 40% on either side won’t budge. It’s those undecided ones, or hopefully Democrats (see fools) who will realize that Obama is a scoundrel who is tearing the constitution to shreds. How so many leftists reconcile their dogma while supposedly backing the constitution is an indictment of the American education system, and the leftist conspirators who who have corrupted it.
Your wish is my command, so long as it’s not immoral, illegal or fattening.
Demonrats are inherently lazy. Most people on gubbermint assistance are there thru sloth. Honey Bo bo is not going to get up off the couch unless she sees a serious threat. The oft questioned polls are an attempt by Axelclod to establish momentum.
I think he has scored an own goal here. If the polls show Berry with a lead, Honey Bo bo will see no reason to get her fat arse up off the sofa to go vote. Low voter turn out equals doom for democrats.
You’re welcome.
A compromise between water and sewage is still sewage.
Reagan, that Pauline Kael, was supposedly so dumbfounded to hear had won the election.
Apparently that wasn’t the actual quote, and anyway it was Nixon, not Reagan.
Still, I sure hope you’re right about everything else.
My best recollection of 1988 (I was a teenager at the time) wasn’t his bumbling tank video, or his measured, qualified response to the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife, or even the famous Willie Horton ads (by Al Gore and an independent group). It was Saturday Night Live’s “Dukakis After Dark”. After four years of Carter and eight of Reagan, I don’t remember anyone taking the idea of Dukakis winning seriously. And this was New Jersey.
The election is much closer this time, not because Obama is doing terribly well but because it’s increasingly polarized. About 40% of the country is going to vote for Obama pretty much no matter what he does. Another 5% might or might not stay home, but they’re committed to him, “independent” or no. That and the electoral math makes this close.
With that said, the polls are probably overstating Obama’s numbers partially because they use very skewed 2008 turnout as the basis for their “likely voter” definition. Based on the Obama campaign’s tone, it seems they agree. This works to our advantage, lulling Obama supporters into complacency. On the right, we’re more diligent about voting, regardless of what Candy Crowley is telling us.
But you’re right that the betting money should be on Romney. Not just because he’s still likely to win, but because your currency will have little value anyway if Romney loses.
Minor quibble: I thought it was Nixon that Kael was talking about.
I believe Romney can turn the tide favorably, first debate. If Romney does, I agree with you Roger. Romney is simply the smarter, more qualified candidate and the truth of the abysmal of failure of Obama will finally be exposed, a failure a complicit media can’t cover up nor spin.
If not, this election will go down to the wire.
I don’t see the debates going so well for Romney. I see this scenario:
A smooth-talking Obama reiterating his promises to give free stuff to everyone, preventing a “war on women,” and continued vilification of the wealthy and corporations.
The adult in the room, Romney, will speak of responsibility and accountability–not something a nation of children an “victims” want to hear about.
An army of “fact checkers” will go after Romney, finding numerous “pinocchios” and “pants on fire” ratings for minor errors or omissions on his part. The same “fact checkers” will find little wrong with what Obama said, and nothing of import. The press will dig deep to find Romney statements that contradict previous statements he made. No mention will be made of Obama’s lack of transparency or the “fierce moral urgency” of closing Guantanamo Bay.
In the media’s narrative, Romney will be presented as a greedy liar, and Obama will come out as a reasonable man for all people, regardless of who debated better or made the most salient points. A the press can already tell you the “recovery” is well under way.
Depressing.
Willy is right.
The media will declare Mr. Romney a liar and swoon over the performance of Mr. Obama if he says fewer than 60 “Uhs”.
The other part of this scenario are the lines of questioning. Questions for Mr. Romney will require him to both deny the premise of the question and answer properly, and allow Mr. Obama to answer by building and then breaking down a straw man. Questions for Mr. Obama will praise achievements he has not made and will suggest Mr. Romney will have to appear to be defensive just to get the truth out.
Expect questions like, “Mr. Romney, why don’t you take a stronger stand against the Republican party’s war on women?” and “Mr. Obama, how many jobs did you create and save with the brilliant stimulus in 2009?”
I have no doubt both of you are right. The media is both complicit in the cover up and sycophantic and biased in the questioning.
That is why it is imperative Romney be adequately prepared for the slanted field, must go on the offensive, and must blast the media like Gingrich did if the questioning a sham without sounding like he’s whining. Call the media on it and do so forcefully like Gingrich did. Don’t forget – the media is poorly thought of by the vast majority of the voting public.
I have more confidence in Romney than many. He wasn’t my choice, but I do find him a far, far superior candidate to John McCain.
And unlike McCain, Romney has one huge advantage. Obama is no longer a blank slate – we now have an abysmal record, four years of coverup and lies, a Muslim world on fire, and a series of broken promises out of the mouth of Obama that can’t be disputed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the media gives Obama an unfair advantage in the debates by slipping someone within his organization the questions before hand (or a media toady insider who does so). Every dirty trick in history will be employed for this fight.
The Obumbler IS NOT a smooth talker. He is a fast reader off his Tele-prompter. Without his machine, he is more then a little slow thinking. Even with the help of the moderator, Mitt should be able to dance circles around the Obumbler.
Just ask him what he has gotten right in his term?
Yes, the media will spend the next day declaring Obama the ‘winner’. So what? Media ratings among the public is rapidly approaching Congressional levels. Who you gonna believe. A bunch of talking heads or your lying eyes?
Rule .308; No mercy asked, none given.
Willy, you are right about the media’s likely reaction to the debates (outside of FOX and WSJ…but collectively, 70% of America watches some variation of “Obama Pravda” so you are basically correct).
However, do not despair. Remember, looking at recent history, the media HATED Bush #43, who won twice.
I expect Romney to win and with a reasonably handy margin, not a nail-biter. Like the author above, I allow that I could be wrong. I also have bets riding on this.
Start with the fact that nearly everybody who voted for McCain in ’08, is not going to vote for Obama. Add to this:
- all the people who didn’t vote in ’08, but favored McCain and/or didn’t trust Obama, and wish they HAD voted, and who are scared crapless about what things will be like if they don’t vote out Obama THIS time
- all the people who voted for Obama in ’08 and feel like they were screwed (e.g. the Catholic vote, which is very large and VERY pissed right now)
- all the people who enthusiastically voted for Obama expecting Utopia On A Silver Platter On Your Doorstep and who are now as bad or worse off than they were before, who now won’t bother to vote at all……
You see, I don’t see who Obama “gains” this time that he didn’t have before, but I do see a lot of people turning out against him who didn’t bother last time, and who feel screwed by him.
Romney reinforces this with a decent performance in the debates, and he ought to do pretty well come November…no matter what the doofus media class says.
Ummm…Roger, that Pauline Kael anecdote is more commonly said to be about Nixon, not Reagan. I’ve never heard of it relating to Reagan, although the wikipedia article on Kael does mention it. And others too. At least there’s a real quote there by Kael.
“…Alleged Nixon quote
Kael has often been quoted as having said, in the wake of Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in the 1972 presidential election that she “couldn’t believe Nixon had won”, since no one she knew had voted for him.[45] The quote is sometimes cited by conservatives (such as Bernard Goldberg, in his book Bias), as an example of cluelessness and insularity among the liberal elite. There are variations as to the exact wording, the speaker (it has variously been attributed to other liberal female writers, including Katharine Graham, Susan Sontag, and Joan Didion),[46][47] and the timing (in addition to Nixon’s victory, it has been claimed to have been uttered after Ronald Reagan’s re-election in 1984.)[48]
The story most likely originated in a December 28, 1972 New York Times article on a lecture Kael gave at the Modern Language Association, in which the newspaper quoted her as saying, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”[49]…”
That’s more chilling. Nixon then carried everything but MA and DC.
“When Ronald Reagan was first elected”
…I thought it was Nixon, but either way, you’re right about their reality distortion bubble.
Thanks for keeping the faith alive…I’m counting on a Romney win…and praying for a GOP house and senate.
On a more wonkish level, What Dick Morris says makes sense:
http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-polls-under-state-romney-vote/
actually no guys you’re wrong, future pauline kael will write it about future president dwayne elizondo mountain dew herbert camacho in the year 2504
I think you are right about this, but the larger problem is whatever it is that enables such smart people to be so fundamentally wrong. I get that ~40% of the country can be led around by the nose, but how do we overcome the arrogance at the core of Obama’s elite support?
Whatever the answer is, step one is electing Mitt. Even though I think you are right, we have to all keep doing whatever we can to make it happen until the electors have voted in Decmber (or whenever)
“Today, I see, Gallup has Obama and Romney running neck and neck, each with 47 percent of that part of the electorate willing to talk to the Gallup pollsters.”
I think that “willing to talk to pollsters” is the real key. For a survey of, say, 5000 likely voters, does anybody keep tabs on how many calls have to be placed to get that number of responses? Might it be elevated this year? My sense is that plenty of people are fed up but disinclined to say so to some stranger calling at dinner time.
