Skip to main content

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer meeting with President Barack Obama in June 2010 in the wake of SB 1070, to discuss immigration and border security issues.
President Obama is performing ahead of 2008 margins in Jan Brewer's Arizona (Pete Souza/White House)

Early in the week, NBC News (and the Wall Street Journal) released their first national poll in a month. The topline numbers moved very little—whereas Barack Obama's lead over Mitt Romney was four points in May, it was three points in June.

NBC's Mark Murray, however, noted some movement in the nearly dozen states identified by the media outlet as "swing states":

Another place where Obama is running ahead: the swing states.
Among swing-state respondents in the poll – those living in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin – Obama leads Romney, 50 to 42 percent.

Also in these swing states, Romney’s favorability numbers have dropped, possibly reflecting the toll the negative Obama TV advertisements are having on the former Massachusetts governor in these battlegrounds.

A month ago, Romney’s favorable/unfavorable score stood at 34-38 percent nationally and 36-36 percent in the 12 swing states.

But in this latest survey, his national fav/unfav score is 33-39 percent and 30-41 percent in the swing states.

As a matter of statistical relevance, in all candor, this poll did not tell us a whole hell of a lot. The margin of error on a subsample of 12 states is pretty stout, so saying that this eight-point edge for Obama is a BFD (so to speak) would lead the math types in the political pundit class to rise in vociferous protest. And, ultimately, they are right about that.

But the poll does underscore a long-held theory about this election, which I have written on in the past as well as others (I have seen PPP's Tom Jensen note it, as well). The theory is that the national polling numbers, which have been in tossup territory for much of the Spring, actually are overstating the case for Mitt Romney's electability.

This theory is based on a few assumptions:

  • Because of minimal campaigning by either candidate, and the general voter malaise apparent in much of the polling to date, the president will still easily carry the blue states he won in 2008, but perhaps by slightly depressed margins.
  • Because of minimal campaigning by either candidate, general voter malaise, and terrain that was already hostile to begin with, the president is going to lose the red states that weren't particularly competitive in 2008, and quite possibly by more substantial margins.
  • The swing states, meanwhile, and notably, will behave much as they did in 2008. There may be some slight depression in the numbers (again, that voter malaise thing), but because the president and his campaign will put maximum effort into these states, both in defending his record and assaulting Mitt Romney's record, the needle will not move as dramatically here.

If these three premises come to pass, then the net result would be a potentially notable reduction in the performance for the president in the national popular vote, but a considerably smaller impact in his performance in the electoral college. Therefore, while the race appears to be a tossup in the national polling, when the votes are actually tallied, the electoral college will still go decidedly in favor of Barack Obama.

That's the theory. How legitimate is it? Go past the jump in order to find out.

To test the theory, I culled all of the national polls and state polling since April 1 that I have logged in our nightly polling wraps. To get the proper impact of the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls, I only counted every third day of Rasmussen's poll (since it is a three-day tracking poll), and every seventh day of Gallup's poll (since it is a seven-day tracking poll).

In that time, there have been 106 polls total on the presidential trial heat between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. In those polls, averaged together, the lead for Barack Obama has been just a shade under two percentage points (1.87 percent) over Mitt Romney.

For those scoring at home, that is an improvement for the GOP of precisely 5.4 percent over the final 2008 results, which gave Barack Obama a final margin of victory of 7.27 percent over John McCain.

Now, there is a pretty important caveat there. Anybody who doubts that the daily tracking polls of Gallup and Rasmussen are skewed a tad need only see this stat. There have been 42 unique (as in, no common samples) editions of those two tracking polls since April 1. In those polls, Mitt Romney has an average lead of just under one percent. In the 64 unique non-tracking polls in the study, the leader was Barack Obama, and not by a hair—the average margin was 3.69 percent.

Taken as a whole, however, let's keep that overall figure (5.4 percent) in mind, while bearing in mind that the House of Ras and Gallup definitely have a thumb on the scale.

How did the states perform, in a comparable time period? Well, there was at least one poll conducted in 35 different states during the period between April 1 and June 29.

And, as one might expect, indeed the Republican performance vis-a-vis 2008 has improved in most of them. In only six states is Barack Obama in a comparably stronger position than he was in 2008. Mitt Romney is outpacing John McCain in the other 29 states that offered up data in the past three months.

So, to quote the inimitable Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, is the myth busted? The answer is: no. Not really.

You see, those states that have moved in the GOP direction have moved pretty incrementally in that direction. Twenty-nine have moved toward the Republicans in 2012, but more than half of them moved by less than the 5.4 percent that the national numbers have shifted.

Indeed, the state that moved the most in the GOP's favor should come as an absolute shock to no one—Utah, where Barack Obama lost by 28 points in 2008 but should absolutely expect a 40-plus point shellacking this time around.

Having looked at the field at large, let's narrow the field a bit. Let's look at the "swing states" as identified by NBC, and see how they've shifted since 2008. I have added a lucky 13th (Arizona), because, quite frankly, I'll bet anyone over at NBC News that Arizona will be closer in November than New Mexico will.

Partisan shift—2012 polling data (since 4/1) versus 2008 vote totals

MICHIGAN: GOP +12.9
WISCONSIN: GOP +9.2
IOWA: GOP +7.0
NEVADA: GOP +6.5
COLORADO: GOP +5.1
NEW HAMPSHIRE: GOP +4.3
VIRGINIA: GOP +4.0
PENNSYLVANIA: GOP +3.0
FLORIDA: GOP +2.0
NORTH CAROLINA: GOP +1.1
OHIO: GOP +1.1
NEW MEXICO: GOP +0.8
ARIZONA: DEMOCRAT +3.1

So, to recap, nine of the thirteen swing states have moved by less than the amount that the national tracking polls have moved.

Even more importantly, for the sake of getting elected to the presidency, only one of the thirteen has shifted by more than Barack Obama's 2008 margin of victory in that state. In other words, if these poll numbers were to somehow hold till November, Barack Obama would lose just two of these states: Arizona (which he lost anyway in 2008) and North Carolina. If you factor in Indiana (where he would also lose, in all probability, according to polls) and Nebraska's 2nd district (where, actually, he still has a fighting shot at that lone electoral vote), Obama would win with an electoral college majority of 332-206.

And, indeed, that is the dichotomy that the current forecast by Nate Silver over at 538 shows: a popular vote margin of between 2-3 percent, but the most likely single electoral vote outcome being an Obama majority in the 330-340 range (though his overall assessment is still in the high 290s for Obama).

