the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

"potential upside" wouldn't upset you, would it? Possibly redundant but a common sports term, so cozily at home in politocs.

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/four-recent-national-polls-inc.php

Ron Brownstein:

Even with their modest variations, these four surveys paint a similar picture. Obama is largely holding the minority and college-educated white women who comprise two pillars of the modern Democratic base (along with young people.) But he is facing erosion among blue-collar white men and struggling to maintain even his modest 2008 support among the two swing quadrants in the white electorate: the college-plus white men and non-college white women.

For the moment, that division of allegiances is enough to provide Obama an overall advantage (he would lead slightly even in the Gallup track if the minority share of the vote was adjusted to its level in 2008). But it's not enough of an edge for him to breathe easy-and the fact that most of the white electorate is resisting him at least as much as it did in 2008 suggests he may never entirely get to such a comfortable place before November, even if he remains ahead overall

that's a pretty reasonable and informative article

xp

Brownstein's? He's one of the better political journalists.

him too but i meant the npr one

I skimmed the NPR and its basic point is exactly right, I thought: this is inevitably going to be close, and the idea that Obama is up by 9 (like in the CNN poll) is silly.

of course it's going to be close

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

pop vote margin doesn't mean anything much, of course

e.g. Nixon barely won it in '68 but took the electoral college rather handily

yup and the gop has a pretty basic advantage w/ the math, it usually doesn't matter but when it did, it did

national polls aren't measuring the electoral college, so what are we talking about

we're talking about an article summarizing the polls and what pollsters think about them which is: they mean not very much right now

right the polls that are way to early to be very meaningful are about the popular vote and the popular vote is almost always v close

"potential upside" wouldn't upset you, would it? Possibly redundant but a common sports term, so cozily at home in politocs.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:06 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup

if the popular vote is always close then it's not always close u know

woah

I feel like I just took the red pill

When I said it's bound to be close, I meant electorally, not the popular vote--as in, this is going to be a close election period. I really do believe that. I know Romney has a ton of weaknesses, but Obama's approval has been bouncing around between 45-50 for months now; that seems fixed in place, and I can't see it producing anything but a close electoral election.

hell prob win by roughly how much he beat mccian, which is only close if you're basing it on some random idea of what close means

nooo way he'll win w/ that margin

more like bush 2004 I think

He could win by that much, but I don't see it as probable given that he's Reality Obama instead of Changemaker '08. His youthful acolytes, deep down, know he's an asshole.

It depends how deeply Team Mittens puts their hands in the woodchipper.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

every 4 years I start paying attention to stuff like this^ and it feels about the same as unlocking a new media experience for a JJ Abrams movie

"Deep Down, You Know He's an Asshole"

I look at that electoral map linked to above, and I think it would only take a mediocre jobs report or two to send most of those toss-up states Romney's way. But then you have to balance that with how weak/unliked Romney is at present.

there are not very many unemployed, undecided voters in ohio closely following month to month macroeconomic data

It depends how deeply Team Mittens puts their hands in the woodchipper.

I'm gonna guess up to at least the elbows

after which they will just attach a new pair of bajillion dollars Robomormon hands

there are not very many unemployed, undecided voters in ohio closely following month to month macroeconomic data

That's hardly what I meant. Mediocre jobs report = more people without jobs = what used to be a toss-up no longer a toss-up.

well I think the bigger thing is that they're just in a permanent state of 'toss-up' because we're concerned w/ what will happen in nov not what would happen if every state voted today. there is good reason to believe that peoples opinion of romney will sour after half a year of him on tv every day and there is some reason to believe that the economy will be a bit better in nov. those two trends are more important than any swing state poll can be today.

it's important to highlight how few people follow politics to the extent we do, even today the 'average american' knows very little about romney

they know he's a bajillionaire and a mormon

that's probably about it

there is good reason to believe that peoples opinion of romney will sour after half a year of him on tv every day and there is some reason to believe that the economy will be a bit better in nov

You can also say the opposite, and about Obama - and I'm not being contrarian. If you're unemployed in Akron and voted for Obama in '08 it's possible that you're sick of seeing him on the teevee.

yeah but that's something that's already true for a lot of people and is 'in the numbers' in a way that peoples future dislike of romney is not

Not that I have too much faith in this kind of forecasting this far out, but the RCP method strikes me as pretty goofy and susceptible... like, Georgia for example, their average puts Romney +12, but that's because they're averaging the two polls where Romney is the furthest ahead, one of which is from December and presumably not very useful at all. The one that gives Romney the smallest advantage (+3) they don't include in the average, for reasons that escape me - maybe it's explained somewhere. Anyway, basically it's an average of only two polls. Not to say Obama has any prospect of winning Georgia (it went McCain 52-47 in Obama's surge election) but you know what I'm getting at.