23 Robbo:
> For a survey of, say, 5000 likely voters, does anybody keep
> tabs on how many calls have to be placed to get that number of responses?
Yes. The response rate is 9%. See:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/
“Fed up” doesn’t begin to describe it.
We live in a swing state. As a result, we average 3-5 polling/campaign calls 7 days a week (some days, we receive far more). They start at 830am and continue until nearly 9pm. The phone’s “block this caller” feature no longer works, because we’ve blocked so many numbers already.
By the way, we haven’t responded to a single survey, nor will we.
We also live in a swing state (Iowa), which Obama carried in 2008 but is considered a toss up after Republicans took the governorship in 2010. Thank God for caller ID. We don’t answer calls from toll-free numbers, from the District of Columbia, etc. Having donated to political candidates and groups, we are especially high on the call lists of every group with an interest in the election. This may mean we’ve missed calls from Gallup, Rasmussen and other pollsters, too.
The most incisive comment about this election is one from Rush: This country can survive four more years of Obama, but I’m not sure it can survive four more years of the kind of people who would vote for Obama’s reelection. How can nearly half of the voters be so clueless about this guy? In 2008, he was an unknown, first term Senator whose prior experience consisted of voting “present” or with the Chicago machine when he was in the Illinois state legislature. But now he has a scarily bad record on all fronts, from $1 trillion annual deficits to the lack of security at the embassy in Libya on 9/11. He told Jay Leno the other day he didn’t know how much the national debt was! It’s $16 trillion, bozo, and it’s increased almost 50% since you became president.
Obama voters remind me of a cowed schoolboy given a lash of the whip by the headmaster: “Thank you, sir. May I please have another.”
Same story with my family. Count two for Romney but we never respond to unsolicited calls on the land line. I work in a stongly pro-Obama environment. I keep my mouth shut about politics. I think this is why certain people are deluded into thinking Obama will win in a landslide.
It seems to me both Jimmuh Cahtuh and Ducaca were ahead in the polls at this point in the respective campaigns. So many of the polls aqre weighted towards Democrats today, when there is a virtual tie, I assume Romney is ahead by 5 among likely voters.
I keep telling my poor misguided liberal friends that in the end the economy will win this for Romney. While a substantial percentage of the “47%” enjoy being victims, I can’t believe there is not also a substantial percentage of that group who have simply lost hope and would love to have a decent paying job.
For the American labor market to once again generate middle class wages on a large scale, we have to lose the idiotic mindset that (a)it takes a college degree to have a rewarding life and middle class lifestyle, (b)we can survive on a service economy, and (c)the tendency of the so-called elites to look down upon manufacturing jobs as low-class.
In short, we have to MAKE things in this country again, and we won’t get that done with a bunch of green-on-the-outside-red-on-the-inside bull-dookey dictating and controlling our every phase of life.
Hear,hear!
I, for one, love seeing 15 out of 20 comments correcting the author on the same issue. Does no one read the comments before posting them? Obnoxious.
My comment is listed now as #10; but when I wrote it, it was listed as #1 awaiting moderation. Perhaps the first dozen or so were awaiting moderation and therefore didn’t see the other ones in the queue.
Yeah, at times I’ve been hoisted by that petard too.
If you post a comment without reading all the others you risk duplicating a comment, it is true. But when there are so many comments that nobody can be expected to read them all (Peggy Noonan’s latest piece on WSJ has more than 1,000), then that is a chance that I (with plenty of company) am willing to take. What burns me up is when people post comments without having read the article. That is unforgivable.
It was Eisenhower anyway.
I recommend that Obama take a page from the Dukakis campaign and show him riding in an army tank wearing a helmet and a tank uniform. It’s a winner. Also, there are reports that Obama’s debate preparation is focused on keeping his answers short (“yes”, “no”, “maybe”) — most longer answers would require a teleprompter.
“I recommend that Obama take a page from the Dukakis campaign and show him riding in an army tank wearing a helmet and a tank uniform.”
That’s a good idea but we could go that one better and also recirculate that existing picture of Obama in shorts and flipflops. That one set a lot of people off because it made him look distinctly un-Presidential.
Did you see the deer in Texas who destroyed an Obama lawn sign while leaving the neighbors’ Romney signs untouched? Smart fellow. Obama is leading the country toward bankruptcy, hyperinflation, and mass starvation. If you’re a delicious four-footed animal, hunting season just went 24/7/365 with no bag limit.
The deer voted with his antlers. May have been a sign from Heaven.
Obama has an insurmountable lead for second place.
Back in the summer on 2010, I (and others) got into a discussion with a lefty about the 2010 mid-term elections. The lefty had posted a story, I think it was from msn.com, that gave the Republicans a small advantage on the “generic ballot.” I said the sense I got from interacting with people, it was going to be bigger than that. We now know how 2010 turned out.
The point being, don’t get too discouraged by polls.
the left does have a habit of reading their own press clippings.
the ‘voice’ of the libs, nate silver, offerred that he had 16 toss-ups for 2010. The gop won 15. libs are being lulled to sleep by their pied piper.
nate silver is the john zogby of the decade. unlike zogby, he doesn’t have one election call he can hang his hat on, and his recent track record provides that he was one election away from failing to guess the flip of a coin, sixteen times in a row.
Wikipedia says “The story most likely originated in a December 28, 1972 New York Times article on a lecture Kael gave at the Modern Language Association, in which the newspaper quoted her as saying, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”
46-46, rasmussen. his margin of error on the past three presidential elections is 1%.
47-47, gallup, among registered voters. the screen for likely voters is yet to come…
2008 gallup history provided obama +10, 10/7-9/08, among registered voters.
the following week, they started their likely voter screens:
traditional, obama +4,
expanded, obama +7.
In both cases, the screen clipped into obama’s number. By the time of the election, they went with a +11 for obama, margin of error +/- 2.
actual result, obama +7.3.
I freely admit that I experienced panic over the past two weeks. Rasmussen posting a 50 for obama was the low point.
in close elections you do experience highs and lows, and just as you feel the ebb, the other side feels the surge. msm and dems have been riding high, but panic will ensue when the gain evaporates.
The undecideds will eventually decide. The broad picture is one of a completely depressed and demoralized dem party. 2010 was a massive humiliation and polling units failing to recalibrate for it, going with a pure 2008 model, are doomed to failure.
the undecideds are 8 and 6, respectively between rassmussen and gallup. While I think dick morris’ assurrance that the undecideds will break completely for romney, providing a blowout, is significant overstatement, there is 3 to 4 point boomlet in the making for romney on election day.
at this point, after a dreadful two weeks, I would argue that the race is romney’s to lose. the univision fiasco is certain to depress the hispanic vote, and given that performance, and inability to provide firm answers, I eagerly await the debates. romeny doesn’t need a knockout. he just needs to be romney and let obama give the game away.
*************
dems are just beginning to panic. they’ll be on the ledge before the debates. as the despair abates from the right, it will descend upon the left.
Thanks for the breakdown mark.
Mark
Great post. I agree with every point you make.
“romeny [sic] doesn’t need a knockout. he just needs to be romney and let obama give the game away.”
I’d agree with you except for one thing. If Romney doesn’t land a knockout blow, a lot of people will be uncertain who won. And a lot of those people will take the word of the media. Even if they had been inclined to think that Romney won, if the media all piles on and declares Obama the winner of the debate(s) – as they will surely do giving their unremitting bias for him – some people will be duped into believing that Obama was the victor. And since no one likes voting for a loser, they may well find themselves hornswoggled into voting for Obama DESPITE his debate performance.
Unless Romney lands an unquestionable knockout, it will likely come down to the influence of the media in making Romney look like the loser even if he gave the better performance.
If the results are so very close, but with Romney winning, does anyone think the o team will have their lawyers dredging up some voter suppression issue and challenge the win?
“…your double bourbon….”
Double bourbon? What a man! But I figured you were shitfaced when you wrote this crap.
Joseph, you’re out on parole? Good on ya.
Off topic perhaps, great line. I’d like to borrow it now and again.
I also think Romney will win, although it may be a late night. I’ll be watching Fox News and MSNBC, one for information and the other for entertainment. And of course I’ll be tuned into PJM non-stop. An empty chair goes out by the curb as soon as the concession speech is given.
Concession speech?!
I don’t care if Romney wins by a landslide, The One will make no concession speech.
Here’s what I get a big kick out of, the Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governorships, they lost the “Kennedy” senate seat in Massachusetts, the got literally wiped out in the 2010 mid-terms, not just in the national elections, but also in governorships and legislatures, all of this since Obama was elected. What have they done since then? They’ve flipped the tea party the bird, told them they’re ready for them this time and dared them to do it again. They’ve told the American people, who didn’t vote for Democrats, they’re racist bigots. They’ve done everything in their power to maintain the high spending levels, re-affirm Obamacare, and refuse to deal with the serious problems facing the nation. Now, I’m supposed to believe they’re ahead in this election?