So, it seems, that the swing states are behaving a bit differently than the nation at-large. Certainly not the five point swing that the NBC poll claimed, but enough to mean that a relatively close outcome in the national popular vote may not consign Barack Obama to a one-term presidency. It is still obviously close, and no president likes being in a situation where a seismic shift in the numbers of only 2-3 percent could be the difference between victory and defeat.

However, with his poll numbers looking a bit better over the past several days, perhaps the outcome will look even a bit more optimistic for him still as the summer goes along.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Likely voters (23+ / 0-)

    That "screen" is used now. Do you assume the GOP will succeed in its effort to supress Hispanic votes or not?

    That's why Eric Holder is the biggest target of the year right now. "Fast and Furious" is a joke!

    Right now those polls are primarily intended to discourage donors and keep scared voters home.

    •  Not to mention (4+ / 0-)

      In Arizona at least, "Fast and Furious" is probably doing a lot to keep the immigration issue on voters' minds.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:15:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  MsTribble, voter suppression crosses the (forgive (2+ / 0-)

      pun) border of race.  

      For some, elections are about electing those who will best represent their interests.  For others, it is about defeating an incumbent President whose only flaw was that bipartisan weakness thingie.

      •  Yes, but the data (3+ / 0-)

        52 percent of the people on Florida's hit list are Hispanic, as opposed to about 25 percent of the general population. I could give you other statistics. It's also about poverty and income level.

        But boy do we agree on one thing. My spouse and I have had this conversation a dozen times. What don't I like about Obama? that...

        bipartisan weakness thingie.
        A bit too idealistic. But he's learning. I bet he learned to fight in high school, as well.

        But he appoints good SCOTUS and will sign all good legislation.

    •  Voter ID (8+ / 0-)

      This is my thing looking at the polls. So many states have new voter ID laws, the terms registered voter or likely voter are almost meaningless. A person could have been a reliable consistent voter for decades but may be turned away at the polls in November. I'd like to see pollsters ask about voter ID to get a better picture of the electorate.

      "I feel like I'm still waiting to meet my true self. I'm assuming it's gonna be in a dark alley and there's gonna be a fight." ---Rachel Maddow

      by never forget 2000 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:07:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Fast and Furious" is not just a joke, but a story (8+ / 0-)

      that looks worse and worse for the GOP as the facts emerge.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:08:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But, SIGH. What DOESN'T look (8+ / 0-)

        worse for the GOP "as the facts emerge."  Good Lord, I'd think the facts that have emerged about the Great Recession and its causes would look bad for the GOP and the policies they are promoting, which are exactly the same policies that led to the debacle,  but no.

        Instead, to hell with the facts, and we're now in a "toss up election" against the guy who is the KING of everything that drove this economy right off the cliff.

        I hope you're right about "Fast and Frivolous" as I like to call it, but I've given up all hope that facts have a damn thing to do with anything when it comes to who we're going to elect as president of this country.  It's going to be about money and GOTV.  And not necessarily in that order.

        I do think the Obama campaign is a million times smarter than the Romney campaign, and that will help, but only in energizing dems, and winning the independents we need to slide by.

      •  Maybe, one day… (0+ / 0-)

        …someone will tell Darrell Issa that ATF isn't in the Justice Department.

        Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com. Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

        by DemSign on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:33:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scyellowdogdem, elwior

          part of the DOJ.

          ATF, under another name, began under the Treasury Department, migrated to the Bureau of Prohibition (a Treasury sub) in the 1920s, and was transferred to Justice in 1933 when Prohibition was repealed.  There were a number of other switcheroos over the decades, both in name and in oversight.  ATF (again, under another name) moved back to Treasury in the 70s, and finally was transferred back to Justice under Bush's damned Homeland Security.  ATF remains under Justice today.

          To further complicate matters, ATF has little to do with alcohol today, which is handled by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a Treasury sub.  

          Ahhh, the efficiencies of central government.  Need more tax revenue?  Create an acronym.  Problem solved.

    •  I think the effort to suppress the Hispanic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, FightingRegistrar

      vote may well be counter-productive.

      Hispanics and Asians vote at lower rates that Whites and Blacks. But few things energize people like attacks on them.

  •  As long as President Obama keeps... (21+ / 0-)

    margins in the range of 40 points ahead among latinos, there's no way the GOP can stop enough of them from voting to defeat him... no way.

    “For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.” President Obama 1/24/12

    by BarackStarObama on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:08:30 PM PDT

  •  The OH poll is the only one that matters (11+ / 0-)

    and that shows him comfortably up.  WI, PA and MI are always fool's gold for the GOP so it seems perfectly reasonable to say that the polls have his chances right if interpreted correctly.

    The snapshot right now has him as a favorite, if OH goes down between now and then, less so.

    I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

    by AZphilosopher on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:08:58 PM PDT

    •  I'm not so sure about WI and MI. (10+ / 0-)

      We got a pretty bad shellacking in that region in 2010. Sure, turnout was much lower, but spending on both sides was much lower as well. I remain confident in an Obama victory, but find myself highly disturbed at the polling trends in the Midwest.

      "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

      by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:14:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WI (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, Supavash

        I think WI will go for Obama by at least 5%.  Look for registered voters in the city of Milwaukee when primary is held in August.  Voter ID will most likely still be in the courts and not in effect in November.  I think city of Milwaukee will be at least 150,000 net for Obama.  Dane County will be over 100,000.  Don't assume that Walker's win shows strength for Romney.  Baldwin-Thompson race will be much closer but I feel good about Pres. race.

        •  Undoubtedly. I totally agree with the notion that (0+ / 0-)

          those states are fool's gold for the GOP. My point is that it's closer than it ought to be.

          "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

          by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:52:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with inductive reasoning is that (0+ / 0-)

        the future resembles the past up until the point it doesn't.  However, the prior pattern has always been: close early, R campaigns get out late.  So I'll go ahead and be a good, conservative (small c) learner.

        I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

        by AZphilosopher on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:42:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  For some reason, $$$$, i think both the polls (18+ / 0-)

       and the media want to portray a close race $$$

  •  I sincerely hope (8+ / 0-)

    that the answer to your title questions is YES.

    InTrade just now has his re-election chances at 55.7%, up a couple of points since the ACA decision.

