2012: Obama Landslide Repeated?

An interesting read.

Excerpt:
There are six weeks to go. In 2004, John Kerry made up about 4 points in the polls between late September and election day. In 2000, George W. Bush gained a similar amount of ground between the conventions and November. Since 1968, Sean Trende points out, in presidential races featuring an incumbent president, the polls have moved an average of 3.7 points toward the challenger between the incumbent’s convention and the actual vote.

As of this writing, Romney trails in the RealClearPolitics polling average by almost exactly that figure – 3.8 points. He has squandered almost two seasons’ worth of opportunities and allowed his failures as a candidate to eclipse his opponent’s failures as a president. But as he prepares for the debates that offer his last best chance, he has one reason to be hopeful: The case he has failed to make is still there to be made.

Source:
Obama Without Romney By ROSS DOUTHAT
campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com...

Latest Polls Project More Heavily Democratic Electorates Than 2008?

Ohio 2008 exits: 39% Democrat, 31% Republican, 30% Independent.

Ohio New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 35% Democrat, 26% Republican, 35% Independent.

In this sample, the partisan split is D+9 compared to D+8 four years ago, and the GOP is five percentage points smaller than in 2008

Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% Independent.

Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39% Democrat, 28% Republican, 27% Independent.

Somehow a D+7 split has turned into D+11 split, and Republicans’ share of the electorate is nine percentage points less than they were four years ago.

Florida 2008 exits: 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, 29% Independent.

Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.

Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.

This Morning’s Polls Project More Heavily Democratic Electorates Than 2008 By Jim Geraghty
www.nationalreview.com...

2012: Obama Landslide Repeated?

What do you mean .. landslide REPEATED?
Obama didn't get a landslide in 2008.
Obama Election Map 2008

However .. THIS was a 'landslide' -
1984 Ronald Reagan/George Bush election map

I think the first debate is going to bury Romney even deeper.

I think Romney did in fact have a good shot about 6 months ago. All he had to do was not do everything he has done. The guy has basically handed Obama re-election. The debates will simply be an extension of this. There is no way that any of his vague answers will suffice in convincing anyone to revert to policies which do nothing but add to the wealthy agenda and destroy the working class. There are not that many Obama haters for it to make a difference.
I think Mitt Romney was the worst choice for 2012. He will get crushed badly.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Any true objective voter should have known the polls were skewed when they "revealed" 0% of blacks support Romney.
These same polls had Carter ahead of Reagan, and the landslide went in the other direction.

Btw, ever wonder why the economy tends to do slightly better when Obama is vacationing, campaigning or golfing?

Interesting comparison from 2008 and 2012. It does almost look the same.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Also Obama does look to be winning in most polls.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Not a landslide, but Obama will win. Of course Romney still has plenty of time to alienate more voters outside of his block.

A panel of astrologers all say Obama will win the election. The problem is they are all DEMOCRATS!

A survey of the astrologers revealed that they were all Democrats. “But that has nothing to do with our predictions… we are basing it on the charts. Charts don’t lie. Obama will win. Guaranteed.”

weeklyworldnews.com...

Meanwhile, if you polled most of the country we'd all agree that the tax payers in general and middle class in particular are landslide losers regardless of who comes out on top in November. This is thanks to, yet again, a bunch of mental midgets and morally crippled idiots occupying all of Washington DC, White House, House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, Agencies, all the way down the chain.

Face it, we're "led" by people who shouldn't be in charge of a hot dog cart, let alone the crown jewel of the once free world.

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Many pollsters this election cycle had oversampled Democrats by an average of +6%.

That is why Obama is going to win right there. More people identify as Democrats than Republicans compared to 4 years ago and Republicans cannot figure out what that means.

That is why Obama will win in a landslide. No one was oversampled. Simple basic math just eludes so many of you.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
A panel of astrologers all say Obama will win the election. The problem is they are all DEMOCRATS!