If the Democrats are able to win this election, I live in a country I don’t know, surrounded by people who don’t care, and see little hope of things getting better.
Let me just say this, and I’ll concede that this is purely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt: Living here in the belly of the beast, Chicago, I know quite a few otherwise intelligent people who totally fell under the spell of Obama 2008. The “hope & change” BS, the “feel good” idea of electing a (kinda sorta) minority to the White House, getting behind the “great orator” vs a milquetoast GOP candidate and his “crazy” sidekick from Alaska (thank you MSM & SNL), etc etc.
Well, fast forward 4 years. I’ve been polling everyone I know who proudly pulled the lever for Obama last time. Not one of them, out of a sample of about a dozen so far, will be repeating that vote this November. Not one. That doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for Romney, mind you, but they’re definitely off of the Hope’n'Change Express. I don’t think the polls reflect this at all. I know at least some of these former Obama voters would never concede in public to being off the plantation. But what they do in the voting booth – if they even bother to vote this time around – is a wholly different matter.
That jives with what this black conservative says about his conversations with his friends and family. The thrill is gone, baby. He posits an “OJ effect” in the polls — that just as blacks insisted to pollsters that OJ had been framed, blacks won’t admit that they don’t support Obama anymore. But many will stay home this time rather than vote for a failed messiah.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/why_romney_is_going_to_romp_over_obama_in_november.html
I’m a 1L at Yale Law. My most amusing Kaelian moment of the past few weeks was talking to an MBA student during Romney’s acceptance speech who was utterly convinced that the single issue that would be most harmful to Romney in November was green jobs.
Aside from that, it’s interesting to note the differences between the faculty and students at Yale. When I’ve discussed the election with other folks from the Law School (where the numbers of Republicans, independents and moderate Democrats seems surprisingly high this year, by YLS standards at least), it has rapidly got down to discussions of the reliability of polling data, Intrade and so on. I get the feeling that our generation is far more data-oriented, compared to many of the faculty (at least in non-quantitative fields) who are far more focused on narrative and thus struggle to critically analyze what they read in the NYT.
interesting observation.
They struggle to analyze the NYTimes? How insane.
I was living in a far Left university town – Boulder, Colorado – in the late 1990s, when I finally stopped reading the Old York Times. It was the factual disconnect between what the House impeachment committee actual wrote and what the scribes following the NYTimes that convinced me to give up on it, as well as any other dead-tree newspaper. It was the insulting Clinton’s “impeachment was all about sex” when in reality an Truth “sex” never was mentioned in his impeachment. They simply lied.
Therefore, “Never Again” became my habit.
So. What’s wrong with these poor deluded souls? I rely upon Dr Pat Sanity – the retired University of Michigan Medical School prof of clinical psychiatry – a psychiatrist blogging as “drsanity (just google), who explains that Democrats are seized by psychotic tropes to organize their political narratives of failure and delusional persecution. ‘Twas ever thus.
Funny thing about the NYTimes. Some time ago they ran an editorial about a court case concerning that cross — a memorial to WWI dead, I believe — on public land somewhere out west. The Times’s opinion was that the court should decide for the plaintiff and order the cross removed. I submitted a comment criticizing their editorial on the grounds that it did not address the legal basis of the case — they simply wanted the cross removed, and that was that. I looked for my comment but it either never appeared or was immediately removed. There was no offensive language and it was absolutely on topic, but that wasn’t good enough — somebody just didn’t like it. So much for freedom of expression.
From your “blog” to God’s ear; I simply can not believe the BS blogs giving Obama an “edge”, sometimes substantial over Romney. However, today is not decades ago or fifty years ago, when American voters were better educated and informed. Obama could NEVER have been elected in the past.
Today, I fear, we have a significant group of American voters who run the gamut from IGNORANT to stupid, lazy and purely socialistic-Marxist, leftist in nature. Our education system has destroyed much of the American ethos and no graduates from HS or College know anything about the American Founding, History, or have even read our Founding Documents.
We have multiple generations who actually believe that history began the day they were born. It has destroyed the fabric of our nation.
God help us; I pray every day and night for the destruction of these socialist-Marxist SOBs.
totally agre about “history just starting”. I have commented elsewhere here (in relation to the problem with Islam) that as a society we have lost sight of where we came from. Learning of the Enlightenment, celebrating past heroes who built our civilisation out of the ashes of the Dark Ages – these are important things to celebrate – they really do provide pointers for our future,
Ignorant & stupid on tape here featuring Howard Stern staffers conducting “man on the street” interviews peppered with Obama/Romney political platform & factual transpositions & people fall for them. Truly amazing clips.
I’m here to echo everyone else’s corrections that the Kael quote refers to Nixon. However, I do have something to add…
In one of his books, Bill Bennett recounted that in 1980 he was working as a University professor (I forget where). He was at the time a conservative Democrat. The day after Reagan won the election, one of the most prominent liberal professors on campus stormed down a hallway yelling loudly, “Reagan! Who voted for Reagan? Nobody I know voted for him!”
Perhaps you conflated the 2 stories.
“But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”[49]…”
And Kael was talking about moviegoers who enjoyed films like “Dirty Harry,” which she considered a fascistic movie.
Funny, because earlier in her career, Kael was much less of a knee-jerk liberal. I don’t own the book anymore, but I recall a review she wrote lambasting liberal reviewers for their horrified reaction to “Hud.” Kael celebrated the earthy Texan played by Paul Newman. She said her father, a California rancher, was a Hud-like character, a kind-hearted, generous man (also, apparently a man who, like Hud, spent much time “comforting” local widows.) He was also a rock-ribbed Republican. Kael wrote about how insulated New York critics didn’t understand the West, or life on the ranch, or anything except their urban liberal bubbles. Years later, she was insulated in the bubble herself.
Dukakis had a no smoking policy but he rounded up a contraband ash tray for Rene Leveque, Premier of Quebec. I don’t think he bowed.
The Premier of Quebec (at the time) was Rene Levesque; you’ve misspelled his surname.
As for bowing down to Levesque, Dukakis would have had trouble talking to him if he DIDN’T bow! Levesque was very short, only 5 ft 3 inches (http://shortsupport.org/cgi-bin/whowho_bio.cgi?seq=540&orderby=height&direction=ASC).
I had thought Dukakis was quite tall but Wikipedia has him as being only 5 ft 8. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States)
There was a controversy in Quebec when a statue was made honouring Levesque after he passed away. The statue was life-sized and his supporters thought it diminished him because it made him look so small. There was talk of erecting a bigger statue; I don’t recall whether the new statue was commissioned though.
Tabernac. That was English spelling, Henri, you know the French can’t spell worth a damn. My favorite seperatists came out to BC every spring to plant trees, then back to Quebec to collect their UI. A few would join the UI Ski Team in Whistler, back when rent was cheap.
For a while in the late 1990s early 2000s the separatists continued to come to BC to pick fruit and beg for change but now it’s all done by hard working mexicans on temporary permits. Less bs and less language issues for the farmers. The mexicans are actually interested in learning english.
That’s bad news, james. Lots of locals used to pick fruit as well. The Quebecois brought a lot of laughter and pretty women to BC pubs. And a lot of sweet Quebecoise settled in BC. I left BC in ’99 and it went to hell. My bad.
Obama may win because of the billions of dollars he stole and will use for his relection, from the British when he closed down gulf oil drilling, what happened to the coverage on that? And Hussein may win because he has the CIA and every other Muslim intelligence agency busily writing the code for a virus that will flip all of the voting machines to claim he won. Want To Bet?
Right;
I’d like to see the sequestered account the BP’s money is in.
I bet you really look nice wearing that tinfoil hat. Are the black helicopters buzzing overhead?
A historical quibble here: Dukakis had an early lead. But Bush pulled ahead of Dukakis in the Gallup polls from August 1988 on, and never fell behind again. Here’s the chart.
Roger;
God read this article, and He’s pissed. He might just tweak the election.
Which way?
You’ll know.
As things stand, I am confident that Romney will win.
However, as things stood before the financial crisis, I was also confident that McCain would win.
The bottom line is, as long as there are no black swans that Romney cannot handle, I expect him to win.
Its sometimes hard to stay optimistic with the press beating us down daily, but when i think about the raw numbers, i have trouble seeing how Obama can win.
He won about 53 to 46 correct? So we would need 4 people out of 100 to change sides, to put it simply. In fact its probably less because the 2008 turnout model was far more friendly to the Democrats than it will be this year. Say the increase in GOP turnout and enthusiasm (back to even just regular levels) takes Obama’s starting advantage to 52-48. That means we only need 2 people out of 100 to change sides. I believe Republican turnout will be closer to 2010 making it more like 51-49 but even being conservative, 2 out of 100 people seems like a gimme after the last 4 years.