    Dream as if you’ll live forever. Live as if you’ll die today. -- James Dean

    by Mnemosyne on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:11:52 PM PDT

    •  well, Intrade also had ACA mandate repeal at 80+, (11+ / 0-)

      so I don't think they're swinging such a big bat these days.  If Nate says 67% chance reelect, I'm going with him over Intrade.

      •  I've always felt Intrade was mostly full of (7+ / 0-)

        wingers, which is obviously going to affect whatever odds they give. This made the thought that a bunch of them got cleaned out on the ACA ruling all the more pleasing for me.

        "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

        by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:45:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  which is part of the reason why (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          R2P2, hungrycoyote, Matt Z, Supavash
          Intrade was mostly full of wingers
          I find it useful to watch InTrade. Those guys are not necessarily on our side, so that a positive for Obama there tells me that it's very possibly much higher in the real world.

          The other part is that their numbers are based on people putting up real money, unlike polls that are just opinions.

          Dream as if you’ll live forever. Live as if you’ll die today. -- James Dean

          by Mnemosyne on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:03:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I may have this totally wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, Mnemosyne

          but as I understand Intrade, it's no different than your local bookie.  It's a betting operation, composed of an aggregate of polls and maybe some element of "common wisdom" mish mash.  

          Seems to me it has no interest in being right wing or left wing, as all that matters is that it retain enough credibility to stay the bookie.  

          This unlike, say, Rasmussen, which clearly has right wing leanings, to say the least, and which clearly exists to help set a strong republican narrative.

          •  Exactly, and since the odds of bookmakers are (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay, DemSign, Matt Z, Supavash

            skewed in accordance with how many people are betting on one eventuality, Intrade will feature that same phenomenon.

            For example, if Intrade is full of wingers who hate the ACA (and it is) and they place their bets accordingly, the odds of the ACA being struck down increase by Intrade's metric and the payout of such an eventuality is lowered accordingly. Polls or current events enter into the odds to a degree, but I think the actions of the bettors are the main determinant of the payouts.

            "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

            by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:34:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Isn't that like pari-mutuel betting at racetracks? (0+ / 0-)

              Though then the question might be, is the formula exactly like pari-mutuel betting, or just similar, or not similar at all (e.g. based on commodities markets, presumably a different model)?

              Apropos pari-mutuel betting, to me one of the fascinating "what might have been" anecdotes regarding the history of the computer industry is the notion that the racetrack signboard maker American Totalisator Company would have been a dominant player in the industry, had it not been for a fateful plane crash that killed its visionary leader.
              http://arstechnica.com/...

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

              by lotlizard on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:30:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I think that's about right. (14+ / 0-)

    Basically, since 2008, the battle lines have been drawn.

    The 2008 election probably represented the high-water mark for a Democrat running for President in a lot of red states -- aside from Indiana, which Obama actually carried, you also saw Obama nearly carrying Montana and polling in the 40s in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas.  All of those were states in which Kerry could not break 40 percent, and in all but Indiana, Al Gore failed to break 40 percent.

    If anything, a lot of swaths of Red America are even more hostile to Obama than they were in 2008.  But really, the only people who will flip their votes are pretend independents (really Republicans in disguise), who voted for Obama as a one-time thing because they were unhappy with Bush, but now are reverting to their normal voting habits.  But Obama should have a new cohort of young voters; the only question is how many of them will get to the polls.

    28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:11:54 PM PDT

    •  Really fascinating comment. (6+ / 0-)

      Here's hoping that the Millenials and latinos as a portion of the electorate grow relative to their increasing share of the adult population.

      Thank you to jayden, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Aji and everyone in the Daily Kos community involved in gifting my subscription and gifting others!

      by Nulwee on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:40:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd be interested in GOP overreach effects. (8+ / 0-)

      Here in Kansas, Obama's still polling in the 40s, but Governor Brownback (only left out of the Scott Walker/Rick Scott/Rick Snyder axis because he does that stuff in a place you'd expect it to happen) is polling in the low 30s.

      I'm not going to say Obama's going to win Kansas barring some truly epic Rmoney meltdown, but it's interesting to note that our Republican governor is more of a political liability than our Democratic President. That plus the legislature's fail on redistricting makes me believe that Democrats could pick up a couple House seats here.

      "You should put signs on places. All it takes is a sign to turn an RNC office into a Sexeteria." -Danny Willis

      by Geiiga on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:03:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They would need actual candidates (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote, StellaRay, TDDVandy

        In the most Democratic leaning House seat in Kansas, Democrats don't even have a candidate at all, not even a token one.  Yoder is completely unopposed.  Huelskamp is also unopposed, not that we would win that seat anyway.  KS-2 also has less than stellar candidates.  

        Only KS-4 really has a decent Dem candidate in Robert Tillman.  

    •  I hope there is a plan to reach out to young women (8+ / 0-)

      especially.  they are one of the most vulnerable groups to losing under Republican control, but how many are paying attention?  What is Sandra Fluke going to be doing the next few months?

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:17:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NPR Analyst Friday Said Young Voters Are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote, JanL

        surprisingly "hostile" to abortion rights. Despite their stronger progressive tendencies, their support for abortion rights is minimal 50's.

        There's one fix on the position of your young women.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:20:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They probably are not hostile to free (7+ / 0-)

          birth control, equal rights for all Americans, or pay equality.  I can understand idealistic young women who don't have much experience with the cold, cruel world being hostile to the idea of abortion but I think they should be reachable with issues close to their personal situation.

          “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

          by ahumbleopinion on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:24:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's hostile? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Supavash, suzq

          Most reliable polling I've seen, from Gallup, Pew, and elsewhere, has support for abortion rights from young voters about the same as middle aged ones (senior citizens were more opposed.)  It may not be a big issue to most of them, but that doesn't mean they want the right taken away.

          36, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

          by Mike in MD on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:29:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not really surprising. (0+ / 0-)

          Remember, a far greater percentage of the under-30 cohort is Latino.  Latinos tend to be Catholics, and more serious Catholics than other ethnic groups, so the counterintuitively high level of opposition to abortion rights isn't that surprising.

          28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

          by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:31:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not just Sandra Fluke (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote, JanL, rosarugosa, TDDVandy

        There really needs to be a coordinated effort in each state between all the women candidates under 40.  

  •  In July, I prefer it be close... (5+ / 0-)

    ...to motivate the team.  So that by October we're pulling away.

    It's important to keep the powder dry, at least until after R'Money officially accepts the nomination at this summer's NaziCon Hoopydoo - Tampa Bay.  That way, the GOP will be stuck with him.

