Decision 2012

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I do not anticipate the 2012 election to be similar to the 2008 election. While Obama remains the favorite, his 7.2% margin of victory in the popular vote against McCain four years ago almost certainly won't be repeated. All signs point to a much closer race this time around.

But there is one aspect of the campaign that I find fascinating. Obama, the first black president in history, is essentially running a campaign characterizing Romney as the "outsider", the "other", the "not like you candidate". It essentially is the identical tactic we saw eight years ago when Bush ran against Kerry. And needless to say, it worked. That said, I'm not so sure it will be as effective this time around.

I find it equal parts fascinating and ironic. Who would have ever thought that you'd see that type of strategy painting the far more traditional Romney as the guy who's way too different from the common man to elect him? The similarities to 2004 are striking though - rich white milquetoast candidate from Massachusetts that seems to have difficulty really inspiring his base. And Obama hasn't even touched upon his religion. Given Obama's history at Trinity - and that a non-insignificant percentage of the population thinks he might be a Muslim - that is probably a wise decision.

That said, I also find some parts of Romney's campaign curious as well. A major plank in his stump speech thus far has been the repealing of Obamacare. IMO, Romney was the worst possible choice fo a candidate to attack Obama on those grounds, as the plan he put in place in Massachusetts (which incidentally has among the best medical results in the nation) is very similar to the federal plan. To give Romney some credit, he has stayed away from social issues for the most part, and the longer he can do that, the better. The only social issue where Romney would seem strong is on education. Massachusetts has consistently ranked in the top three nationally for the past 15 years, with many times finishing first overall. Obviously, that time frame covers his time as governor in the state.

So what does everyone else think about the strategies we have seen up to this point?

[LKD]

As I have said before, the strategies are pointless. Romney has no chance of unseating Obama. Intelligent people know that being black is not a choice, it is what is is, so despite racial biases, more people will be able to deal with it than they will with Romney's Mormonism. Mormonism is a choice, no debate about it, and many people will not be able to look past that choice.

Obama won't even have to mention the religious element. IMHO, the election has already been decided. Romney could outspend Obama a billion to one, but it would make no difference.

Couple that with the bonus that an incumbent receives. I'm pulling this number out of my rectum here, but I would say that being an incumbent gives you at least a 10% advantage in an election.

[Gaear]

Originally Posted by LKD

Romney has no chance of unseating Obama.

That's a bold statement, L. Do we get to call you on the carpet over that come November if Romney wins?

[LKD]

Of course you do. But that's only IF Romney succeeds. And I'm sure he won't. Despite what Romney is desperately trying to sell the voters ("we can't afford another 4 years of Obama", swing voters will not fall for it. They'll give him another term to let his policies fully develop.

[Harbourboy]

My Facebook news feed is full of cartoons and photo mash ups about how Obama has lied, disrespected veterans, and made people pay for things they didn't want. It's 100% anti Obama. If I was to use Facebook as my sole source of information, I would say that everyone hates Obama and that Romney will win easily. Yet you guys are saying that Romney has no chance. Is my selection of Facebook friends really that non-random?

[Blackthorne TA]

I believe polls are pretty much even between the two. I don't think either believes they will win easily right now.

[LKD]

The only poll that matters is the one on election day. The polls may show them neck and neck, but when push comes to shove, they will go for the incumbent. Besides, Michael Moore has spent the last decade telling everyone that all the evils of the world are the result of wealthy, White, Republican capitalists. That's Romney to a tee. The guilt machine will kick into full gear, telling White people that to vote against Obama is a racist vote. All the indicators I see tell me it'll be a 60-40 win for Obama. I'd bet my eye teeth on that.

What's this new scandal? Romney was head of a company long after he said he had left it? And then the company had shady dealings? It's getting no play here in Canada. I heard some rumblings about Condoleeza Rice for Veep, but the Romney camp said no -- please elaborate, my 'Merican friends!