But there’s more.
Historically, in a reelection, if a President doesnt gain support in comparison to his initial election, he loses.
Also, undecideds traditionally break hard for the challenger. Obama rarely clears 50% in polls, even when he is ahead. Another sign that his support is weak and that he will have trouble getting over 50%
Then again, this may all be moot because, i believe the debates could change the numbers drastically. If Romney does well, i think he wins going away. Once he eases the concerns of the “hesitant to change horses” voter, those polls will start looking better. If he does badly, which would dumbfound me considering all the practice he got in the GOP nomination process, and the plethora of ammunition at his disposal, that might frighten off enough of the middle to make it dangerously close, but at worst, i think Romney battles to a draw which would be enough to make that initial math hard to overcome for Obama.
2 out of 100. Thats all we need. I think 1 of those 2 abandoned Obama and joined us long ago. That means we need to change one mind out of 100. That doesnt seem too hard. Obamacare along with the economic numbers should be plenty and thats ignoring the Middle East mess.
Broken down, it seems like we have history and math on our side. Just try to ignore the media’s attempt to depress and discourage you, Obama only wins if we all stay home.
Remember Ted Cruz…he didnt have a chance but we ignored the talking heads and conservatives came out in droves. They still dont believe we are out here.
Just some thoughts….
I don’t want to rain on your parade – I really don’t – but you’re forgetting that the President is not elected by the popular vote percentages but by the Electoral College. I’ve seen analyses that say Romney would need to win almost all of the swing states in order to get the necessary 270 Electoral College votes. Most pundits say that is VERY unlikely.
I truly hope they are wrong though. I don’t think we can take another 4 years of this nightmare with Hilary Clinton waiting in the wings for her turn in 2016.
See that’s the problem. You trust what the lying media experts tell you. They don’t have a clue.
Yes, a lot has been written in these comments about the surprising victories of Nixon and Reagan over their respective opponents. But the electoral college was very different back then. Nixon and Reagan both won California and Illinois in all four elections. Can anyone imagine those states going Republican now? Add New York to those two states and you get 114 electoral votes – from just three states, actually just NYC, Chicago and the California coast. (It’s a similar problem in Pennsylvania where most of the state will go for Romney but the Philadelphia vote will outweigh the rest.) That is almost as much as everything west of the Mississippi except Texas. If the Obama camp is feeling smug about their position, this is why. That said, I think Romney will win the popular vote and still has a chance to carry the electoral college too, mainly because of high turnout. I think he will surprise in the Midwest, when the levers are pulled. “It’s time to let them go.”
I’ve thought since the 60s that part of the Baby Boomers went the way of their beliefs (the minority) and the rest went the way of what would get them ahead. These people do not nor ever did have beliefs. What they have is an instinct for what the supposed ‘elite’ agree upon. Having no real beliefs, they are not used to thinking through the consequence of policies they supported and voted for. They can’t think and they never could. That is why it has always been impossible to argue with them. They just line up against you and laugh at your argument. I am enjoying watching them come up against reality.
The race is between those who want to take, and those of us who work for what we earn, and are tired of paying taxes to support the takers. But whereas the liberals can be aghast at the latest talking points in their facebook echo chamber, the rest of us merely hold our tongues for fear of being “unfriended”.
Al Gore was a shoo in, too.
I had this thought today: Obama and the Left want the the United Staes to collapse. They want the world to descend into chaos. They want the United Nations to take control and solve all of our problems. Paranoia? Maybe so.
And Al Gore won as you may recall. Until the Supreme Court decided he didn’t.
I am quite certain that George W. Bush became President and that Al Gore became rich by whining about climate change.
Anyway, Al couldn’t carry his home state. If he had, we would be further down the road to ruin.
Romney will lose both Michigan and Massachusetts, his “home” states,
what does that say about him ?
Well, Al Gore early had significant lead, but it started getting smaller and smaller because many people didn’t like his personality. He seemed pedantic, somewhat arrogant, just didn’t give ‘good vibes’. W was much more at ease, much more personal.
Does anyone see a parallel to… ?
This election comes down to Cool vs Uncool. If you’ve ever been cool, you’ll know where Obama is coming from. But there is baggage this time around- a record that sucks domestically and globally. Coolness wears off eventually, and I hope 4 years is sufficient because we really can’t afford 4 more of it.
Obama’s ‘cool’ encompasses aspects that raise questions among fellow travelers. Islam and 9/11 for starters, and now, a dead ambassador on the same day- explained away by a Sec.of State whose coolness is waning (as if a marriage to Mr.Cool could endure endlessly).
Cool means “you didn’t build that”, whereas Uncool means you might have a job and earn enough to donate a chunk to charity as Mitt Romney has. Cool today means you must embrace all of the collectivism that emanates from Hollywood and academia while ignoring the effects of welfare on classes of people who may never escape it’s grip. Individual liberty and initiative are not cool today and won’t be tomorrow with more Obama. How cool is that?
When kids try to be cool, it’s one thing. When adults do it, things happen- like bills not getting paid and utilities getting turned off. As a country, we are witnessing this as I type. Even your kids won’t think you’re cool if the power is turned off and they can’t charge their cell phone or play video games.
The last four years have been pretty cool. Lots of style, golf, vacations, bling, etc. But it has come at a cost. If there were some way to be cool and productive at the same time we could sure use that now. But I fear there isn’t unless we redefine ‘cool’. Mitt’s not cool and I get that. But ask a teenager if money worries weren’t always at the top of the list, just how cool would that be and I think you know the answer. “Mom,Dad, you just pay the bills and let us kids worry about being cool, alright?”
This election comes down to Cool vs Uncool. If you’ve ever been cool,
Yup. In 2008, Obama was cool.
In 2012, Shepherd Fairey has been laughed out of Europe and is a convicted federal criminal and Obama is looking about as cool as Urkel
The Kael story was retold by Safire in his column, I believe, but I don’t think he claimed to quote her. It was a favorite of Nixon’s, and the now-famous quote undoubted originated in the retelling along the line somewhere. No matter, the point is the same: the insulated leftist cannot imagine any point of view beyond his own.
There are any number of examples of this, including the book from a couple of years back, I think it was “What’s Wrong With Kansas?” or something along those lines, the theme being “how come those ignorant hicks vote against their own self-interest and don’t support leftists?” All leftists think this way.
Notice on the cable news, no matter which channel, the ones who jump in and interrupt and talk over the other person are almost always leftists (or the leftist hosts). They cannot abide the other side being heard. Only Goodthink is permitted.
“It was possible that Michael Dukakis could have won, too. He had the illusion of momentum, just as Obama does”
I disagree.
1)I don’t remember Dukakis ever having some sort of intangible edge.
2)The 2012 “momentum” is artificially created by the MSM and the Polls themselves.
3)Neither Dukakis and Bush were incumbants
4)The US was nowhere near as polarized in 1988 as it is in 2012
I learned two things at least from this article and the comments:
1) Our author, Barry Rubin does read his own comments and is capable of updating on the fly.
2) The vast majority of commentors don’t read the other people’s comments before they post for the umpteenth time that it was Nixon not Reagan who Pauline Kael was talking about.
Advantages in life are often gained by amassing small but significant details of human action.
LOL.
Except that Mr. Rubin didn’t write this piece. Roger Kimball wrote it.
Keep working on that advantages angle though.
I think nickel’s first point was that if Barry Rubin can update his articles in response to the comments, then why can’t Roger Kimball? I assume he is referring to the anecdote about Pauline Kael and which election she meant.
If he had corrected the Kael remark after the first few comments about its accuracy, we would have been spared all the other people independently discovering the error.
Thanks “Snarky” for giving me the benefit of the doubt, BUT I just goofed and referred to the author of the previous piece I had read before I had stopped and thought for a second about who wrote THIS ARTICLE, but I had already hit the “submit” button. And thus is history made. But thanks for the thought.
I agree with the author.
President Obama is headed to defeat in November, and it won’t be close. Forget about the polls, and forget about the cadre of delusional Democrats who can’t stop telling us how great and successful the last three and a half years have been. Slick Willy can shill all he likes, but seriously, he’s preaching to the choir, because the only ones believing his shtick are bought and paid for sycophants, crony capitalists, and members of the mainstream media.
Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_empty_chair_is_losing.html#ixzz27I3IQbGU
Back in the 90′s when Bibi won the first time, the media, the Labour party and Meretz were all in total shock. I remember on the TV they asked the leading pollster at the time (can’t remember the name) ‘What happened, what went wrong, how could you get it so wrong’ she responded quite simply ‘The people lied to us’
take heart America, it aint over, till its over….
Making confident public predictions has its consequences. If Romney does not win and win big, I shall dismiss Kimball as another shameless propagandist for the Republicans.
