Tom Brokaw shares the story of how Hubert Humphrey lost the 1968 election after Americans watched television images of the young radicals in Grant Park scaling statues and flying the Viet Cong flag. At that moment, Americans fully appreciated the lawless direction that some wanted to take the country and saw Richard Nixon as the antidote.
The young radicals of 1968 have become the old radicals who now control the Democrat Party. They put on a convention this week characterized by incompetence, radicalism, and race.
I’m starting to wonder if 1968, or even 1972 are a better analogy for this election than 1980.
If “Il Dufe” manages to ride the class-warfare and envy ticket to a second term, this will be a documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF9QT43uDQU
Love the line: “If you want to use force against me, bring guns.”
(Waiting for Bob-1 to check in with, “Gosh-wow, there’s no force behiond so-called ‘statism,’ whatever that is–eh?”
Yet Obama seems to be getting a bounce. Real bounce or skewed sample? It does seem to be across multiple polls with usually semi-reliable polling sources. Incomprehensible to me but there’s the data.
The Gallup approval rating figure is from a sample of adults, rather than registered or likely voters. So it’s the trend, not the 52% figure, that’s the more important information.
Historically each candidate gets a bounce from his convention. If a party can’t turn a week of free media attention into a slight improvement in its poll numbers, it shouldn’t be in politics.
Romney got one, pulling into a tie in the poll averages, and we can expect the wearing off of that bounce plus the DNC bounce to put Obama back in the lead next week. But then Obama’s bounce will wear off, and we may be back to where we were two weeks ago: a very close race, tilting very slightly towards Obama.
Despite the closeness in the polls the Obama campaign seems confident, and the Romney campaign less so. Romney, flush with cash, isn’t running its new commercials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, spotting Obama 247 electoral votes. Romney can win without those states, but it means he pretty much can’t lose Ohio, Florida or Virginia.
The Obama campaign confident? When it’s pulling out all the race baiting stops and trying to scam people’s wedding gifts to fund itself? I can’t imagine what you think an actual panic would look like from the outside.
Hell, I got one that was basically:
“Skip dinner! It’s good for you … and you can donate the savings to Barack!”
Still curious if they’re -actually- so desperate they’re trying to qualify their ads as public service announcements.
Hey Jim, what are you going to say in a couple of weeks when Romney buys Ads in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? I see you got your Kos/DU Talking Points today.
Despite the closeness in the polls the Obama campaign seems confident, and the Romney campaign less so.
So that is why Obama is practically camped-out in Iowa grasping for those meager 7 Electoral Votes. Yep, thats the halmark of a confident campaign! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
My mistake….6 electoral votes!
Maybe the Romney campaign will reverse course, but at the moment they seem to see their options as being quite constrained.
It makes sense for Obama to visit Iowa (and New Hampshire, where he was yesterday). Romney almost needs to run the table of toss-up states; Obama just needs to win a few smallish ones (e.g. IA+NH+NV+CO).
With both parties spending around $1b I don’t think constraint is an accurate adjective. Romney can take the fight to all 57 states and force Obama to play defense in safe states like Puerto Rico.
What Wodun said Jim. Romney easily has enough money to run ads in Penn, Wiss and Michigan as well as the states already mentioned. He can pretty much saturate all of them, not to mention the Super-Pacs. Seriously, the idea he has given up on states that recent polls has him tied like Michigan or leading like Wisconsin is absurd and grasping. Hell, he has money to burn. He will likely be running ads in states he doesn’t have a good chance of winning just to force Obama to spend his much more meager resources defending what he already had.
I think you are grasping at straws and trying to over-read the tea leaves.
I bet you $50 he runs ads in those three states by then 2nd of October. Care to put your money where your mouth is?
So, with money to burn, why aren’t they running these ads in Wisconsin or Michigan today?
For what it’s worth, the Romney “top official” quoted in Politico today lists Wisconsin and Michigan as “opportunities” for Romney. But he also lists Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire as “problems,” and notes that “If we trade our problems for our opportunities, we lose.”
So you don’t want to take my bet do you?
As for your quote, ever read Sun Zu?:”If you are strong, appear weak. If you are weak, appear strong.”
They are feeding the gullibles and they are apparently buying it.
Hey Jim, still no takers on my bet? Bad news is Romney just announced an ad buy in Wisconsin so that is two to go!
There’s now more polling data, and Obama’s gone from a tie to a 1.2% lead in the RCP average. Rasmussen, a GOP-leaning outfit with a likely voter screen, has swung 6 points towards Obama (from Romney+4 to Obama+2). Obama’s speech had 35.7m TV viewers, vs. 30.3m for Romney’s.
If Romney does win I believe he’ll be the first candidate to do so after failing to take the polling lead immediately after his convention (he only managed a tie). That could be attributable to the fact that the conventions were back-to-back; in the past there was often more time between them.