[The Great Snook]

Originally Posted by Blackthorne TA

I believe polls are pretty much even between the two. I don't think either believes they will win easily right now.

That may be the best indicator that Romney is doing really well as the media and the polls tend to slant Democrat (You only have to look at the recent Wisconsin recall for evidence of this)

[Gaear]

Originally Posted by LKD

All the indicators I see tell me it'll be a 60-40 win for Obama.

I'm not well-informed on this but I think that would be an unprecedented landslide, beyond even Reagan-Mondale stats. Surely if that type of result were forming up, the polls, inaccurate as they may be, would give some indication.

Originally Posted by LKD

What's this new scandal? Romney was head of a company long after he said he had left it? And then the company had shady dealings?

Yeah, people keep saying he is Bane or something.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by LKD

Couple that with the bonus that an incumbent receives. I'm pulling this number out of my rectum here, but I would say that being an incumbent gives you at least a 10% advantage in an election.

They have tried doing statistical analysis on past elections, and the general thinking is it's no where near that large. Granted, such analysis is by necessity imprecise - you cannot possibly know who each voter would vote for if there had not been an incumbent.

The actual advantage an incumbent receives from an undecided voter at the polls - which basically is defined as a voter who doesn't know much about the election at all shows up, and votes for the person's name he recognizes (i.e., the incumbent) is almost non-existent in presidential election. As Harbourboy correctly points out, the presidential election cycle in the US lasts approximately 10 months (from the first week of January through the first week of November). You'd have to be living under a rock to not know anything about the candidates at that point. And someone who is that disinterested in the political process is also the least likely to show up and vote in the frist place. And to have a 10% advantage, there would have to be at least 10% of the voters who are undecided. That isn't even true right now never mind in November.

There is one material aspect that an incumbent has that is a true advantage, but one would think that is already accounted for in the polls - and that is fund raising. Romney actually raised more money than Obama in the second quarter this year (April-June), but is still woefully behind in terms of total dollars on hand, even though Obama has already purchased more TV time. And that is because the incumbent is allowed to raise money during the primaries. Sure, Romney was raising money during the primaries as well, but he was also spending a lot of the money that he was taking in, so that he would actually win the nomination in the first place. It doesn't do you any good to save up the money you're receiving during the primary battle if your nomination is not assured. But with Obama running uncontested in the primaries, he didn't have to worry about that. So Obama built up a sizable war chest during the primary battle that he is spending now. Romney could out fund raise Obama from now through the general election, but unless it's by a huge margin, he won't ever be able to make up the difference.

Originally Posted by Harbourboy

My Facebook news feed is full of cartoons and photo mash ups about how Obama has lied, disrespected veterans, and made people pay for things they didn't want. It's 100% anti Obama. If I was to use Facebook as my sole source of information, I would say that everyone hates Obama and that Romney will win easily. Yet you guys are saying that Romney has no chance. Is my selection of Facebook friends really that non-random?

Not necessarily. Obama's favorable/unfavorable split has been fairly consistent all year. It's been around 49%-46%. The thing is, of that 46% that have an unfavoarble view of Obama, about 3/4 of them (so about 35%) have not just an unfavorable view, but a logically disconnected hatred of him. Moreso than what I have ever felt for any politician in my lifetime. These people will vote for anyone not named Barack Obama in November, and they are a very vocal group. (Many of the Tea Party movement are included here.) In contrast, the only real emotion Romney has been able to inspire in people is one of indifference. There isn't any vocal "Anyone but Romney" group out there - at least not since he won the nomination. (There was such a group during the nomination phase, but most of them have since fallen silent - perhaps they went through the seven phases of mourning and finished with acceptance.)