0blamster needs to be thoroughly debated without his crib-note-teleprompter crutch/Linus blanky. I would love, love, love to see that POS have his @ss handed to him via real, truth-to-power, hard-hitting questions and a thorough grilling and ‘VETTING’ via Romney.
It’s tragic that there are so many idiotic people in this country. I’m convinced that most Hollyweird people are Commie Bastids and that McCarthy was spot on with his infamous ‘blacklist’. Jeebus H. Keerist…the idjits with their moronic ‘sharpie’ tardation written on their hands in ‘solidarity’ with ‘THE ONE’ makes me want to PUKE.
Where are the true Americans who ‘get it’? It seems half the country has gone down the rabbit hole into oblivion and sheer idiocy.
I’m disgusted with some of you. You KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
The truth has no place the imposition of tyranny.
I see the scope of the lawless disregard for The Rule of Law expanding exponentially by the day by the very nature of corruption of the elites lust to retain absolute power. As the panic sets in that the truth reveals itself the won is going to loose and loose big, look towards the tactics and strategy of crisis as a means implemented to assure his continued reign of dictatorship.
After all, is it not the truth that is the question of the day?
It is as Sarah Palin said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
The nature of the media’s Kabuki theater is to entertain and distract attention from the real problem, all while convincing us something is being done. Call me provincial, call me a bible, gun, traditions clinging mouth breather, but don’t call me ignorant. I know without question the lies are coming fast and furious.
The traitors of the media are abominations. They are enemy combatants waging a war on those who do not genuflect at the feet of the dear leader and their agenda for Amerika. It is quite clear the ultimate goal is to make criminal’s out of all and any who stand in their way of turning their false narratives into outright victory of tyranny by any means.
Just look to Hitler, his primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
Then when the timing is right, utilize the system of unconstitutional laws, created via the memes of crisis as a means the 5th column of the media is amazingly capable of, a system of laws passed over the last 10 years where anyone who is not afraid of the ruling elites gets conveniently classified as an enemy combatant, or domestic terrorist, who become a criminal of the state.
It is as Sarah Palin said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
==
If Palin actually said that – and I’d love to see a video clip or transcript if you can point me to one – she was only quoting George Orwell who said EXACTLY the same thing before she was born.
I agree fundamentally in 100% of what you are saying, with one exception. During the Nazi’s reign, the media was forced to do Hitler’s propaganda. In today’s age, the Media happily does Obama’s bidding without recourse. The result is/will be the same. I am not sure when the Liberals decided to take over mass media. I knew it had been drifting for years. It was overt in 2008 and now it is hysterical, but terrifying the influence of a few hundred folks in lame stream media has on the masses that fail to dig for the real truth.
How can we get to honest information from our leaders, honest reporting with intelligent and honest debate that offer both views? 99% of Television media is liberal and sometimes radically, liberal biased, IMHO. I do not see that the country agrees with these pundits, but they still sway and blind intelligent people’s opinion. This has been years in the making and will take years to correct. Currently 47% of the country depends on the Government wallet for something. Once that 47% rises to 51%, our Republic will end as we know it. I am just afraid that the correction will be either a social dominance controlled by a World Charter headed by King Obama, or a depression the likes this world has never seen.
However, with all this said; the issue is….how do we as truth seekers change this course in public media? If it is true that; “For you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Then is it also true that “If you do not know the truth, its absence can place you in bondage?”
Cannot see how Mitt wins by less than 7 points. Surely, no McCain voter will cross over, but Obama cannot carry the same numbers of Jews, Christians, especially Catholics, and even Blacks. His views on gay marriage, Israel, and Obamacare versus religious rights, will cost him across the board.
As far as polls go???,……….we’re all tired of the ‘racist card’. Just lie and get the idiot off the phone, or out of our face.
And I’m getting SO sick and tired of RINO Republicans like Peggy Noonan and Brooks from the New York Times (that “bastion” of conservative thinking) wringing their hands in shock and disbelief and crying that all is lost and that Romney is a terrible candidate. These are the same people that were literally gushing and gooing over Obama in 2008. Why on earth would anybody listen to any of them? They know as much about real Americans as I know about life on Venus, which ain’t much. I also have this gut feeling that Romney is going to win in a landslide. If the Republicans won big in 2010, there is no reason to believe that they can’t do so again this year. If anything, things are a lot worse now than they were in 2010. So I can’t see any reason why anybody would want to vote for Obama. And the current disaster in the Middle East is only one more major reason NOT to vote for Obama.
May I suggest an exercise to everyone reading?
Put yourself in the O campaigns’ shoes. How would you try to win the election for O? Ask yourself that.
Be a liberal voter for all of 3 minutes. Ask yourself what it would take to vote for O this time.
The O camp, like the R camp are not dummies. This isn’t 2008. It’s not even 2004 with the advances in technology.
However, everything else being equal, fundamentals do matter.
I’d say, scoring this so far:
(1) Registration advantage: R, for this cycle, based on neutral reporting.
(2) GOTV advantage: even.
(3) Campaign skill: even.
(4) Money: slight O advantage for now, given the structure of the way the $$ is held. D Senate candidates are going to be hurt by this, however. Should even out.
(5) Fundamentals: R by a long shot. Facts are facts.
(6) Candidate: O, but not by as much as you think. The debates will cut into this small advantage.
Given the above, Mr. Kimball’s analysis is likely correct. Maybe 51-47 or so, EV 300-235 or so. Big surge in the last week, like 1980. The key to watch in the OH poll. If R gets up by 3-5, it’s over. I think even MI and PA will be closer than everyone thinks, but likely still go D, barely.
Slightly OT, but still on topic.
Perhaps the media bias is a symptom of the severe polarization of our electorate and our country right now? Perhaps this is symbolic that there are big issues at play under the surface? 150 years ago, we had a war over the big issue of slavery (which not only was a human issue, but an enormous economic one as well).
Perhaps we are seeing the same thing here, over the entitlement state?
We Americans should be proud of ourselves, in a bizarre way, since it is our system, and our system alone, that allows these serious and severe intellectual battles to be fought and decided by the people.
Yes, 150 years ago we had a war over slavery. Today, we have a war over Plutocracy and Social Darwinism. I suspect if Romney wins, along with the House and Senate, we’ll see a return of slavery. It just won’t be limited to color.
You’re back. Hello.
Look, if you want to have an intelligent discussion, fine. People can disagree about policy.
If you want to spout nonsense and invective, go somewhere else.
You make my point just by your response.
Eventually, cooler heads within your group (as well as mine) will prevail. Everyone agrees that entitlement spending is heading us off a cliff, and the only disagreement is how to deal with it.
Simply stating “make the rich pay more” is stupidity and ignorance of the first order, and suggests a lack of seriousness.
Someone is going to have to convince the great majority of us to give something up to salvage the system.
For example, I have no problem paying my taxes, and if I am asked to pay more, all I want is for my money to be used responsibly. I have yet to be convinced that those in power asking me to pay more are going to be responsible with my tax payments. All I see is my money going to feed interest groups that provide political support for the party in power, so they stay in power.
Simpson-Bowles, while not perfect, was at least a start. Why did O simply reject it out of hand? Why? To me, it indicates that the guy is not serious. Couple that with stories (from Bob Woodward, of all people) of his lackadaisical (to be kind) approach to leadership, makes me think that O just isn’t the guy to get it done.
So I say this, and I’m called a slaveholder by you guys. Is that really a way to begin an intelligent discussion? Really? Think about it.
Lefty useful idiots aren’t interested in an “intelligent discussion” with you or anyone else here; they don’t beleive we on the right are capable of intelligent discussions. For all their miserable unexamined and deluded lives they’ve been told that lefty and intelligent are synonyms. A few year bringing in the harvests on a thousand calorie a day diet may cure those that survive.
I’ll reiterate that after 12 years of having the lowest tax rate in history and amassing more liquid cash in history, the trickle-down theory has failed. And it’s not the 1st time in history to fail. Prior to the Civil War, northern steel mills were doing well but workers lived in tents earning enough for food only. Early coal mining companies were raking it in while the workers worked for the “company store”. The Industrial Revolution brought vast wealth for companies but we saw adults and children working 18 hour days in dangerous sweat shops for slave wages. And today, we’re seeing history repeat itself while corporations have record profits, the economy barely creeping along, and employee wages and benefits dropping. At the same time, we’re hearing Romney and the GOP pushing for lower taxes for the top and raising taxes on everyone else (and yes, that’s a fact). While some are already paying negative to 2%, how much lower should we go? And they’re screaming for less regulations, eliminating Unions all together, hints of repealing child labor laws (no GOP disavowed Newt as I recall),and hits to workers such as elimination of minimum wage and mandatory overtime pay. And I can see arguments on certain points but the extremism in general is over the top. So when I say that Mitt and the GOP are promoting a Plutocracy and Social Darwinism, I challenge you to intelligently argue otherwise.