  •  It's like that 40's-50's song (10+ / 0-)

    "Whatever Lola wants....Lola gets"

    The trad med wants a horse race, and they will do anything and say anything to get that horse race.

    I am for Obama, not because I am such an admiring fan, but because I see the opposition as backwards and actually horrific.

    Romney will be an "oligarcal whig."  He will sign the legislation that the oligarchy presents and approves of.  He will do nothing that the oligarchy does not want.  The public be damned, the rich and powerful will rule.

    Until this Un-American folly is derailed and destroyed our nation is in danger, and Obama is what we have to blunt over this attack from the ultra-rich.

    The nation we save from Republican sharpsters will be our own. We need a Democratic Congress, and to reelect President Obama....this won't be easy...we better get started NOW!

    by boilerman10 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:15:47 PM PDT

  •  just saw a R-money commercial (11+ / 0-)

    10:10 pm on WBIN Boston-Manchester using footage of Hillary saying "Shame on you Barack Obama" from the 2008 primaries.

    Oh. No. He. Didn't.

    There are so many primary quotes from 2012 of Republicons saying much worse things about Mittens.  I certainly hope a commercial or twelve gets made using those quotes, and SOON

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    DEMAND CREATES JOBS

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:19:58 PM PDT

  •  My fervent wish is that Texas activists get (6+ / 0-)

      a lot of help in registering voters and in getting out the Democratic/Progressive vote!   Would be soooo sweet to change the Texas legislature to Blue and to regain the EV of Texas for the Democratic Party.  

    •  Well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oceanview, hungrycoyote, rosarugosa

      The Texas Senate won't be going blue this cycle.  There's really only one competitive race... and it's in a Democratic-held district.

      The House, maybe there's an outside shot we pick that up.  There's certainly some low-hanging fruit as a result of the GOP sweep in 2010... the GOP is currently holding a few districts that they probably shouldn't hold.  But once you get past those maybe 10-15 districts there aren't a whole lot of easy targets.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:24:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't see it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bepanda

      I am the voice of doom, and I say not likely. Texas will take about 20yrs to come forward. Relax. It's going to be a long journey.

      •  I Think More Like 8 Years... (8+ / 0-)

        ...but regardless, when it happens, when Hispanics flip Texas, it will be the end of the Republican Party in the whole USofA. Lights out, mi querida!

        How long have Republicans been after the Hispanic vote in Texas? Since the 60's. To what end? 25% of the vote.

        Just a matter of time companero. BTW, the more we work to register and GOTV Hispanics in Texas, the more resources we throw at the efforts, the faster we'll get there.

        "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

        by chuco35 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:01:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hope so (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hungrycoyote, TDDVandy, oceanview

          But there's an outside chance that as Democrats get stronger in TX, Republicans get stronger in aging industrial states like MI, PA, and maybe even NJ.  Hope not, but it's something we'll have to be on guard for.  

          •  Most political science theory (0+ / 0-)

            accepts that in a two-party system, the parties float around 50-50 equilibrium, sometimes with temporary moves toward one party or the other that generally don't last.

            For example, Reagan was able to pick off some of the Democrats' traditional blue-collar base, but it ultimately came at the expense of some more traditional Rockefeller Republican types.

            There is some danger that as the Democratic Party caters more to Latinos, they'll lose some other base voters.  And, of course, the Republicans will eventually adapt -- right now they are, of course, insane, but will start to moderate once "permanent minority party" starts flying in their face.

            28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

            by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:23:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Health Care will spur registration and turnout (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TDDVandy, oceanview

      I think Perry will hand us a gift by refusing the new Medicaid provision. I am sure that a large number of the 2.7 million unregistered eligible Latino/a citizens could make use of that help.

      It probably will be felt in 2014 and 2016, but the issue of health care is what will turn Texas purple, then blue.

      "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

      by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope so, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    then again, I really don't want to know.

    It's much better to sweat it some and make sure we've got all the possible voters voting.

    ***Be Excellent To One Another***
    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

    by potatohead on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:29:42 PM PDT

  •  alternate hypothesis: an institutional MSM bias & (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury

    CT for push/putsch polling where the RW will concoct an October surprise

    But the poll does underscore a long-held theory about this election, which I have written on in the past as well as others (I have seen PPP's Tom Jensen note it, as well). The theory is that the national polling numbers, which have been in tossup territory for much of the Spring, actually are overstating the case for Mitt Romney's electability.

    This theory is based on a few assumptions:

    1. Because of minimal campaigning by either candidate, and the general voter malaise apparent in much of the polling to date, the president will still easily carry the blue states he won in 2008, but perhaps by slightly depressed margins.
    2. Because of minimal campaigning by either candidate, general voter malaise, and terrain that was already hostile to begin with, the president is going to lose the red states that weren't particularly competitive in 2008, and quite possibly by more substantial margins.
    3. The swing states, meanwhile, and notably, will behave much as they did in 2008. There may be some slight depression in the numbers (again, that voter malaise thing), but because the president and his campaign will put maximum effort into these states, both in defending his record and assaulting Mitt Romney's record, the needle will not move as dramatically here.

    slutty voter for a "dangerous president"; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare." 政治委员, 政委!

    by annieli on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:30:08 PM PDT

  •  Romney peak (9+ / 0-)

    I think there's a a good chance that Romney is at or near his peak now.  The Republicans who didn't like him in the primaries are coming home - resigning themselves to supporting him, and it's still early so he hasn't done too much to re-offend them - but he will.  
    High-water Romney vs a likable president with real accomplishments  who is really starting to campaign including forcing Romney to get specific on healthcare.  With some good debate performances and, we hope, no external disasters President Obama's lead should grow.

    •  You don't think a convention/veep bump is coming? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpamNunn, TDDVandy

      That usually happens, then it settles down again until the debates.

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:37:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Temporary, perhaps. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Supavash

        The convention bump is not normally lasting; but even then, you may see some downward Romney trajectory before that such that the convention bump would basically get him back to where he is now.

        28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

        by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:07:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is an "I Like Ike" election. (20+ / 0-)

    Obama will win because he's more likable than Romney...by a country mile.

    He's a competent, scandal-free (Fast & Furious is boring the public to tears, plus it's not a scandal), smart, hip and perennially-optimistic-yet-realistic president whom people like and respect.

    Obama wins, even in the tough economy.

    And I, for one, look forward to the right-wing freakout when it happens.