But to get back to those favorable/unfavorable numbers, the incumbent does tend to overperform those numbers on election day. Obviously, most people who have a favorable view of him will vote for him, but just because you have an unfavorable view of the president doesn't necessarily mean you'll vote against him. Some of that unfavorable number (a rather small piece of the total) are unhappy with Obama because they feel his policies haven't been liberal enough. However, come election day, those people are still extremely unlikely to vote for Romney. And that's the other thing - even if you don't think Obama is doing a great job, you still have to feel that Romney will do a better job. Just because you're not happy of Obama's job performance does not necessarily mean you feel there is a better alternative out there.

Originally Posted by LKD

All the indicators I see tell me it'll be a 60-40 win for Obama. I'd bet my eye teeth on that.

Well get those pliers ready. Unless you are right, and every well-respected polling firm is wrong, we aren't looking at anywhere near that. Romney is doing better than McCain in almost every measurable metric at a comparable stage in the campaign, and Obama ended up beating McCain by 7.2%. So even though he's doing better, you think the gap is going to be nearly triple come November? Gaear's point is also valid there. Even in Reagan's landslide victory in 1984, he beat Mondale by 18%. No one since Reagan has enjoyed anywhere near that kind of popularity, and if you go backwards the last president that had a similar level of support to Reagan was FDR. So to believe that Obama will win 60-40, you'd have to think that Obama is the most popular president in the last 70 years.

What's this new scandal? Romney was head of a company long after he said he had left it? And then the company had shady dealings? It's getting no play here in Canada. I heard some rumblings about Condoleeza Rice for Veep, but the Romney camp said no -- please elaborate, my 'Merican friends!

Meh - it's not much of a scandal. It's a two-parter. Part one, Romney hasn't released any tax records prior to 2010. Most presidential candidates - as well as most senators, governors, etc., of both political parties, release several years of tax returns. Most politicians release at least 5 years worth of returns, and many of them release more - especially if they were in the private sector where their salary is not public information.

Part two is the "retroactive retirment" talk that you're hearing now. Again, not much of a scandal. Basically, Romney was with Bain officially until 2001. However, in 2001, Romney issued a retroactive retirement dating back to February of 1999. This is because starting in 1999, he started working on the Olympic planning committee in Salt Lake City, in preparation of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Even though he was still listed as CEO until 2001, he says he wasn't actively involved in business decisions during that two year time frame. I think that's a plausible explanation.

The "scandal" is that even though he may not have been actively working as CEO for Bain, he was collecting a seven-figure salary for those years, and having tons of stock options during that time frame. So what people are calling on is for Romney is to release 10+ years of tax returns - back to when he was in the private sector.

Here's the latest buzz on it: Video. IMO, there's not much there.

---------- Added 0 hours, 23 minutes and 4 seconds later... ----------

Originally Posted by The Great Snook

That may be the best indicator that Romney is doing really well as the media and the polls tend to slant Democrat (You only have to look at the recent Wisconsin recall for evidence of this)

I don't know how many times I have to say this. There are polls that slant Democrat - the biggest one being Public Policy Polling. But for every one you can name that slants Democrat, I can give you one that slants Republican. The biggest Republican one is Rasmussen. You say NBC, I say WSJ. It's best to look at composite polling results - because then the biases tend to cancel each other out.

The good news for Romney is that he is doing very well in the horse race. The bad news for Romney is that he isn't doing so well in a lot of the battle ground states - the only one he's currently leading is Florida. That's a nice prize to be sure, but if he loses Ohio, Virginia, Colorada, and Iowa (which he presently is), winning Florida won't be enough to get him the election.

[joacqin]

So there are people who dislike Obama more than the 30-40% who were convinced that Bush II was either a retard, lunatic or a combination?

[T2Bruno]

I'm with Aldeth, not a chance it's 60-40. Also, Obama will win because, although he hasn't really been inspiring he also hasn't had his 'failed Iranian rescue' moment (many Republicans are comparing Obama to Carter -- a very poor comparison on many levels). It's just tough to unseat even a 'just okay' president unless he runs an inept campaign (like Bush in 1992).