“I’ll reiterate that after 12 years of having the lowest tax rate in history and amassing more liquid cash in history, the trickle-down theory has failed.”
Lowest tax rate in history? US Corporate tax is the highest in the world.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/02/worlds-highest-corporate-tax-rate-hurts-us-economical
Trickle down ecomomics only works when investors feel secure they will get a ROI within a free market. Once the feds start to nationalize companies, fuel chosen industries while punishing other and force themselves into the market, it will no longer work. They create a crisis and make it worse and create uncertainity causing investors to stop/leave the market.
Businesses amassing cash is due to the uncertainity of taxes, obamacare, fed requirements imposed by your people. Good luck prying the dems hands off the money pump. Can you tell us where the $5 trillion in spending went? Get back to us when you and Scooby solve that mystery.
I’d say it would be rather unwise to dismiss my Plutocracy and Social Darwinism comment as spouting “nonsense and invective”. My arguments have not been to “make the rich pay more” but rather about taking money from the average worker to give to the rich. And this is precisely what we’re doing as a great deal of the Fortune 500 companies paid negative taxes last year. And Romney is actually pushing for them to pay less. Do you not argue this?
In Romney’s push for having the top pay less than the negative taxes they’re currently paying, he’s caught pushing for an end to 47% of the people not paying federal income tax which obviously means to raise taxes on them while lowering taxes on people more like him. And Romney’s plan is indeed to raise taxes on all but those on top which he will lower. Even today, Romney’s advisor Emil Henry admitted that Romney’s plan would redistribute the wealth to the top as it’s “a technical element of redistribution by virtue of hiring”.
I note that you still have not answered the main point of my question, instead choosing to attack Romney, and continuing to talk about “tax inequality” and “trickle down theory.”
It’s not about paying tax, its about showing responsibility and seriousness with what you do with the tax money. It’s about serious budget and entitlement reform.
O and the Dems have had 4 years Congress from (2006-2010), 6 years in the Senate (2006-2012), and 4 years in the White House (2008-2012) to show that they are serious.
So what have they done?
In one example, they have given us a new entitlement that perhaps 40-45% of the country really wanted, paying very little attention on how to pay for it, and ignoring completely a mechanism (the competitive Medicare prescription benefit) which has lowered cost and increased competition.
In another example, which you still fail to deal with, the executive rejected, without a plan of his own, a bipartisan attempt to at least begin to reform the entitlement system (Simpson-Bowles). Why? Reagan compromised on Social Security and raised the retirement age to salvage it for another 30 years. Clinton compromised on welfare reform and got it done to great success (until now, of course).
This adolescent of a president, who basically told Republicans in 2009, that “I won, tough,” sees the only “compromise” as one in which he wins everything. That’s not politics–that’s dictatorship. No wonder people on both sides of the aisle hate his guts. Your side won’t own up to it, since you want to win so badly.
However, I’d try to see the forest for the trees here, and ask yourself if winning just to win is really the best thing for all of us as a country.
Stop with the class warfare and Thurston Howell nonsense for a few minutes, and really ask yourself if O is the kind of guy who has the skills, temperament, and desire to get the big compromises achieved. Because with a likely R Congress, and at least 49-50 R Senate seats, compromise will be necessary for either guy.
Who knows if Romney can do it? Based on what I’ve seen of the guy, I think he can. Whether you agree with that or not, one thing is very clear: Barack Obama cannot. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.
To Buckeye Abroad (I don’t know why I didn’t have a “Reply” option to your response), your response is low on substance and high on rhetoric, all while ignoring the content of my argument.
You want to rely on some “well, it says so on the Internet” link as if that gives you an open and shut case, that the top earner’s tax rate is 35%, the highest in the world. But regardless of what the rate is, they don’t pay that. You know that, I know that, and the American people know that. Even Mitt Romney has admitted to disregarding deductions on his 2011 returns to get it up to 14.1%, a figure that might be more appealing to the voters. Your rebuttal omits the fact that a great deal of major players paid no taxes at all, even received a tax check from Uncle Sam. Wells Fargo for example, reported $49 billion in profits in 08 through 10, yet received a tax benefit of $651 million, a -1.4% tax rate. And they weren’t alone as Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate),Atmos Energy (-11.4), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), and Honeywell (–0.7%) and I’m sure you can Google the rest. So while Mitt and Friends were at a 35% rate, they just don’t pay that. Yet, they’re still wanting lower taxes, lower than negative! How fair or economically intelligent is that?
You see, trying to sell that 35% is another “clinging to a lie” tactic that I think the American voters aren’t buying. We all know they don’t pay it so why do you keep claiming otherwise. And invoking the confidence fairy is another debunked argument that you have to because you have little left. They had ten years man! 10 years of tax breaks under Bush. Investments are unpredictable things, always have been and always will be. Your confidence fairy argument doesn’t hold water. You even, out of desperation I suppose, lay blame on “Obamacare” which makes no sense. In fact, the CBO has concluded that it will lower the deficit over 10 years. And even if you want to cover your ears to that fact and sing “la la la”, you’re ignoring the reality of the cost of adding to the debt if the health care issue was simply kicked down the road, which has historically been the GOP tactic. And finally, let’s not exclude as concrete evidence to render my argument void, it’s Obama driving gas up to crush the economy! You do realized how ridiculous, sophomoric, and utterly desperate that makes you look, right? Do I really need to address that?
You see, it’s very likely in my opinion that this is why Romney’s going down in flames. You parrot the GOP’s campaign of offering nothing while relying on a sole strategy of blaming Obama for everything. I suspect as the debates play out, the more of an empty suit Mitt will appear. As we saw at the conventions, people just aren’t buying what he’s selling.
I’d like to ask just one more time. Considering that the top earners are actually paying minus to 2% in taxes(and I’m not talking “feel good” number. I’m talking about what they really write a check to the IRS), and Mitt and the GOP wants that to be lower, how much lower than that should they pay?
You had no content, but got caught posting falsehoods in the first sentence of your post and got fact checked. Apparetnly you didn’t like it.
“You want to rely on some “well, it says so on the Internet” link as if that gives you an open and shut case, that the top earner’s tax rate is 35%, the highest in the world.” But regardless of what the rate is, they don’t pay that.”
That’s because the US corporation tax is the highest in the world when you inlcude both federal and state– pending what state you do business in. Feel free to discover the truth or ignore that fact.
“…they don’t pay that.”
Yes, because companies sometimes make losses, so there is no taxable income plus they have current operatinal deductions and loss carry foward deductions. You do comprehend the difference between corporate and individual tax filings, yes?
“Even Mitt Romney has admitted to disregarding deductions on his 2011 returns to get it up to 14.1%, a figure that might be more appealing to the voters.”
You hate Mitt because he volunatarily paid more taxes last year? Insanity.
“Your rebuttal omits the fact that a great deal of major players paid no taxes at all, even received a tax check from Uncle Sam. Wells Fargo for example, reported $49 billion in profits in 08 through 10, yet received a tax benefit of $651 million, a -1.4% tax rate. ..”
Bullox. Here is Wellsfargo 2010 10K filing with the SEC. Feel free to read through it, but for the sake of the others who read the comment section:
>At December 31, 2010, we had net operating loss and credit carry forwards with related deferred tax assets of $1.4 billion and $128 million, respectively.< P. 209
https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/invest_relations/2010_Exhibit13.pdf
"Yet, they’re still wanting lower taxes, lower than negative! How fair or economically intelligent is that?"
The top 10% of income earners in the US pay over 70% of individual income taxes. How fair is that? The bottom 50% pay nothing. I will gladly advocate for a flat or fair tax any day of the week.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1
"You do realized how ridiculous, sophomoric, and utterly desperate that makes you look, right? Do I really need to address that?"
Not at all. Feel free to address that for everyone's benefit. Don't keep us in suspense.
"… GOP’s campaign of offering nothing while relying on a sole strategy of blaming Obama for everything."
What do you think the GOP should be 'offering' you? How much blame do you assign to Barry and his admininstration for the events in the last 3,5 years?
"I suspect as the debates play out, the more of an empty suit Mitt will appear."
I'de prefer an empty suit in the WH to the SCOAMF occupying it now.
"I’d like to ask just one more time. …how much lower than that should they pay?"
When did you ask the first time? Everyone should by a 13% flat income tax– no deductions. Let Congress decide if the want a consumption tax (eg. national VAT). We could go more into detail about economics, accountancy, tax implications effecting investment and the impact of internatinal GAAP rules, but I think you are out of your depth and be wasting my time.
Good luck Ron.
This election is another War Between the Free States vs. the Slave States, i.e. Red States who do not want to be servants on the Federal Nanny Plantation and the Blue States who willingly embrace that Federal Nanny Plantation.