One thing I often hear on TV (from all of Alfred's favourite people) is that impressions of the economy tend to be frozen in place five or six months out from the election--i.e., that some improvement in the late summer/early fall won't mean much. Example: Bush in '92. I don't claim to know whether this is true in general.

Also weird is how all of their grey "toss up states," if you actually click on them, turn out to be Obama states using their math, except for Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina. Presumably there's some other metric involved but it's just odd to me - it's like they think they have this all figured out with the numbers, but they sort of know those results MUST be out of whack because they would turn the whole map blue and it's pretty clear that's not going to happen IRL - - so they turn a bunch of them grey but then it's just like, hey guys, maybe it's too soon to be doing this kind of super-electoral-predicto-map.

the safe bet is to never take anything said about politics on tv to have any value, ever

"frozen in place" probably FAIRLY true? I mean it makes sense to me instinctively, since the actual effect on people's lives of new bad or good news may take a while to really sink in. But it doesn't take long to turn it into an ad ("Well, the latest news is out - let the facts speak for themselves...") so if it fits a larger theme it'll stick.

2008 might be an interesting test case of this, really.

Pundits conflate "the economy" with "my finances." I've been doing better financially the last two years despite the condition of Florida (chaos and disorder, thanks to the most conservative governor in our history) and the uneven national recovery but doing worse during the Bush boom years. That's why Reagan's question in '80 ("Are YOU better off now than you were four years ago?") was sharper than Mark Halperin asking voters "Do you think the economy's improving or getting worse?")

*doing worse = did worse

Probably just as likely that in 6 months everybody will be used to what they dislike about Romney and it won't be as big an issue. And I do think a lot of people vote for "change" when they don't like where they are now, without thinking too much about whether the change will be for the better or for the worse.

massive x-post

the state of conservative coalescence

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/the_gop%E2%80%99s_very_peculiar_unity/singleton/

Ehhh - I wouldn't be SO sure? Like, Kerry was the presumptive nominee quite early, didn't mean Bush and Rove weren't able to load up his negatives (by completely making shit up) for the rest of the campaign.

But frankly, in the land of dirty tricks and ratfuckery, what would help Obama most would be to have a shadow operation somehow within the GOP, launching continued volleys at Romney from the right and trying to get them vote for a third-party candidate to "send a message to Washington" about "real conservative values." Forget the independents and keep eroding that soft support he has within his party. My dream is that Newt Gingrich actually will play this role without realizing it, but I realize that people have third-party Republican split fantasies every four years and it never goes anywhere.

Ehhh - I wouldn't be SO sure? Like, Kerry was the presumptive nominee quite early, didn't mean Bush and Rove weren't able to load up his negatives (by completely making shit up) for the rest of the campaign.

well all things considered kerry was probably a 'stronger candidate' than romney is and actually had fewer negatives to exploit...the effect of the swiftboat type stuff was really marginal

but his opponent didn't have to run w/ 8% unemployment

lol @ the mere thought of Change We Can Believe In having a dirty tricks operation at all, much less one in the GOP.

(Iatee,)

Growing up, I'd get pretty excited about NASCAR races. And I still love them. That's why I want to be the one to tell you that the folks planning the 2012 Democratic National Convention have figured out a way for you to show your support -- on a NASCAR stock car.

The convention's host committee is going to debut an official "Powered by the American People" car. And they want to put your name on it.

When you become a sponsor by donating just $5 or more, your name will appear on the car.

For me, this is a no-brainer. All you have to do is tell them how to spell your name, and you're off.

Sponsor the "Powered by the American People" stock car.

Grassroots support is the only way this convention is going to be a success. The 2012 convention will be funded by supporters like you, not special interests, lobbyists or political action committees -- and that's why we're not putting any corporate logos on the car. Just the names of folks like you who step up to make this happen.

The convention is going to kick off with a free Labor Day celebration at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, where everyone who comes out will see the official stock car.

Is your name going to be on it?

https//:charlottein2012.com/Powered_By_the_American_People

Let us know soon.

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

"absolutely! my name is 'Liqmi Balszak'"