A sitting president has so much going for him -- he basically has an unlimited budget and unlimited access to the media. So yeah, it doesn't matter how much Romney will spend because Obama will have greater access (and really deep pockets as well).

Religion will not be an issue in this election. Those people who think Mormonism is a cult also believe Obama is a Muslim. The far right will vote for a Mormon over a Muslim (or even a Christian democrat). The crazies are beside themselves but will still vote for the Mormon (even if they have to wash their hands after casting the vote).

The winner of this election will be the one who can attract the independant vote. Healthcare reform is not helping Obama. The wealthy-out-of-touch aspect of Romney is not getting him any votes either. Obama really doesn't need to attract the independant as long as Romney cannot do so -- the majority will remain sheep and follow the status quo unless Romney can actually find an issue to excite the people. Once he finds a message that resonates he still needs to deliver the message -- let's face it, Romney is not that much more personable than Gore was.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by joacqin

So there are people who dislike Obama more than the 30-40% who were convinced that Bush II was either a retard, lunatic or a combination?

It would require an extreme case of selective amnesia to suggest that Bush was not hated by most on the left. It goes without saying that he was ruthlessly mocked and satirized. However, I think the hatred aimed at Obama is much more personal. With Bush, in many ways he was an easy target. Most of the criticism hurled at Bush was in regards to his perceived lack of intelligence. And given his lack of oratory skills, and the way he garbled the English language, he didn't exactly do much to counter that line of thinking.

However, in his eight years of office, I do not remember protesters carrying around signs depicting Bush as Hitler, Stalin, or the Joker from the Dark Knight movies. A fascist, a communist, and a mastermind super criminal.

[joacqin]

I am fairly sure I do, didn't we have this very discussion about Bush and what was ok and what wasn't? Maybe no Stalin or Joker comparisons but the Hitler and fascist ones were most definitely there or am I completely out of it?

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

Obama will win because, although he hasn't really been inspiring he also hasn't had his 'failed Iranian rescue' moment (many Republicans are comparing Obama to Carter -- a very poor comparison on many levels).

Yeah, and the Romney campaign dropped that line of attack shortly after starting it. Like when they said of Obama giving the order to take out OBL, they said Jimmy Carter could of made that call. Yeah, Jimmy Carter did make that call, and it blew up in his face. Reagan won easily in 1980, but things were really close before that. It's not a stretch in the least to suggest that Carter's "call" cost him the re-election.

let's face it, Romney is not that much more personable than Gore was.

Or, perhaps a more apt comparison on many levels, Kerry.

Originally Posted by joa

I am fairly sure I do, didn't we have this very discussion about Bush and what was ok and what wasn't? Maybe no Stalin or Joker comparisons but the Hitler and fascist ones were most definitely there or am I completely out of it?

I do no remember any posters depicting Bush with a swashtika on his arm and/or a Hitler mustache. None. Compared to a chimp? Absolutely. But not Hitler.

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

However, in his eight years of office, I do not remember protesters carrying around signs depicting Bush as Hitler, Stalin, or the Joker from the Dark Knight movies. A fascist, a communist, and a mastermind super criminal.

To be honest, the Dark Knight movie only came out in 2008. Bush was practically out of the picture by then. Also, who'd mock Bush as a mastermind super criminal? Cheney or Rove, perhaps, but Bush ?

[T2Bruno]

I think Bush would have made a great villian on Wordgirl. He'd rank right up there with The Learnerer, Nocan the Contrarian, Captain Tangent, and Lady Redundant Woman.

[Gaear]

One thing that could sway matters in Romney's favor is the economy. If there's anything that reliably gets people out to vote, it's the state of their bank book when it's not healthy - and that's always the fault of the incumbent, even if it's not. People don't generally seem to be doing exceptionally well right now, so ... watch out on that score IMO.