    -

    •  Yeah, but you forgot, he'll win because... (5+ / 0-)

      ...he's shown he's a winner-leader, killing Osama, beating the Republicans on ACA, clean as wet marble make you feel good.

      Ya know, the image thing you have up there.

      "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

      by chuco35 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:07:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most of the Obama "scandals" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bill in Portland Maine

      are only scandalous to people who live and breathe Fox News.

      Fox is the only one who's making a big deal about Fast and Furious, Solyndra, etc.  To Fox, those are on the level of Watergate; to the rest of the public, they're minor screwups at best.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:08:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So much for the centrist "wisdom" that we should (17+ / 0-)

    have left Bain Capital alone. For once, Democrats have gone for the jugular...

    ...and it's working!

    "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

    by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:39:11 PM PDT

    •  Yep. n/t (7+ / 0-)

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:41:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  -- If They Can Scrape Up the Money to Run Ads (4+ / 0-)

      after July on that, as a result of the message.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:21:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. I'm a bit worried about what happens (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote, StellaRay, TDDVandy

        when that SuperPAC money from the GOP starts to arrive in force.

        "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

        by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:26:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I honestly think we are overly concerned about $$$ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TDDVandy, Supavash

          Will it have an impact? Yes. But if I see a commercial 50 times a day, does seeing it 100 times a day make me believe it anymore? They can buy add time from now til the election, but there are a very very small number of people that are going to be convinced to vote for Romney that were previously going to vote for Obama.

          •  You'd think so, but it ends up working differently (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay, TDDVandy

            for low-information voters. Saturation works -- and when a deceptive account of an issue is aired a hundred times more than a more accurate account, it works into voter minds enough to change things by a few points. It's worked before, and the money behind Romney knows it could work again.

            "A man doesn't save a century, or a civilization, but a militant party wedded to a principle can." - Adlai E. Stevenson

            by Zutroy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:59:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Darn tootin' it works. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rosarugosa, TDDVandy, dfong63, Supavash

              Just ask all the major players in advertising who you see on your TV every single night.  Furthermore, broadcast advertising WORKS ON REPETITION.  The more you play it, the better it sells, even if you're personally sick of this ad or that ad.

              Is there a point of diminishing returns?  Yes, but it's a lot further down the road then you'd think.  You are, imo, correct when you say essentially, that political advertising can be like "the big lie," the more you say it, the truer it gets.

              Money is going to be a very BFD in this election, and with the super pacs, Romney's going to have more.  MUCH MORE, if current numbers are any indication.  The Obama campaign will have to be VERY smart about how and where they spend their money.

    •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Supavash

      Populism ftw.

      The DLC types (Cory Booker, etc.) don't like it because they're in Wall Street's pocket, but most of the Democratic base was aching for Obama to go hard after Mitt's record at Bain.

      Oddly enough, Mitt's Mormon faith probably takes the Rev. Wright attacks off the table as well.  Mitt absolutely does not want to go there -- it would only serve to give Dems an excuse to talk about some of the stuff the Mormon Church believes.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good analysis, although it would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TDDVandy

    be nice to see greater emphasis given to caveats. I can think of two in particular:

    First, national polls are far more reliable than state polls at this point, since their greater frequency enables the calculation of more robust averages. Still, when you put all of the swing states together, you're probably on to something.

    Second, the national character of the race won't gel until after the conventions. I wouldn't be surprised to see the over-cycle swing discrepancy between swing states and the rest of the country lessen once everyone is paying attention. As scholars have shown, state swing has become more uniform over the last few presidential cycles, and I've heard no theories, backed by actual evidence, as to why this cycle would be different.    

    You are reading my signature line. #hashtag

    by cardinal on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:44:41 PM PDT

  •  '08 primaries and election were understated (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hungrycoyote, JanL, Fury

    the primaries saw about a 2% more result than polls for Obama

    and the election against mcshame also saw the results being higher than the polling but I can't remember by how much

    PPP was the closest with polling each time

  •  A hypothesis that might explain the swing-state - (7+ / 0-)

    red-state disparities in polls is that we are advertising a great deal in the swing states giving voters more negative images of Romney.

    While in the red-states, and many others,  the swing voters are getting a much bigger dose of the raging right Obama haters at social functions like church, work, etc.  I've seen groups of retired men early in the morning at MacDonalds, or diners where a few will hold court angrily deriding Democrats, and Obama, and framing the daily news in ways our average Democrat would never dream of doing.

    Fortunately, for us, the late night comedians seems to still be ripping Mitt to shreds.  I've become a regular of David Letterman just to see the daily monoloque riffing on Romney.  

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:57:28 PM PDT

  •  media (7+ / 0-)

    is about selling,  they will spin this as a horse race in order to create drama and ratings.  Our media doesnt give a shit about truth.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:05:36 PM PDT

  •  Missouri should also be on the swing state list. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, sebastianguy99, JanL, TDDVandy, Matt Z

    Obama only lost it by 0.14% in '08.  Ras shows Romney way ahead, but PPP has Obama slightly ahead.  I expect Mo to be close again, and it could be this year's Indiana.  

    It won't be the "tipping point" state for Obama, but we can make Romney play defense there.  

  •  I think you're right...at the moment (0+ / 0-)

    Because stupid people are so sure they're smart, they often act smart, and sometimes even smart people are too stupid to recognize that the stupid people acting smart really ARE stupid.

    by ZedMont on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:07:58 PM PDT

  •  Next Friday's jobs numbers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Fury, Supavash

    That will be important.

  •  Wishful thinking. Assume they will come hard and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL

    fight hard back.  That's the only sure way to win.

    You don't need to firebomb Dresden to prove that you can fly the plane.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:15:52 PM PDT

  •  Michigan (6+ / 0-)

    I think something is really wrong in Michigan.  It seems like the bad times have really caused people to turn to religion for comfort, and a lot of middle-class educated people just decided to move away to another state with better economic opportunities.  I'm getting a way different vibe here that I've gotten in a long time.

    •  The brain drain in MI is really bad... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TDDVandy

      Lots of smart and young folks moving out.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:28:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the real story in the Midwest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TDDVandy

      and Great Lakes this election, unfortunately.  A lot of economic conservative Democrats are giving up and flipping, long term Republican trend due to the young leaving.

      I think Michigan and Minnesota will squeak by for Obama with maybe 52% this time.  Illinois, 55-57%.  But Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin...there's a lot of wishful thinking going on around here.

