What I notice is that the media always wants to urge us that no matter what the polls say and the problems that the GOP has had during the primary season and the Romney campaign continues to have, it will be very, very close.
I suspect this point has become overstated. True, if you take all the polls that have been done for an Obama-Romney race the median spread is only about 2.5% for Obama, and yes, that is within the margin of era. Still, all the polls have varied within a range between Obama having a lead that sometimes goes well into double digits to a virtual dead heat. There are no polls of Romney with a meaningful lead.
So while you can say the median poll has been between the margin for error the reality is that Obama has consistently been shown to be stronger and the median number and the range of numbers shows this.
Then again, 2.5% may not sound like much and in an individual poll you can brush it off as within the margin for error. But again it's the pattern. Then again a 2.5% margin in the general election can indicate a blowout in the electoral college.
In 1980 Reagan beat Carter in the popular vote 53-47. That's barely above the margin for error-which is 5 points. Yet Reagan gained over 470 electoral votes and Carter failed to break 60 and won 44 out of the 50 states.
My guess is that the media doesn't want to admit that it may not be close for the same reason that the sports media doesn't want to admit the super bowl will be a blowout-they feel they need to build up hype.
As we have 7 months till election they hardly want to say it will be a super dud now. That's what it likely will be. Not for me of course. I look forward to another Democratic landslide. What we have seen over the last 5 elections starting with Clinton is that the electoral math favors the Democrats. The Republicans have a very thin margin for error.
We have had three Democratic blowouts-Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Obama in 2008-where they beat the GOP in the electoral college by a margin of over two to one. The two GOP wins were very thin-Bush in 2000 and 2004. Yes, they were also deeply controversial. Of course, close elections stand a much better chance of being controversial. The Republicans in the Post-Clinton era have to win in a bunch of places to stand a chance where the Democrats have much fewer must win states.
Clinton's 370-168 win over Bush in 1992 then, did usher in a new ear of Democratic dominance-at the Presidential level; it has also proved concurrent with an era that saw the Dems lose their old lock on Congress.
It's amazing how major a turn it has been. Between 1968-1988 the GOP won 5 of 6 elections with the last 4 with way over 400 electoral votes and 40 states. Since 1992 the Dems have won 3 of 5 elections and in all 3 they have won at least 361 electoral votes and an over 2 to 1 margin.
This year with the GOP so badly mismanaging the issue of women voters and Latino voters-I say mismange but really they just have policies that women and Latinos don't like-they are going to have a very tough chance winning the swing states they need.
What is a source of concern for me as a Democrat are the Congressional races. The early polls seem to suggest the GOP can take back the Senate and won't lose any of their commanding House lead. Part of the trouble is that the Democrats have 23 Senate seats to defend against only 10 for the GOP. Then of course there is all the redistricting going on-it has already cost Dennis Kucinich his seat and may cost Charlie Rangel his Harlem House seat-as well as all the new election id laws-which are meant to make it hard for Democratic voters in many places to even vote-there have happily been some judicial set backs for this effort lately notably in Texas and Alec has had to back off from their voter id drive do to public outcry and loss of advertisers.
It seems to me that what may save the Democrats in Congress is that there are signs that this backlash is hurting the Republicans in some Congressional races, notably Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts who is in a dead heat with challenger Elizabeth Warren solely because of the gender gap-Brown has a 43-30 lead among men but trails among women 43-33.
Then too I have heard it argued that the coattail effect is very real-that there aren't so many people who are really going to vote Obama in the general election then when they get down to the Congressional race vote Republican.
The only Democrats who should find the voter ID process difficult are the vast numbers of dead ones who so often stuff the ballot boxes.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on the polls to this point is misleading, as you can tell by looking at the Republican primaries. Romney was down many times until he turned his attention on those leaders. He is very effective, and now Obama will have his full attention.
Plus, the deficit only gets worse, Obamacare is about to be overturned (at least partially) and he has NOTHING to point to. (Well, the SEALS killed Osama on his watch, I guess he gets to pretend that was his doing.)
The election will be close, but over time the polls will start going more and more in Romney's direction.
Finally, you shouldn't hate Republicans, we don't hate you. We're just tired of running deficits trying to take care of you. It doesn't work and it never will.
Well listen at least you weren't like many Republcians I have met who desceond to racial and gender slurs. Don't be so sure you don't hate me till you know my racial makeup. I can gurantee a Republican like Charles Murray hates anyone of "dubious whitness."
ReplyDeleteYou say Romney is very effective I see no evidence of that. You'd have to give me an example. When he tried to palm off a factory closed during the Bush years as Obama's fault that was effective at best at misleading those who know no better.
He is not effective at winning the women's vote-the best he can say is he feels about women like he feels about caterpillars-or something in that silly vein.
Maybe the fact that he has told women ar rally's "vote for the otther guy" might help explain his huge gender "defdicit" as you care so much about defcitits worry about that one.