The shackles are not made of iron or steel; however, they are made of exorbitant taxes and punitive penalties for those who did not buy into Obamacare. The result is the same… our property is not our own, whether it be the products of our landed acreage or the products of our mind, labor or investments.
When the rights to your private property is forfeited, then you have succumbed to Fascism.
Forward!
Directions to the USPS to send Obama’s mail to Chicago after Inauguration Day.
Mr. Kimball, I pray that you are correct. However, your case hinges on the fact that we have a majority of the electorate that is paying attention, understands the dire situation we are currently facing, and understands American values and why this country was founded. I do not share your optimism. As evidence, I point to the current resident of the White House.
Personally, I prefer reality to preaching to the converted.
The comparison between Obama and Dukakis is good, but not as good as the comparison between Romney and J Effin’ Kerry (rich, disengaged, clueless, profound sense of entitlement). And relying on that tired old Pauline Kael quote smacks of desperation.
Meantime, speaking of bets on the race, those voters at InTrade — they all put their money where their mouths are, too — must know diddly. Or it’s all rigged. Or they’re lobotomized bi-sexual communist baby-eating drunks, etc., etc.
There’s still plenty of time to oil the wheels and propel the unlovable marionette Romney into the WH, but the hill’s getting steeper. Somewhere in all this is the triumph of hope over experience. Sitting passively in the corner nursing a double bourbon certainly won’t be enough.
It’s too bad, given your preference for reality, that the concern trolls have hypnotized you with their solemn-faced whining. Perhaps a year or so into the Romney administration you’ll be able to admit that they duped you.
I think you might be mistaking social ineptness on the part of Romney for unabashed arrogance seen in Kerry. A little digging into more details about Romney’s life reveals someone who is as humanly close to “pure as the wind-driven snow” as possible. Based on what I have learned about Romney, he strikes me as someone who has the capacity to be a great POTUS. I look forward to the opportunity to discovering if I am right over the course of the next 4 years, starting next January. I can hardly wait. Seriously.
In Trade is very fickle. Just like the Vegas lines on sporting events, its momentum driven.
Just like Accuscore (if you know what that is)–you can simulate 10,000 events, but if the assumptions you feed into the computer are wrong, the whole analysis isn’t worth anything.
I wouldn’t get too jazzed one way or the other about In Trade just yet.
Fellers, you’re missing the point. I don’t agree with everything the author says (see above), but she’s no “concern troll” and there’s little point in shooting the messenger. Nor do I think that Romney is actually the equivalent of Kerry; there are obvious differences in character, experience and, IMO, intelligence. Also, many see Ann Romney as more sympathetic (not to me) than Teresa K. However, voters — especially but not just from MA — will continue to make the connection between Kerry, Romney and Dukakis, and will be encouraged to do so by Obama’s crew — three losers damned by association.
I don’t buy any excuses based on Romney’s social awkwardness, especially given a background littered with silver spoons. The guy struggles to connect with the lives and problems of too many Americans (so does Obama, but he lies better and has the MSM covering his six).
Accuscore is a sports betting simulation site, not comparable to InTrade in any useful way — but we can all take note of your patronizing tone, Interested Party, thanks. InTrade uses real money, and doesn’t busy itself with either simulation or sports. And of course it’s momentum driven: the current odds are not fixed and will change. That’s what we’re talking about, for heaven’s sake!
Many Romney supporters don’t appreciate the need for a course correction. A central Romney shortcoming is his reluctance/inability to generalize, particularly about the dreaded ‘vison thing’. The guy likes checking the boxes after the executive summary. How inspiring! A few sentences force fed to him by his handlers might help, but don’t get your hopes up. Better to rely on your own abilities to attack the bad guys.
Slow down, brother. No patronization intended here. Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
In Trade is very fickle in that this market tends to follow the ups and downs of the news of the day. If that news tend to be slanted one way or the other, In Trade generally follows it. In Trade seems to be driven by the polls, in my opinion, and can rapidly change in response to the polls. That is why I compared it to Accuscore. If the data going into the decision making is flawed, then the decision is likely somewhat flawed as well.
Would I trust In Trade to predict an event 6 weeks from now, given this? No.
Would I trust In Trade to predict an event 72 hours from now? Perhaps.
That is all I was trying to say. However, it’s your money, not mine.
On your other point: Obama has been such a failure as a leader no amount of politicking is going to make that better.
If he wins re-election without taking public responsibility and accountability for his two major “achievements” (i.e. Obamacare and the Stimulus), Americans are a lot stupider than I give them credit for, and they get what they deserve.
I’m just not so sure we are that stupid. Elections like this are always referenda about the incumbent. Romney is good enough, and actually better than anyone else the Repubs could have realistically put up this cycle.
If he loses, it’s not him and his campaign. It’s that our fellow Americans (that 10% in the middle) are too deluded or too cynical at this point to care.
If InTrade was meaningful, either campaign could weigh results quite cheaply.
No, because the validity and the odds change with the mood of the moment. It’s obvious that many here know little about the stock market, which Warren Buffett (Peter Lynch? Benjamin Graham?) famously described as a voting machine, not a weighing machine.
Not by accident that many of the punters at InTrade are finance/market types who consider themselves the smart money — which is arrogantly overstated but not nonsense. It describes the odds you get today, not the odds you get tomorrow. The odds in favor of Romney will surely improve in Oct. Frankly, Romney’s core supporters find it all too hard.
For want of a nail…
Being a finance type – MBA, CFA, work in the finance biz and all that – I personally find it hilarious when reading all this “they have all that real money at stake so they must be right” talk about Intrade. Um seriously? 2007 anybody? 1999 anybody? If markets were so darn great at predictions, please explain the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble? Way more serious money was being bet on that stuff than what’s bet on Intrade and it was all dead wrong in the end.
Here in Florida it is easy to find headlines about Ryan being booed by a few people at an AARP convention. Much harder to find “GOP veep candidate Paul Ryan took the stage at a rally at the University of Central Florida to the roar of several thousand supporters, Saturday.” That was yesterday.
So the snobs with the same mindset of those who decide which headlines matter say Obama has already won? So sorry but in the real world the peasants still get to vote.
My sense of the upcoming election is that a good portion of the electorate who voted for Obama in ’08 were then motivated by both a desire to cast a “historical” vote—-”I voted for the first black U.S. president!!”—-and an attempt to redress their country’s past transgressions against its black citizens. This time around, tho, the first motivation no longer holds—-”been there, done that”. And the 2d motivation has been neutralized by a suspicion of a major affirmative action failure. I’m fervently hoping this is true…!
I think most Dems and others on the left know Obama has been a failure, but, aside from simply not wanting to lose, can’t face the reality that their “Lightworker with the glisening abs and perfectly creased trousers” turned out to be an average Chicago pol. The rest feel he should win a second term simply because he’s the first African-American president, and to deny him a second term would indicate racism, regardless of his ham-fisted handling of everything he’s touched.
Roger – I’m with you too! Romney will win and big. I’m in SF and although the state is not in play and should, but that’s more a “57%” conversation, there are not Obama bumper stickers or signs whatsoever. It’s not a result of confidence but complete lack of enthusiasm. And if president O can’t muster enthusiasm here, it’s highly unlikely he’ll be able to do so in the states he has to win.
As you noted, we may both be wrong but no one will who didn’t vote for O will do so and Romney should peel off some voters from every single demographic that he has betrayed
I also have inordinate faith in the American people to do the right thing, even at this point in our history.
I live in a university town. This place was rockin’ for Obama in 2008. MoveOn had an office on Main Street. This time it feels nothing like 2008. The students are just not engaged. I have heard some remarks of admiration for Paul Ryan even.
Yes, but what if it turns out that all of those people from the inner cities and other places which are loosey goosey do vote this November. Their names and addresses have been obtained in 2008. How hard would it be for them to “vote” in 2012? I bet the ballots are already printed and stored somewhere. Who could check on this or prosecute it, the DOJ?
“…and their Priuses would no longer be the golden chariots they had been assured they were.”
Whenever I see a Prius, I think that the driver must feel so smug that he is creating so much less pollution with his car than I am with mine. Yet, in fact, he, with his Prius, is just shifting the production of pollution to the power plants of our electrical utility company. Cognitive dissonance, to be sure.
Similarly, Arab mobs’ murderous behavior is, allegedly, caused by a You-Tube video rather than their evil, murderous conduct. Or, one of my favorite examples: Arctic ice is retreating. Global warming! Global warming!—-Yet, such articles fail to mention that Antarctic ice, ice on our most southern continent, is growing. The incredible ability of the left to deny reality!
Black is white. Up is down. Left is, alway right (in the moral sense and the insightful sense.)
Propagandists and true believers promised the German people a Thousand Year Reich. Propagandists and true believers promise a triumphal march to fundamental change, with Obama, no doubt, leading from behind. In the moment, the mob seems so powerful and so knowing.