Actually Jim, Romney was ahead in the RCP average a couple days ago.
Also released yesterday from ARG +4 Dem sample:
Likely voters Sep 4-6
Obama 46%
Romney 49%
Other/Undecided 5%
Sample size: 1200 likely voters
Sample dates: September 4-6, 2012
Margin of error: ± 3 percentage points
Question wording: If the general election were being held today between Barack Obama for president and Joe Biden for vice president, the Democrats, and Mitt Romney for president and Paul Ryan for vice president, the Republicans, for whom would you vote – Obama and Biden or Romney and Ryan? (names rotated)
Romney was ahead in the RCP average a couple days ago.
When was that? RCP Averages:
9/9: Obama+1.8
9/8: Obama+1.3
9/7: Obama+0.7
9/6: Tie
9/5: Tie
9/4: Obama + 0.1
9/3: Tie
9/2: Obama + 0.1
9/1: Obama + 0.3
RCP last had Romney in the lead on October 11, 2011.
If Romney does win I believe he’ll be the first candidate to do so after failing to take the polling lead immediately after his convention (he only managed a tie). That could be attributable to the fact that the conventions were back-to-back; in the past there was often more time between them.
Rasmussen, as you seem to have a newfound respect for, had Romney up by four points three days ago so he did recieve the bounce. It will be interesting to see where Ras is around Wednesday after there has been time for the awful Jobs Report to sink in.
Poll averages are more reliable than any single poll, but so far the job report isn’t hurting Obama in the Rasmussen tracking poll. Saturday’s calls (made after the job report on Friday) bumped the president’s lead from 2 to 4.
Give it a few days Jim, you are chasing noise. And I don’t buy you poll averages theory. Rasmussen beat the averages the last two presidential election.
OK, it’s Wednesday, and Rasmussen has Obama up by 1 (the RCP average has him up by 3.2). Obama’s convention bounce is wearing off, and the race is back where it was for months before the RNC, with Obama holding a narrow lead.
Well, today’s headline could read “DNC convention bombs – stocks post gains.”
Total media blackout on OWS.
…I couldn’t help pointing out the irony that while the Dems say the Republicans are waging a “war on women” they chose BILL CLINTON of all people (!!) as their keynote speaker. My [lefty] friend looked confused. I went on, “Well, we all know about Bill Clinton and the way he treated women!” My friend acted insulted and retorted: “But that doesn’t have anything to do with his policies!”
This is more than just memorizing some talking points. This is complete and utter brain washing. You can pick just about any lefty and get a similar response. My question is how? How are they so good at brain washing?
My [lefty] friend looked confused.
Points to a cognitive problem. Which reminds me of that study on how those on the right could mimic the left, but those on the left could not do the reverse.
Should the mentally ill be voting? You know, along with the dead and those that vote multiple times?
‘ My friend acted insulted and retorted: “But that doesn’t have anything to do with his policies!” ‘
Ah yes I remember those times well..when the lefties tried to argue that it doesn’t matter what his moral character is like..just so long as he votes the right way….
Which is why Lizzy Warren (Lie-awatha) still has a ghost of a chance.
What they fail to realize is that this is the reason politicians are not trusted: they vote in liars.
It’s a positive feedback loop.
Someday, it’s going to catch up with them – they are going to see what happens when you vote in moral degenerates just because they vote the way you want – and the suffering will be legendary.
That’s funny my lefty friend is exactly like that towards Clinton. I can’t even bring up his name now because he knows I’m going to mock him in some way. After one comment I made he just furrowed his brow and was like, “You know what, I’ve got no problem with anything Clinton did and that’s all I’m gonna say about that”. I was like just, “wow, okay….” Just total shutdown, he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore; Clintons great lalalalala.
Romney wins in Reaganesque smackdown. I’ll put my gut up against Gibbs’ any day. I drink black coffee, too.
1860.
Or thereabouts.
See also: Democrats: Let’s Ban Profits!
Our country is in the best of hands.
Wow, the People’s cube doesn’t hold back.
Anyone who thinks banning profit (apparently a lot of democrats) is a good idea should be kept as far as possible from economic policy. Even limiting profit is bad for the economy.
Think we’ll be seeing ads run this fall featuring parts of this clip?
A “simple regulatory change”, that can apparently be done by Executive Order involving the regulations for qualifying and reporting for non-charitable non-profits would have them squealing to a different tune.
To get back to Rand’s original question: I vote for 1972, except the media is trying to make the Dem candidate seem more normal, not less.
For all that he was a goofy liberal, at least McGovern was an honest-to-God veteran (bomber pilot).
This from Iowahawk–linked to on Vodkapundit–says it all:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ar3s6KWCMAA5NZg.png:large