Romney trails women by up to 32 points he trails among Hispancis by 70-14. I know some Republicans don't think Hispanic people count but there vote will count in ths upcoming election at least to the extent that GOP fails to prevent them from voting. Your talk about dead people voting is an Urban Legend. It's to disenfranchising people just as your party did in 2000.
Your spin on Obama's heroic achievement in killing OBL just shows how uncharitable Repbulcians really are. Not suprising you want all poor people to drop dead. Don't bother to tell me you don't-your policies mean just that. Like with "ObamaCare" as you call it. Your solution is if you can't afford health insurance you will get no medical care and you can drop dead or get real sick. What a sorry legacy your party has become. This was once the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Rosseovelt and even Dwight Eisenhower.
ReplyDeleteThere is no honor in being a Republican anymore. It means nothing but appealign to peoples bigotry, their fear of social change, and their moral callowness in wathcing the pain of others and keeping their hands tightly in their pockets.
As for this defcit talk, Anon, do you not see why this is one large reason I'm not so fond of Republicans? I get so tired of hearing GOpers pee on our legs and then tell us it's raining-an apt phrase of Judge Judy.
For all this hysterical talk about deficits, let me quote one of your GOP heros, Dick Cheney, who once said, just a few years ago:
"Reagan proved defcitts don't matter."
It's the hypocrisy that gets you. Or gets me anyway. HOw you can try to give us this tired talk about defcits, rising borrowing costs, and bond vigilantes, only when Democrats are President. When Republicans are we never hear a peep about this stuff. Meanwhile it was under Reagan and the two Bushes that we saw the deficit originally explode.
More hypocrisy, you slander the President and his health care law as "Obamacare" conveniently ignoring that it was "RomneyCare" first.
If you try to come back with that lame spin about it's ok for the state of Massachusetts but some sort of outrage for the nation, well if you do that, it's a perfect example of what I call the GOP propensity to "pee on our legs and tell us it's raining."
I should also add that it is hypocrisy at it's worse-the one thing that Romney is "effective" at because even on the feeble ground of playing the states vs. federal card, Romney wrote an editorial in 2009 explictly urging President Obama to pass a law like he did in Mass.
Overall, you seem like a nice guy Anon. But I can't sit here and lie to you. The policies and the personalities your support by being a Republican-personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart-are awful.
If you have a further response to my response that's fine. But don't play the usual Romney Republican mendacious game. Explain to me why it isn';t insulting our intelligence for Republicans to only criticize the defcitis when a Democrat it in the White House and why a heatlh care bil lthat was first enacted by Romney himself and was originally advocated by the Heritage Foundation is now being attacked by the GOP in the most exterme, overwrought way-"socialism", "the end of freedom", "death panels" etc.
If you want to prove me wrong about Republicans you can start here by anwering this question rather than the usual GOP move of trying to change the subject. If that's what you do you will be called on it. Forewarned.
Obamacare..... the best idea republicans ever came up with!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, while I said Romney was effective, I meant "at campaigning." His track record in the primaries (and he was NOT my choice) was ruthlessly effective.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I do NOT claim to speak or even relate to all Republicans. I consider myself a fiscal conservative. "If you can't pay for it, don't implement it." That goes for wars, medical care, retirement, etc. The deficit grew terribly under Reagan and a Democrat controlled congress. Reagan takes the blame! The budget was balanced under Clinton and a Republican controlled congress using Gingrich's ideas. Clinton takes the credit. Talk about hypocrisy!
The deficit EXPLOSION happened under our current President. Blame Bush all you want, we are three years in and under water over one trillion dollars per year. It can't continue. There will be a financial crash, austerity, etc. It is better to find politicians who will fix the problem NOW, rather than promise the world in entitlements and get hit with REAL PAIN later!
I will vote for Romney. There is nobody in the race that doesn't have a bad track record of ineffective government run healthcare, but I will vote for the guy who is at least willing to admit its a mistake. Our current one term President actually just got caught in a massive fib trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Seniors in Medicare Advantage by funding it through nefarious means - until the election. I am certain there is more to come on that.
I recognize the importance of Hispanics (and ALL other races) in this country. I believe in a free market for all. Nothing that costs money is a "right." Healthcare is not a right, but the ability and freedom to seek it out is. The government is the biggest problem to affordable healthcare, as medicare and medicaid paying below market prices forces higher prices upon everyone else. That is a hidden tax that nobody even talks about.
You seem like a sincere guy. If you are, read a book about free markets. I am not being condescending, I mean it. I recommend Milton Friedman. And when you go back to Mars, tell the other Democrats that the conservatives out there don't want to beat them, we just want to make the country work.