      •  Obama will kill in Illinois. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        killjoy

        No doubt.  Illinois at least has Chicago to bring talented young people in.

        28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

        by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:14:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Defeatist Attitudes Are Ridiculous (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, AAMOM, loretta, suzq

        You know what Midwesterners hate?  Vulture capitalists and offshoring jobs.  That's how Granholm won her last election against Dick DeVos, for example.  It's why Sherrod Brown is kicking ass and taking names in Ohio.  It's why the President has a surprisingly large and consistent lead in Ohio, where they're airing non-stop ads (I was just there for a weekend, watched maybe an hour or two of network TV, saw six Obama ads).

        Giving up on Michigan because a series of rough polls with ridiculous samples (like Romney winning 1/5 of the black vote in one poll; or 3% of the populace being 18-30 and 16% being 18-50 while the black vote is undersampled by half... and Obama STILL leads that poll) is the same defeatist bullshit we see from Democrats, especially coastal ones, all the time.  This state has voted for Democrats for 20 years and has two Democratic Senators who are fairly progressive.  Obama hasn't done anything here, while there's been a ton of corporate bullshit on the airwaves.  And still if you look at the reputable pollsters, he's got a good sized lead.  Hell, even if you throw Rasmussen in there, he's up 8.  The close poll you see from Marist has the President +6 in approval and +11 in favorable.  He's fine.

        Hell, even some of the hilariously sampled pro-Romney polls, if you then just remind them "Hey, Romney wanted to let Detroit bail" suddenly Obama wins again.

        Amazing.

        •  ugh (0+ / 0-)

          The Obama Defeatism Police rides again.  Look, trying to keep up morale is fine.  But there has to be a more realistic, which in the present means pessimistic, outlook for the eventuality that Obama does lose.  This being in part The Reality Based Community here.

          There was no suggestion of 'giving up on Michigan' this election here, just of it no longer being realistic to have expectations of getting the 54%ish vote share that national Democrats used to get in Michigan.  I'd say it's a true swing state in perhaps 2016 or 2020.  As for history and trends, it has a Republican state government and doesn't seem to be about to shed it and Republicans are net gaining on the U.S. House level.  The Senate races are maybe not as competitive but the margins of victory in them are certainly not increasing- Michiganders approve of Levin and Stabenow as their Senators, but impersonally and conditionally.   As a longer term elections watcher and analyzer than you probably are, and with interests greater than whether Obama wins or loses,

          I don't want to beat up on the analysis of numbers you bring and the effort to console ourself that they have errors that support your hopes.  But that's only a fashionable way of doing it at present.  With a particular set of assumptions about Undecideds and pollsters that rely on 2008ish realities.  

          In 2004 the Undecideds all went Republican on Election Day.  That was an election decided by defection of the last once reliable Democratic voters who were right/conservative on national security.  These had been wobbly for Democrats roughly since 1996; their ambivalence and partial turnout for Gore gave us the debacle in 2000.  In 2004 Kerry made the best he could with the hand he was dealt on 9/11, Tora Bora, the WMD lying, and AbuGhraib, but despite their  long teasing Kerry with prospects of victory the last of these voters walked away at the ballot box.

          We have a fairly similar problem on our hands this election, just with formerly reliable Democratic voters who are right/conservative on economic policy.  We have a fundamental 48% Obama-43% Romney national baseline and 8% Undecideds/swing voters.  Look closely at those 8% and they are economic conservative people who have leaned and voted Democratic until recently.  They voted for Obama in 2008, in fact they were enthusiastic about him.  They're generally white and most concentrated north of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers.

          It's true that where the Obama campaign is advertising heavily the members of this 8% feel pushed or pulled to side with Obama.  He's a very likeable person and Bain Capital was/is an amoral operator.  But again, in 2004 swing voters found excuses to vote against Kerry, who they admitted to be the far better person, and to ignore much of the Bush record.  The truth of the 2004 election overriding all the others turned out to be very simple: The People wanted Bush to serve out his war(s).  That led to a similar simple truth in 2008, which was to end the war(s).

          In 2012 the truth the election will manifest is about the economy.  We know two relevant facts.  One, the swing voters do not approve of Pres. Obama's handling of the economy.  Two, the results of the 2010 election saw many or most economic conservative Democrats in elected state and federal office lose reelection.  These had survived many previous Republican wave elections.  The best guess of what happened would be that they were previously elected with the crucial support of economic conservatives who were willing to vote Democratic.  But in 2010, no longer.

          I can't know for certain what will happen this November.  You may be right in the big picture.  But it's a good idea to keep in mind and respect the reasonable models that would explain a Republican victory.  It would be useful for understanding what follows and figuring out what to do next.

        •  Defeatist bullshit from costal Democrats? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm posting this from where I was raised, right here in Washtenaw county Michigan.  I'm talking about how I'm noticing the facebook posting of my long-term friends taking on more and more religious and right-wing political tones.  I'm talking about how our state government has been completely taken over by radical right-wing interests and no one even seems to care.  

          You can sit there and pretend that everything is hunky-dory if you want to.  Go right ahead.  Obama will probably carry Michigan this fall.  But something is wrong here.   Things are dramatically changing for the worse, at least in the short term.   Will they swing back?  I don't know, but I suspect they won't if we just sit on our hands and do nothing.

  •  National Polls Are Overstating It Because Most (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tasini, dfong63

    of the Citizens United air war tonnage is still 2 months from arriving at target audiences.

    Best estimate of Obama's prospects is 1/3 the margin of national polls.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:23:39 PM PDT

  •  332-206 map... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crystalboy, Matt Z, TofG

    ...or cartogram, more precisely:

  •  I think the Repugs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury, rosarugosa

    will be much more motivated for this election. The SCOTUS ACA decision isn't going away for them. The "excitement" factor is gone for the President. The highly unreliable youth vote won't there like it was in 2008. That's the bad news. The good news is he's running against a man  no one could imagine having a beer with.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:26:47 PM PDT

    •  the youth were driven away by the left (0+ / 0-)

      the excitement for the president was enough to sustain them through the abuse they got from the right in 2008, but not through the abuse they got from the left starting in 2009

      June 28th, 2012 - a good day

      by Anton Bursch on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:48:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Abuse from the left? Like what? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rosarugosa, Asak

        36, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

        by Mike in MD on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:29:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  like being ridiculed and belittled constantly (0+ / 0-)

          when those youth attempted to engage with the left they were treated the exact same way that the right treats the left.  they were called koolaid drinkers, obamabots, etc.  the left spoke about the President as if he were an impotent, clueless idiot at best and a corrupted, brazen villian at worst.  the venom and hate from the left toward the president and his young supporters was as disturbing as it was generally disingenuous.  MOST of the left who talked like Obama had personally betrayed them have flip flopped on the President so they can win the next election.  they actually believe that treating the president like shit will get him to do what they want.  if he is reelected, they will go right back to treating him like shit.  as for those who were actually nuts and genuinely hated the president, well, they still scream like they are losing their minds about how the president is a cold blooded baby killer.   both groups make youth people think that politics and political activists are assholes(even if well meaning) and/or loons.  sometimes i have a hard time disagreeing with them.