A survey of the astrologers revealed that they were all Democrats. “But that has nothing to do with our predictions… we are basing it on the charts. Charts don’t lie. Obama will win. Guaranteed.”

weeklyworldnews.com...

What do you contribute around here?
You went to the weekly world news to find an article that adds nothing but an excuse to claim bias?
BatBoy is a libertarian.

Rasmussen Party Affiliation:

2008
Republican Democrat Other R - D Quarterly
Dec 32.8% 41.6% 25.6% -8.8% -7.8%
Nov 33.8% 41.4% 24.7% -7.6%
Oct 33.3% 40.3% 26.4% -7.1%
Sep 33.4% 39.0% 27.6% -5.6% -6.3%
Aug 33.2% 38.9% 28.0% -5.7%
Jul 31.6% 39.2% 29.2% -7.6%
Jun 31.5% 41.0% 27.5% -9.5% -9.9%
May 31.6% 41.7% 26.6% -10.1%
Apr 31.4% 41.4% 27.2% -10.0%
Mar 32.1% 41.1% 26.8% -9.1% -8.1%
Feb 31.8% 41.5% 26.7% -9.7%
Jan 33.1% 38.7% 28.2% -5.6%

2012
Republican Democrat Other R - D Quarterly
Aug 37.6% 33.3% 29.2% 4.3%
Jul 34.9% 34.0% 31.1% 0.9%
Jun 35.4% 34.0% 30.5% 1.4% 1.8%
May 35.7% 33.8% 30.5% 1.9%
Apr 35.1% 33.1% 31.8% 2.0%
Mar 36.4% 33.4% 30.2% 3.0% 3.3%
Feb 36.0% 32.4% 31.6% 3.6%
Jan 35.9% 32.5% 31.6% 3.4%

www.rasmussenreports.com...

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Many pollsters this election cycle had oversampled Democrats by an average of +6%.

That is why Obama is going to win right there. More people identify as Democrats than Republicans compared to 4 years ago and Republicans cannot figure out what that means.

That is why Obama will win in a landslide. No one was oversampled. Simple basic math just eludes so many of you.

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
2008: Obama 53% vs. McCain 47%

It's hard to fathom Obama getting that landslide in 2012. Any thoughts?-

Not to be nitpicky but the popular vote is clearly not the standard for a landslide or mandate from the people. Look at these two examples...

This sir, is a landslide...

What is scary about this picture is that while the winner R. Reagan (peace be upon him) won only 58.0 of the popular vote but won 48 of the possible States in EC votes. Clearly, this man has a mandate.

This is not a landslide...

Even though he won 53% of the popular vote he only carried 29 of the 50 States in EC votes. This is not a clear mandate it is the left and West Coasts dictating for the most part what the flyover States shall do. This is hardly a mandate from the people as Obama likes to sell it. It is a country divided which is why he is getting nothing done.

While I think the electoral college is perhaps the best system for the national vote for POTUS it does scare me a little… You need at least 270 electoral votes to win. The fewest number of states you could win and be POTUS would be 11. That means 20% of the States or so can dictate to the other 80% what they would have to do and their votes would be irrelevant.

The good thing is that a couple of the biggest ones trend to Republican. Those two being Texas and Florida. If those two States ever swing Democrat the rest of the States might as well secede.

BTW The 11 States needed are: Ca-55, Tx-34, Fl-27, Ga-15, Nc-15, NJ-15, Pa-21, Ny-31, Oh-20, Mi-17, Il-17
No other combination of 11 states could give you 270 electoral votes.

The inverse is just as scary a candidate could win 39 states and DC and still lose and probably not even carry the popular vote because of the way the EC votes are apportioned.

All that said; a popular vote would be worse as according to this map….

www.census.gov...