The only thing that our country ever stood for (in theory if not always practice) is freedom and opportunity. We didn't always get it right, but through heroes like Lincoln, we have tried to bring the two together. This country has NEVER been about guarantees. Socialism makes guarantees (and they never live up to them).
"The deficit EXPLOSION happened under our current President. Blame Bush all you want, we are three years in and under water over one trillion dollars per year. It can't continue. There will be a financial crash, austerity, etc. It is better to find politicians who will fix the problem NOW, rather than promise the world in entitlements and get hit with REAL PAIN later!"
ReplyDeleteIt's not pain for you or the people who advocate it so your just being hypocritcal if people suffer from the cuts. Will Paul Ryan feel any pain? No he'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
First of all I mean what I said above sincerely. Cheney said deficits don't matter-not any Democratic President. How do you expalin that as your trying to credit Republicans for surplues and defdicts to Democrats.
Look this defidict talk is a canard-I even think Cheney was kind of right. Of course he was being hypocritical as he only intended this to mean they don't matter as long as a Repubican is President.
The reason is that conservatives-the ones who govern anyway-care about deficits as a way to bully Democratic Presdients. Again, we heard defcit talk in the 90s. Under Bush nothing-even going as far as "defcits don't matter."
Now under Obama they matter again. Look, I see "fiscal discipline" as a red herring anyway. So I don't necesarily think running a suprlus entitles you to all that much "credit." But if you're going to discuss the 90s surplus it wasn't Gingrich, the deficit reduciton bill was passed by Clinton and the Democratic Congress iin 1993 without a single GOP vote.
You say Romney is an effective campainger? Have you seen his poll numbers among women and Hispanics? Again he himself knows very well that he can't win without 40% of the Hispanic vote and he's nowhere near. McCain had only 30% and got blownout. What might this harbinger for Mitt?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you have noticed that Romney has already started "etching a sketch." In February he insluted a female college student to her face telling her that if she doesn't like the fact that student loan rates are doubling it's tough toe nails, but "we can't have any free stuff."
Now he's in agreement with President Obama-without admitting any such thing as he has called for interest rates to be prevented from doubling to 6.8%'t a handout anymore. Your gloss that Romney has chagned his mind on his healtcare sure is some impressive spin. Romney is on both sides of every issue.
Overall you do seem like a decent guy as best I can tell. You say you have no contraol over what other Republicans say but there are a lot of Republicans who immediately go to racial or gender insults. I mean if you don't then talk that way do you wonder why you're part of a party who does? A party were a promisnent Republican like Limbaugh insluts someone's daughhter with such relish on the national radio-just plain sadism on Libmaguh's part and other Republicans try to justfiy that?
ReplyDeleteOverall though on a fundamental level we disagree.
When you say that
"I believe in a free market for all. Nothing that costs money is a "right." Healthcare is not a right, but the ability and freedom to seek it out is. The government is the biggest problem to affordable healthcare, as medicare and medicaid paying below market prices forces higher prices upon everyone else. That is a hidden tax that nobody even talks about."
"You seem like a sincere guy. If you are, read a book about free markets. I am not being condescending, I mean it. I recommend Milton Friedman. And when you go back to Mars, tell the other Democrats that the conservatives out there don't want to beat them, we just want to make the country work."
Everything the Congresional Republicans have done for the last 4 years has been to make the coutnry not work-so as to put the blame on President Obama. The hatred for this man- which I don't agree has no racial aspect-all the wild birhter talk I do beliveve is racial at bottom-has driven your party to doing anything to harm him politically without any concern for the country. They want the country to fail so they can blame it on Obama. Rush said it. McConnell said it.
You say you're not trying to be consdesceding which is just as well as you're in no position to be. I know prefectly well who Mitlon Friedman and have read him-you might try some other posts I've written which shows I know something about monetary issues too.
But where we really have a problem is on the level of political philosophy. You're claim that,
"I believe in a free market for all. Nothing that costs money is a "right." Healthcare is not a right, but the ability and freedom to seek it out is. The government is the biggest problem to affordable healthcare, as medicare and medicaid paying below market prices forces higher prices upon everyone else. That is a hidden tax that nobody even talks about."
So you want to take away Medicare. Sure let's return to the pre-New Deal ear when old people largely had to either go live in a poor house or be stuck living with their childern the rest of their lives.
See, Anon, this is the troulbe with your whole libertarian philosophy. When push comes to shove you think that only people with money have any rights-you;re not a democrat-small d-but a plutocart. Ihilosophy anything but Social Darwinism?
You're saying that anyone who can't afford heatlh care should be denied it-as long as your taxes don't go up that's all you care about. So is even given emergency room assitance ok with your Social Darwinin world view-only the welathy have rights-or is even that just a "hidden tax" and anyone who can't afford emergency room care should be thrown out-perhaps with some burly security guards working for a private enterprise company?
If this is your political philosoophy it's very meager and far from either econoimcally or socially optimum.