[dmc]

I'd tend to agree with that Gaear, but I think it also links to whether or not you have a job, even moreso than how strong your bank account is.

I was at a party this weekend and talk turned a little towards politics. The global feeling was that they were all crooks and the same, no matter the party, and there was probably not much difference between Obama and Romney, except for the nature of the friends and cronies that were going to benefit, all to the detriment of us.

Pretty sad state of affairs. (Also, just so you know, even though the party was on the west side of LA, it was not all Democrats -- pretty decent split actually, and no one really standing up to defend their political party all that much.)

[Blackthorne TA]

Heh. I'd wager Californians (and even moreso Angelenos) are much more jaded than the nation as a whole given the local politicians and the condition of our state/city.

[Gaear]

Originally Posted by dmc

Pretty sad state of affairs. (Also, just so you know, even though the party was on the west side of LA, it was not all Democrats -- pretty decent split actually, and no one really standing up to defend their political party all that much.)

That's an excellent point - disaffection seems to be at an all-time high in the modern political era. You'd think that conditions would thus be ripe for a third party to move in ... except maybe people are just tired of it altogether.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Gaear

That's an excellent point - disaffection seems to be at an all-time high in the modern political era. You'd think that conditions would thus be ripe for a third party to move in ... except maybe people are just tired of it altogether.

The problem there is the closest thing we have to a 3rd party is the Tea Party. Be careful what you wish for.

[joacqin]

I have said it before and now I will say it again. American politics would be well served if both the major parties split. The republicans into a proper christian/conservative/nationalistic party and a laissez-faire hardcore capitalistic market liberal party while the democrats split into a mellow middle of the road/try to please everyone/watered down centrist party and a proper left wing social democratic party.

Then people would have some options and in reality the parties already seem to be split pretty much along those lines.

[Rotku]

Originally Posted by joacqin

I have said it before and now I will say it again. American politics would be well served if both the major parties split. The republicans into a proper christian/conservative/nationalistic party and a laissez-faire hardcore capitalistic market liberal party while the democrats split into a mellow middle of the road/try to please everyone/watered down centrist party and a proper left wing social democratic party.

Then people would have some options and in reality the parties already seem to be split pretty much along those lines.

The problem is that the first one to take this step would lose, because they'd split their voters in half.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Rotku

The problem is that the first one to take this step would lose, because they'd split their voters in half.

I agree that it would be disasterous for whomever did it first, but I think another problem to point out is that the groups wouldn't split evenly. You wouldn't end up with four parties each containing 25% of the population.

About 20% of the population describe themselves as Christian Conservatives. Assuming they are currently Republican and that Republicans are about half of the total population, it stands to reason that free market capitalists would be about 30%.

You'd see a similar break down on the Democratic side, although I'm inclined to think the split would be even greater. There would certainly be more centrists than there would social liberals. But for ease of calculation, lets's assume a 30-20, even though I think the centrists would be closer to 35-40% of the total.

And that reason is why it won't work in the US. Remember that presidential and congressional elections are winner take all. So long as you get the most votes you win the state (or district), even if you vote total fell short of a majority. This is best illustrated in the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, when Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party candidate. He didn't win enough votes in either election to win a single state, but he did win enough (especially in 1992 when he received nearly 20% of the popular vote) that the candidate that did win the state did so with less than 50% of the vote.

Because the party splits would be unequal, the Christian Conservatives and social liberals would only serve to further marginalize themselves. At least now, they are both latched onto a more mainstream train of thought that provided their candidate wins they might get some of the items on their agenda passed. That would be a thing of the past under this system.

The bottom line is political systems develop for a reason. Joacqins example would work perfectly fine in a nation that had a parliamentary system of representation, but that's not the US. Thomas Jefferson warned against "tyranny by the majority". This would be "tyranny by the minority". Under this proposed system (without an overhaul of the entire first eight articles of the Constitution) could ensure political dominance by a party, even if they were only representative of about 40% of the population.