If even half of the people of the State of California, New York, Florida and Texas voted for a certain candidate they could in effect negate 100% of the votes (which is not likely that 100% of a State would vote for one candidate but for the sake of argument bear with me) of more than 15-20 of the other States thus totally making the voices of the people of those States irrelevant. If you add a couple more of the key Dem voting States like IL, and WI etc. it'd be worse. If we switched to a popular vote the liberal States would dictate national policy. (That would be cool then we could all be bankrupt like them).

Anyway once we start writing off States no one will campaign there, listen to or care about the citizen’s wishes for 15-20 of the States. They would become totally irrelevant – who would care about them then in the federal scheme of things? It would be just like in 1860 - the winner a foregone conclusion. We all know how that turned out.

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Rasmussen Party Affiliation:

Rasumussen is being accused of oversampling Democrats?

Your argument is even stupider than the math I replied to. Rasmussen always skews right and is not being accused of asking too many Democrats so the point of listing Rasmussen can only be to further demonstrate that Romney fans cannot read or count.

reply to post by Golf66


Your argument seems to be that just a few "Democratic states" dictate all the elections by having so much say.
So I guess one party always wins?

Originally posted by Alxandro


Btw, ever wonder why the economy tends to do slightly better when Obama is vacationing, campaigning or golfing?

Give me every golf date Obama has ever had and the direct indicators that the economy did better for 4 hours while he was golfing and then suffered again when he put his clubs away.
You truly are....the least interesting man in the world.
Looks like you have run all out of pictures to cut and paste so now you have to talk and when you do, it is so empty and pointless.


But hey, this is a great place to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by spinalremain
I think the first debate is going to bury Romney even deeper.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think it will be the 3rd debate that buries Romney. The first debate is on domestic policy, the second is a town hall style debate on both domestic and foreign policy and the third debate is on foreign policy. Of the numerous weaknesses of Romney, it is foreign policy that he is the most clueless.

Nevertheless, public speaking/debate is Obama's strong suit. If Romney isn't already in the lead, then he is done for.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning at 81.9%, with 316 electoral votes to Romney's 222...

Unless something unforeseen happens, I agree.

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Lots of people are still out of work and WILL NOT be voting Obama this time around.

I don't know where you get your information, but I would think many who are out of work WILL vote for Obama, because they know Romney doesn't give two squirts about them. They are the 47%.

It's Not the Unemployed who are Backing Romney - Opinion

Yet one of the ironies of the 2012 presidential campaign is that the incumbent president has benefited from strong support among many of the constituencies that have been hardest-hit by high unemployment levels, particularly black Americans and Latino Americans.

1. In 2012, the game is much different as Romney is a much more formidable candidate than McCain was in 08.
2. Obama has much weaker support.
3. Republicans are fired up and Romney is focused like a laser, literally.
4. And Democrats have only their black caucuses fired up.

1. Again, I'm not sure why you think Romney is more formidable than McCain. McCain had a nice lead over Obama, several times during the race. That has not been the case with Romney. He has never been ahead, and the gap is widening. McCain was a POW, served his country honorably and had over 20 years experience as a Senator. And McCain has a sense of personal honor that Romney has shown to lack.

2. You obviously don't know about Obama's Ground Game. Which will make 2008's Look Like Jurassic Park

Around September 4th of this year, Jim Messina was quoted in Huffington Post as stating, “The Democratic ground game will make 2008 look like Jurassic Park.” Referencing the technological innovations that the campaign could bring to voter turnout efforts, Messina added: "This is light-years ahead of where we were in 2008.”*

I smiled to myself at the time, knowing what I know has been going on just in my small neighborhood, in my small southern town, in this solidly red state, since May of 2012.

3. Literally focused like a laser, huh? Literally? I don't think that word means what you think it means. In any case, Romney seems more like a bumbling and desperate fool than any kind of "light". His repeated blunders AND his actual on-purpose statements have shown that he is all over the map, trying to find his place.

4. Oh, right. Only black people vote for Obama. And white people with "white guilt"... I almost forgot.

I hope everyone just goes on blindly thinking that Obama is weak, doesn't have the support and won't win this election.