          June 28th, 2012 - a good day

          by Anton Bursch on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 10:56:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand now. (0+ / 0-)

            I agree that too many of those who you define as left (the purity trolls, holier-than-thou "we're more purely progressive and know better than Obama or you" types, etc.) were too belitting of Obama and his supporters.  There have been many diaries and comments on this site that are proof of that.  But I don't think they will alienate younger voters, or anyone else, from voting for Obama in any major way.

            36, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

            by Mike in MD on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  They were driven away because Obama didn't deliver (0+ / 0-)

        The Bush years sucked and the youth were facing hard times and hoping for a change.  But, let's be honest, things haven't gotten a lot better in the last 4 years.  

        There's no reason at this point to be especially optimistic that another 4 years for Obama are going to result in a major transformation.  

        Even looking at it from a logical standpoint, rather than emotional as most voters would, the simple fact is with the GOP controlling Congress jack shit is going to get done.  We'll get another extension of the Bush tax cuts, and...  well, that's probably about it.  

        Our government is paralyzed right now.  We really need to win back the House and hold the Senate.  In any other scenario, Obama is basically just a block for the Republican agenda.  He won't be able to get anything done himself.  

        I really think the next 4 years are basically going to suck.  We're in pretty deep shit at this point in terms of actually pushing a progressive agenda.  

        •  you mistake the youth for the left (0+ / 0-)

          the youth weren't expecting the president to deliver what progressives wanted from the president

          youth wanted the iraq war ended - check
          youth wanted support for gays - check and check and check
          youth wanted help with health care - check
          youth wanted a president who wasn't an ideological asshole - CHECK

          all the shit that the left has been dreaming of for decades was never in the minds of the youth

          June 28th, 2012 - a good day

          by Anton Bursch on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:06:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Now that the ACA ruling has come out and (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fury, TDDVandy, Matt Z, Supavash, TofG

      the law has been declared constitutional, I think more people are starting to wake up and realize that the Republicans are full of crap when they keep up the rallying cry for repeal. So many people just heard that Obamacare is bad, without ever knowing what's actually in it. Now that the law is going to continue to be rolled out, people are starting to learn what's in it and amazingly, finding out it's they actually like it.

      For the last few days I've been reading a lot of diaries by people who've had encounters with the negative, and turned it around by actually explaining what's in the law. I've been doing it myself on FB when one of my right-wing friends posts a negative link.

      Reframing the "mandate" as a "tax on freeloaders" seems to resonate. Also, listing the benefits of the law helps too. This link seems to be one of the best to Explain Obama Cares in a way that people are starting to get it.

      For me, Mitt reminds me of Jeff Bridges in Starman. He's like an alien that hasn't read the entire manual. You know, he's going, "Nice to be in a place where the trees are the right size." -- Robin Williams on Letterman 26 Apr 2012

      by hungrycoyote on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:57:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote, Matt Z, Supavash

        The right thinks Roberts just handed them a silver bullet by saying the ACA was a tax (really, Roberts said the ACA was constitutional under Congress's power to tax), but they're really overestimating the number of anti-tax fetishists out there.

        28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

        by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:17:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  George Will prety much conceded the election (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hungrycoyote, Fury, TDDVandy, Matt Z, Supavash, TofG

    this morning when he said that bottom line, the more likable person has always won in the last 50 years.

  •  We could have 3-4 months of bad jobs reports. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crystalboy, Fury, TDDVandy, Supavash, TofG

    Miracle of miracles, Obama could still pull this off but this could wind up making this race razor-thin by the time we get to the election.  We could need every ounce of commitment and energy and money and willpower to see this to the end.

    I didn't last time, but I may wind up knocking on doors in Nevada. And I live in California. Phone banking and sending every bit of spare change I have might not be enough for me this time.

    I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

    by Wildthumb on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:42:47 PM PDT

    •  No one is paying attention to the jobs report (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hungrycoyote, Supavash, TofG

      They are more concerned about whether they can put food on the table for their kids than the total number of people added to the logging industry in the past month. What people will care about is "Insurance rebate checks will be arriving in August".

      •  Right along with the... (0+ / 0-)

        ...we are no longer writing individual health insurance polices and will not be renewing existing policies because of "Obamacare" notes...

        Don't underestimate the insurance companies.

  •  Possibly (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, Fury, TDDVandy, Supavash

    From the NBC/Wall St poll:

    Also in these swing states, Romney’s favorability numbers have dropped, possibly reflecting the toll the negative Obama TV advertisements are having on the former Massachusetts governor in these battlegrounds.
    I suppose this media narrative is possible.  But it's also entirely possible that voters in these swing states have had ample opportunities to see Romney up close and personal for more than a year (as he has campaigned almost exclusively in these states) and voters simply don't like what they see and hear.

    Of course it's all conjecture because apparently the pollsters didn't bother to ask why those responding to their poll had an unfavorable opinion of Romney.

  •  What might be interesting (0+ / 0-)

    would be to compare polling 2008 to polling now.  The relationship between these two should similar to the relationship between the outcome in 2008 to the outcome this November.

  •  National polls, while interesting... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury, licorice114, Supavash

    Are of almost no value.

    When you look at the states that Obama will carry and add the states that Obama is likely to carry, the math doesn't work out (in ANY way) for Romney.

    Romney has to flip at least 5 significant states in order to win.

    The only way for something like that to happen is if Obama has some kind of scandal or the economy totally tanks.

    Which makes me worry about the House in these next 4 months.  republicans are just desperate enough to attempt to tank the economy for political gain.