“Give us Barabbas!”
Not to mention the terrible damage and pollution to the landscape where the materials to produce the batteries are obtained…ask them where their used batteries will be disposed of. I once worked with a ditz who felt so good about herself because she was going to buy an electric car. When I asked her where she thought the electricity to charge the batteries came from, I got the anticipated vacant stare.
Everybody knows it comes from the wall. Like duh.
A great many married women, call them suburban matrons, voted for Obama in 2008 for no reason other than it was “historic” to vote for a black president. Well, the thrill about being on the right side of history combined with the thrill of feeling oh so good about themselves, those two thrills are gone. So I don’t see married white women voting nearly as lopsidedly for Obama this time around. This is also true for the youth vote, 18 to 25′s, that was highly energized to turn out for a messiah in 2008 but will now turn out in much lower numbers, in other words will revert to the norm for young voters, given that the messiah has failed to deliver heaven on earth. For them too the thrill is gone. Voters over 65 on the other hand will continue to vote in higher percentages than the population as a whole. And what do they have to look forward to? Inflation? Death panels? No safe place to put their money that yields more than 1%?
Based on the above I’m cautiously optimistic about Romney’s chances.
That’s sort of what Dick Morris was saying. When you go to RCP, and look at the swing state numbers for 2000, 2004, and 2008, something extremely anomalous clearly happened in 2008. They’re calibrating the polls now to 2008, which was an extreme anomaly. They’re not going to turn out right.
Cheating is a real concern, though.
Given Obama’s abysmal record on everything under the sun the results of this election should already be baked into the cake. Romney just needs to make a good impression in the debates and also try to rattle O. O can be worn down with very targeted, very specific attacks on his domestic and foreign policy failures that reflect most critically on his judgment. He’s a lot more vulnerable in this regard than most people can possibly imagine; as in, if most people think they know this guy wait till Romney starts attacking him.
I’m a foreigner, but see the issue differently. I don’t think it’s an issue of competence (although President Obama does not seem competent from here), rather it’s a question of the fundamental changes he is attempting to make to the United States. We could argue endlessly with our opponents about the efficacy or wisdom of various economic or foreign policy adjustments, but at the end of the day the question has to be asked- “Are the Presidents’ policies transforming the country into something we think is better or worse for our families, for the nation and for the world?”
So O is going to try to run on foreign policy chops?
After the Libya tragedy (which will keep getting worse and worse), there is this in the NYT on its front page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?hp
No amount of spin is going to protect him from this. None. It’s up to R to state this is an easily digestible way.
He will.
What’s left for O? The economy sucks, and his foreign policy is a mess. He bears responsibility. If he doesn’t man up and accept it, he looks weak. If he man’s up and accepts it, he looks like a failure. It’s lose-lose.
I’m well-aquainted with that area & that is good news, although the West Side tends to be more liberal than the East Side.
You should attend a couple of those festivals on the upper West Side & report back.
Just returned from some three hours at a crowded street fair on Lexington Avenue, from 79th to 94th sts, here in Manhattan. During that entire time I saw ONE Obama button — four years ago, at the “same” fair, there were many “O” buttons to seen.
It will go to the supreme court who will declare Romney the winner.
Anarchists will start to riot, hoping that black people will join them. Korean store owners in LA will be locked and loaded — go to any gun show in LA and see who is buying lots of guns.
Democratic mayors will go on TV asking/begging black people not to riot.
There will be scattered rioting, but black people now understand it makes no sense to burn down your own neighborhood. Also the science of riot control has come a long way since Chicago/1968.
The Anarchistas of Occupy will be stymied. Romeny will become president soon to be followed by claims of illegitimacy by Pelosi/Reed.
I have been looking at the negative numbers for Obama and his confidence numbers, In both cases his numbers are exactly the same as Nov 2010. However I have only been using Gallup and Rasmussen due to the horrible weighting of some of the polls. The real issue maybe the % of independents which seem to be breaking hard for Romney.
Just remember Obama is waging a campaign to kill republican enthusiasm. Just like he did in 08. Which lead to many of my friends not voting. We wont be falling for that trick again. Even if I think McCain losing was the best thing to happen to the GOP. He would have screwed up everything he touched and waged war in Syria too. It would have been the final nail in the GOP coffin, and there would be tea party working to save it.
About two weeks ago, I traveled from Arizona to Missouri. I took the train, via Amtrack, and was able to sit and listen to conversations filtering throughout the train for 3 days. Maybe this is because I was stuck with the ‘common’ people, but the story I heard is not any thing like a sure win for Obama.
On the train there was a mixture of skin color: White, Black, Brown, etc. I didn’t hear anyone go all out for Obama, including those that are supposed to be his most supportive base (those of the darker skin color.) In fact, I heard people worried about him, not sure if they should vote for him, complaining about his failures and economic policies, etc. There was a big discussion about how much Obama has screwed up the economy – Although some tried to say it was Bush, that comment kind of was disregarded.
If I can hear this on a Train from people I don’t know, I believe the real temp of society is nothing like Obama’s camp would have it. I don’t justhear it on the train, I hear it walking around the city, while sitting in gas stations, while going to the movies, etc. It doesn’t matter what the polls say – in the end the American public is not happy with Obama. Many may not vote for Romney, but I believe many will not vote for Obama. In the end? That is the same thing.
Nothing has changed to quell the outrange expressed in the 2010 midterm elections; in truth, every marker has disintegrated further.
Sorry to make only a tangential comment on your excellent article, but thanks for the addition of the word “psephology” to my vocabulary! I had to look up on dictionary.com (for those of you who don’t know what the word meant, I’m afraid I must admonish you to “look it up yourself!”). Great word, wonderful etymology. (Not one I’ll subject my friends to, just a nice word to have under my hat if ever needed; thanks, Roger!)
The latest from Stan Greenburg. The polls are actually measuring a movement away from the Republican part ID to levels never seen before in an American electorate, so the election is over. What is wrong with these guys>
Now this will be the theme of the week. This is getting ridiculous. Are these guys for real? Where do they come up with this stuff? http://www.nationalmemo.com/carville-greenberg/the-turning-point-voter-contempt-for-gop-driving-democrats-upward/ A wave election for Dems. In this economy? Three words (see if you can get the reference): The Literary Digest.
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/09/america-without-apology/
You said the same thing four years ago (MCCAIN IS GONNA WIN BIG), don’t you have any new material?
The Election will hinge on who can motivate their people to head to the polls. I’m betting Romney people will go in droves…. Obama-bots… not so much.
I hope with all my being that Roger is right about the election. One thing in this article bothers me though: Dukakis wasn’t the incumbent president; Obama is.
Re: Pauline Kael. It was Nixon who won and carried 48 states no less. McGovern carried South Dakota and of course Massachusetts.
For all of you out there wanting Romney to state what he is about and what he wants to do, here it is:
(1) I make a serious effort to reform entitlements, so they don’t bankrupt us all yet are still there in some form to those who need them and expect them based on paying into the system.
(2) I will make a serious effort to reform the tax code, so it is more a mechanism of raising revenue to pay for government, and not a tool for social engineering.
(3) Understanding that no President can completely influence the business cycle, my policy direction will be in favor of job creation by fostering independent allocation of capital, and not by central federal redistribution and decisions.
(4) America has a lot of interests in the world, we remain the most powerful country, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We will not apologize for our strength, and our foreign policy direction will emphasize the principles that we follow at home: countries are free to form whatever structures they wish as they pursue their happiness, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other countries or peoples with whom we have a strategic interest. We seek peace, but woe to those who test our strength at their peril.
So what is so hard about that?
Are you willing to write a column the day after the election and discuss this prediction, true or false?
they will – and it will have even more delusional crap than this article
The number one problem of America today, is not Muslims, its not even politicians, or policies, the root of it all are the mass of irresponsible citizens who do not study their candidates, who do not value or recognize or understand the freedom or liberty of this country.
100% of Obamas votes last election cycle, came from these two parties:
1: Those who voted on emotional bias
2: Those who had a misguided view on what America is/should be.
And I promise you this election cycle, all his votes will come from these two parties as well.
Roger,
It amazes me how you manage to be so eloquent and incisive in your scholarly cultural criticism–even as I disagree with much of it–and yet adhere to such a intellectually lazy Manichean view of politics. And your readers’ comments, in light of the high quality (read nuanced as well as rigorous) of much of your journal’s offereings (I especially adore William Logan), are simply disappointing–a mirror image of the same tired tropes trotted out in the Huffington Post’s comments section. I somehow expected more.
Great items from you, man. I’ve keep in mind your stuff previous to and you’re simply too great. I really like what you have obtained right here, really like what you are saying and the way during which you say it. You make it entertaining and you continue to take care of to keep it sensible. I can’t wait to learn far more from you. That is actually a tremendous website.