There is the possibility (slight, IMO) that Romney will get VERY low and dirty and convince people that the big Black is too scary to vote for, but I don't think people are buying what he has to sell. We already see Romney's cohorts (Gingrich, Sununu, Trump. etc.) making Obama out to be foreign, un-American, and "one of them"... Will it pay off? I doubt it.

reply to post by alternateuniverse


I disagree on many fronts. The only major polling group with a statistical tie is Rasmussen. Even Gallup now has Obama up +6.

Who wants is most? Romney has been broadly criticized for a lazy campaign lately. After the conventions he went 8 days without a swing state visit and had until yesterday been holding only a few rallies per week. Attendance is low when just Romney appears, so now they have him paired again with Ryan, which limits their reach and reflects how UNENTHUSED the Right is.

Recent polling shows the "enthusiasm gap" in now pretty equal. Romney has done a great job energizing the Democrats. Along with voter suppression efforts, many people are pissed off at the anti-democratic Right and will be sure to make the effort to vote.

Romney focused like a laser? The man is lost right now and really starting to look pathetic on the stump, saying contradictory things in a single paragraph (paraphrase from yesterday: "I'm gonna cut taxes at the individual level for small business because that's how most small businesses pay their taxes. But, by the way, don't expect to pay much less because I am also going to cut loopholes and some deductions"......What the hell does that mean?). He is going back and forth on healthcare - paraphrase again yesterday with ABC reporter, "I made sure all kids are entitled to healthcare in MA, see how empathetic I am?"....five minutes later on the stump, "I'm gonna repeal Obamacare on day because we can't afford another entitlement!"

The man does not know how to focus like a laser. All he does is shotgun and hope he hits something. Meanwhile, where it really counts, on the ground, Obama is killing him with nearly 3x the staffed offices in OH. An interesting news bit came out yesterday that Obama has over 2x the staff in OH, yet have the payroll of Romney. Romney is paying more for less and getting worse results.

I live in FL in the most competitive area -- the Orlando to Tampa corridor area. I've been called by Obama people twice, no robo calls, actual phone bankers. I've not received one call from Romney's people.

Will this election be a blow out? I don't think so, but Obama should win the electoral college by a wide margin and maybe the general election by about 3-4 points. Novices look at the general election numbers. That's useless. It is the electoral college that matters. Romney has almost no realistic path where he can carve out 270 electoral votes. Obama has a great many. Even the most Right biased polls show Romney with a firm grasp on only 191 electoral vote. Most orgs have Obama with at least 238 an that assumes no swing states in his column yet. Look at the leads in OH, PA, WI, CO, NV, FL, IA, VA and NH and do the math. It looks grim for Romney.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Great post. The Right think they can win by anger and anti-Obama vitriol and that's enough. Fortunately for America, the Right are provably ignorant and lazy. As science deniers, they've destroyed their ability to learn how to create and implement complex tactical operations. The Right thinks it can merely abuse, lie and carp from the bleachers. I honestly believe they do not have the intellectual capacity anymore or the ethic to organize and build a ground game like the Democrats.

All those kinds of Republicans have left or been forced from the party and now sit quietly retired (the Bennetts. Snowes, Lugars, et al ad nauseum). Now only dump people are left running the Republican party, except maybe Rove, but all he is doing is running ads, not organizing. Ads will only go so far once voters have a sense of the candidates. Obama is a known quantity. Whatever one can say about him, everyone (save for zealot crazies on the Right) know he is a decent family man, so they don't buy the fictional evil creature the Right has been inventing and trying to sell. The only ones buying are their already in the tank idiot low information voters. (Can you feel my contempt for the Right? You'd be right. What's to respect or admire about them? I don't accord respect for the Taliban either.)

by the way, I had heard of Obama's 3 to 1 offices in OH, but did not know it was near the same in NC. No wonder the NC polls show a clear and steady trend towards blue.