    •  imagine a young latino willie horton (0+ / 0-)

      we've all seen the news stories about the undocumented latino HS valedictorian.  but suppose the rightwing dug up some guillermo horton type.  could that turn voters sour on obama's immigration EO?

      and speaking of the youth vote, if i were a young voter i might be less than enthusiastic about 800,000 - to - 1.4 million added competitors for the few and precious entry-level jobs.

  •  Everything in the end will converge, always does (0+ / 0-)
  •  Just remember this figure folks - (7+ / 0-)

    Despite a poor economy Obama is actually polling much better (and more consistently) than Bush was at this point in the cycle in 2004.

    I'm from Australia but this would be my assessment as an outsider based on these numbers - if people were definitely going to kick Obama out, it would be far more obvious in polling by now. I think people are leaning towards Obama but given how bad things are, they haven't fully made up their mind.

    It's a good place to be but you can't be complacent. Obama is leading but Romney is very much in the game. Ground game matters, so get off your bum and start campaigning. We're rooting for you down here in Oz!

    •  Bush very well could have lost... (0+ / 0-)

      And had the election been even six months later, I believe that he would have.  So, it's good to be doing better than Bush, but not entirely reassuring.  

    •  Well, yeah. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Supavash

      As much as the Republicans would like to say the poor economy is Obama's fault, a lot of people still recognize that Bush's bad policy is still to blame for the economic malaise, not to mention there are a LOT of things going on that are completely outside of Obama's control (say, the Eurozone happenings) that are dragging down the economy.

      I seem to remember, though, that it wasn't obvious that voters were going to kick Jimmy Carter out until a couple of weeks before the election.

      28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

      by TDDVandy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:20:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  uncharted territory (0+ / 0-)

    no matter what the polls say now, the bottom line is that the election could still go either way.  even obama supporters less than enthusiastic over a lot that he has done or not done.  never has there been this much money, with so few restrictions on how it can be spent.  never has the press been weaker in its ability to keep the campaigns honest.  on top of that, the haters have spent the last few years whipping up as much covert racism as they possibly can.   the biggest unknown is the economy, which isn't great.  a serious economic downturn (or perceived downturn) could sway enough swing voters to give romney the win.  if things continue smoothly, obama looks good to win.  but how likely is that?  the rightwing has plenty of money to amplify any misstep on obama's part into a catastrophe.  obama is walking a tightrope, while the repubs lob cherrybombs at him.

  •  Indiana? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG

    "If you factor in Indiana (where he would also lose, in all probability, according to polls)"

    FWIW - For the last 4 weeks the Obama campaign has been running cable TV ads in Louisville, KY. If it works like broadcast TV, this would also reach a big chunk of Southern Indiana across the Ohio River. I can't imagine Obama spending TV money to reach Kentucky. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Southern Indiana cable systems, or how cable TV advertising works, and I don't know if these ads are running across the river.

    "Free market" simplified - if you buy a product and it kills you, you won't buy it again - no government needed.

    by tomwfox on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:27:16 PM PDT

  •  Any polls before... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the surprising to all (on both sides if the logic of "why" is considered -- NO one saw it coming down the way it did) SCOTUS decision on the PPACA are useless.

    I don't know for sure how this falls out (I suspect it hurts Obama but that depends on how Obama and Romney play it out - Romney has proven himself to be pretty stupid), but I'm sure all polls taken before, perhaps, late next week, are meaningless.

  •  How is partisan shift calculated? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AAMOM

    I noticed it says Michigan has shifted 12.9% to the GOP.  Where did that come from?  Obama will win Michigan by greater than 5%, hands down.  Too bad mostly rightwing and Republican outfits are polling in Michigan giving the impression R Money has a chance in a state he wanted to go bankrupt.

  •  The Midwestern Weakness Is A Concern (0+ / 0-)

    If the GOP peels off states that that Obama won by 6% or less,  Obama would still win. In order, from Obama's narrowest wins first.
    CD In Nebraska.
    Indiana
    North Carolina
    Florida
    Ohio
    Virginia
    That would leave Obama with 272. The next state is Colorado, which Obama won by 8%. If they are able to peel off a Iowa (9% win), Wisconsin (13% win) or Michigan (16%win) it would be trouble.

    Think we have the better candidate persona wise who can make the case better. If the economy continues to muddle along or gets a tad better, I think Obama will win narrowly. If the economy declines I think Romney will get a narrow victory. My concern is Congress. Obama can win and GOP could keep the House and get the Senate. I am convinced they will not be shy about getting rid of the filibuster. In that case you would like to think that GOP overreaching could be an issue in 2014. But if the Democrats can not make that a winning issue in 2012, don't know if 2014 will be any better.

  •  Swiss bank accts - why are u hiding tax returns? (0+ / 0-)

    Gingrich and others made progress against Mittens on the subject of his secret foreign bank accounts in Switzerland and Cayman Islands.  Megarich Mitt and Mrs. Mitt were parking millions in foreign bank accounts when US banks were going down the tubes, needed deposits and capital and Bush was bailing them out. Why?  Mitt still refuses to disclose his prior year tax returns?  Why? What's he got to hide?  Struggling white voters, older voters on fixed incomes struggling - beat the drumbeat of the Swiss bank accounts and the suspicious undisclosed prior year tax returns and those voters will NOT vote for Mitt.  They may vote for Obama or perhaps better stay home (meaning they also do not vote for the Rs for Senate and Congress).  Relatively cheap billboards (cheap compared to tv) on common commuting routes that voters use to and from work or to and from football games in State College, PA, Columbus, OH, Ann Arbor, MI, Madison, WI, FL, AZ, NC, CO and VA, etc. could drive home that theme daily (and cheaply):

    Romney a tax cheat?
    Swiss bank accounts
    Why is he hiding his tax returns?

    Suburban whites commuting to work would see such billboards every day and the message would sink in.  I'd put them on I-95 and the Schulykill Expressway commutes to Philadelphia and the commutes to Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Reading, Erie, Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre, and the roads leading to State College, PA for football games (108,000 every home game, most of whom drive there and back).  Cheap media - billboards.

  •  ATTENTION, MEDIA: (0+ / 0-)

    Pennsylvania is not a swing state. #justsaying

  •  If Obama wins (0+ / 0-)

    Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa, he will be re-elected even if he loses FLA.

    E Pluribus Unum does NOT mean "every man for himself"

    by Daddy Love on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 07:32:33 AM PDT

  •  4:09PM Eastern Time 7/2/12 (0+ / 0-)

    & CNN offers that in the battle ground states Romney leads" ???

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site