It seems like everyone in the media is saying the election is going to be close. That appears to be the prevailing conventional wisdom, and I'd say it's shared by the majority of people on this site. It's a belief that I shared as well until a few short minutes ago.
I was reading this article by Five Thirty Eight's Nate Silver, in which he discusses how President Obama appears to have received a fairly substantial bounce from his convention. It's an interesting (and encouraging article) and you should read it for yourself.
In any case, I was reading the article with interest, but mostly I was just taking in the information without comment. It all seemed to make sense and, after all, I'm no expert on reading polls.
But then I got to this part:
Instead, the cases where one candidate led essentially from wire to wire have been associated with landslides: Bill Clinton in 1996, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Richard Nixon in 1972 and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.
There is almost no chance that Mr. Obama will win by those sort of margins.
When I read that, a light bulb went off in my head. "Really? Why not?" I couldn't help asking myself.
The polling trends are shaping up in such a way that they resemble past landslide victories, but it's still going to be a close election? Everyone keeps saying this is going to be a close election, and I believed that myself. But really, why are we all so certain of that? Because the economy's bad? Because the Republicans won big in 2010? Because of the hatred the right feels for President Obama?
The more I thought about it, the more I couldn't help wondering if this is one of those times where the statistics paint a very clear picture, but our own personal biases prevent us from seeing it. Maybe, just maybe, the conventional wisdom is wrong, and this isn't going to be a close election after all.
This election is about more than just Obama.
It seems like the Republicans' belief this cycle has been that the economy would basically hand them the election. Romney's strategy so far has been essentially to criticize President Obama, without offering up any concrete plans of his own. This was reflected in the Republican convention, which resembled nothing more than an extended negative campaign commercial.
But let's say there are plenty of people out there who aren't sold on Obama. The economy hasn't been great. They haven't seen any real improvements in their lives. Even the whole health care thing: they've heard a lot of scary stuff about it, and so far they haven't noticed any real changes for the better. For whatever reason they're willing to look at someone else.
There's just one problem...
It's about Romney, too.
So far, Romney hasn't even managed to make a case for himself, let alone close the deal. He came out of his convention with absolutely no bounce whatsoever. In fact, there is even an argument to be made that he ended up with a negative bounce or, as I like to call it, a thud.
Coming out of your convention without a bounce, and without holding the lead isn't just bad, it's catastrophically bad. Even Presidential contenders who have lost have held leads after their convention. McCain did. Kerry did. Bush did (yes, I still count 2000 as a loss for W, despite the Supreme Court's unjust intervention). This is all up there in Nate Silver's article.
If this is really going to be a close election, then based on the historical record, Romney should have held at least a small lead after his convention, and he should also have been in the lead at least a few times over the course of the campaign. Based on the historical record, never being in the lead, even if you're only behind by a couple of points, doesn't usually imply a close loss, it suggests an eventual very bad loss.
People just didn't like what they saw.
So, why is it supposed to be close again? That's right, it's a "closely divided electorate", and "most people have already made up their minds". That was the justification for why Romney didn't get a bounce from his convention. However, in light of the fairly substantial bounce Obama now appears to have received from the Democratic convention, that explanation no longer appears to hold water.
Instead I'd suggest a different interpretation: Maybe people were willing to consider Romney, but when they tuned into the Republican convention they just didn't like what they saw. They didn't like it at all.
There are other reasons to believe this, too. Romney's approval ratings have been abysmal this entire cycle. Polling has shown that more Americans view him unfavorably than favorably. And worse than that, he's never had positive approval ratings going back to before he became the defacto Republican nominee. You have to go quite a ways back to find positive aggregate approval ratings for him.
What's more, we can see some additional evidence in the swing state polling. The numbers in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan have never been as close as the national numbers. Obama has always held a healthy lead in the swing states, which incidentally are the places that have actually seen campaign advertisements and hosted campaign events. The national numbers have definitely not reflected the realities of the electoral college, but they may have also have been providing a misleading picture of the electorate in general. In the last few elections, Ohio has been about 2% more Republican than the nation at large, so if Obama is really up by high single digits in Ohio that would suggest a large national victory, even a possible landslide.
The Republican party has managed to piss everyone off.*
*Everyone non-white, and non-male, at least.
The historical polling trends make an argument, perhaps the most persuasive argument, of why this election may not end up being that close. The two conventions contrasted the theme of the two political parties and their candidates. One generated a bounce, and the other generated a thud. People just don't like Romney.
But beyond that let me give you a few more reasons to at least suspect this election might surprise to the upside. To begin with, demographics are not in the Republicans' favor. Because of the changing face of the American public, winning with the white vote alone is no longer an easy task. To just squeak out a bare win, Romney has to carry a share of the white vote similar to that carried by Reagan in his landslide victory in 1984!
Compounding that, for the last few years the Republicans have doubled down on trying to piss off and/or scare off anyone who is not white, and not male. They've declared war on women, Latinos, and they've continued the ever-present racist dog whistles against African Americans, which date back to the time of Nixon.
As a result, polls have consistently shown Romney doing poorly with women. He's losing Latinos by 26% to 65%. He's also managed to make news for polls showing zero support among black voters (apparently Herman Cain and Alan Keyes didn't answer the phone). And let's not forget Romney's disastrous choice of Paul "Vouchercare" Ryan as his V.P. candidate. How well is that going to go over with seniors?
The wrong candidate for this cycle. (Or any cycle?)
And then there's Romney's other problem: he's no Ronald Reagan. Romney seems to have developed a liking for the taste of expensive shoe leather, because he can't open his mouth without sticking his foot in it. He's consistently struck out when faced with "gimme questions" lobbed straight over the plate. He can't help insulting people. He's awkward in interviews and can't seem to think on his feet. It's a challenge to find even one or two positions he hasn't changed. His campaign seems to be incredibly ineptly run. I could go on...
But perhaps Romney's biggest flaw is that Romney-bot v.2012 just isn't an appealing candidate. He's basically a rich white guy who made money running companies into the ground, who is now running to cut his own taxes. Being rich is not a bar to elected office, far from it, in fact. But if you're rich, you can't just run as a rich guy on a platform of helping other rich guys. Even if that's your real goal, you have to sugar coat it somehow!
At least Romney v.2008 could have plausible presented himself as a moderate, who wanted to improve people's lives by reforming health care. Now with that off the table, what sort of inspiring story does Romney have to convince people to vote for him? Well, I think the facts so far speak for themselves.
So it's a close election, right?
Obviously, it remains to be seen what the result of this election will ultimately be. I'm not suggesting that Obama has it in the bag, and, even if he does, we still need to run up the score in order to hold the Senate and take back the House.
It could end up being a close election. Stranger things have happened than even a Romney win-- they just haven't happened very often. But, for myself, at least, I will no longer be surprised if when all's said and done the election turns out to not be that close.
If Obama's bounce holds up then that could be the first sign of what's to come.