This is not ever going to come from the media that willy-nilly
propelled Mr Obama into the White house as the most unexamined
candidate in history. It finally turned out that he was a classic
Marxist liberal arts professor who followed that dream deep into his
career and was molded accordingly. Most likely his wife balanced his
check book.
Now he must run on his record and that record begins and ends with
one salient reality. He ignored the housing crisis in every way
shape and form. Even Hoover did not ignore the depression ill
advised as his prescriptions were. Today we do know better and a lot
could have been done as I spelled out myself four years ago. Today,
that market only now is seeing its first signs of life.
In the meantime, this election is Mr Romney's to lose and I can not
imagine quite how this could be accomplished. The analysis below
truly shows just how daunting Obama's task has become. Usually
elections are won or lost between two well matched candidates within
one percentage point. Right now I suspect that the real spread out
there exceeds five percent which can still be cloudy in the poling.
We are looking at a Reaganesque landslide in the making even if Obama
is able to hang on to his core. The American people know who Mr
Obama is today and they will simply not want another four years of
his performance. Recall they are all getting the bill for
Obama-care. Is anyone paying less?
The Signs of a
Romney Victory
Posted by Evan Sayet
on Jul 30th, 2012
As I study the news
looking for clues as to who is going to win the White House in
November, I am struck by how, no matter where I look – from the
most obvious to the things only a political junkie finds under a rock
or in some tea leaves, etc. – every single indicator (big and
small) points to a Romney victory and, in fact, something awfully
close to an electoral college landslide. While I will, of
course, discuss the polls, the vast majority of my analysis comes
from observation and common sense.
Let’s first
establish a baseline. Mark Levin asked a room full of folks at
the Ronald Reagan library recently, “Do any of you know a single
person – even one – who didn’t vote for Obama in 2008
who plans to vote for him in 2012?” The answer, of course,
was “no.” Not a single person in the room knew a single
person who Obama had, in the course of his presidency, convinced that
he was better than they’d expected him to be. Conversely, we
all know at least one person – and I personally know more than a
dozen (because I ask) – who voted for Obama in 2008 who nothing
less than rues the day.
Given that Obama’s
2008 victory was, while large in size, in no way numerically
historic, and that he had all sorts of advantages (being a blank
slate, following eight years of war after 9-11, etc.) that he won’t
have this time, Obama’s chances for a second term are significantly
lower based on just Levin’s observation alone. But, for
Obama, it gets worse.
Not only is the pool
of potential Obama supporters way down from 2008, so too is the
enthusiasm amongst those who still, to one degree or another, prefer
Obama over the alternative. Whereas, not all that long ago,
Obama could pack football stadiums and basketball arenas with ease,
not even the lure of attending the big campaign kick-off event was
enough for Obama supporters to come, leaving the venue half-empty.
If you can’t get your supporters to an historic rally in the
spring, there’s little chance they’re going to drive to the polls
in the dead of winter.
Worse still for the
President is that, in order for him to have pulled off his original
victory, he needed unprecedented enthusiasm (manpower, money, votes
and more) from a handful of the Democrat Party’s traditional
constituencies such as blacks, Jews and those under twenty-five.
If these numbers were to simply return to normal, then Obama’s
chances of a second term are only further diminished. But logic
and evidence suggests Obama’s support from these groups will be
less – in some cases far less – than what any and all Democratic
nominees can count on. This is because, thanks to his policies,
each of these constituencies has a specific and rightful grievance
against this president. These grievances not only dampen their
enthusiasm for Obama but, in many cases, turn them against him.
Blacks, for example,
particularly hard hit by the liberals’ fifty-year war against the
traditional family, have taken singular exception to Obama’s
clearly politically motivated endorsement of homosexual marriage;
Jews are rightly concerned about the most virulently anti-Israel
President since the Jew-hating Jimmy Carter, while the young who have
(attempted) to enter the workforce are suffering the realities of
looking for a job in an Obama economy and can’t be wholly unaware
that each dollar of new deficit Obama racks up will be expected to be
paid for by them. Will Obama still take a majority – even a
large majority – of votes from these constituencies? Of
course. But in every way – manpower, financial contributions
and votes – not only will Obama fail to receive record support
as he did in 2008, or even the usual support a Democrat needs, he
will fall short and even see some of that support drift to Romney.
There is one more
constituency that Obama had to win – and win big – in order to
win the White House in 2008 that is now not only less supportive but
greatly disgruntled.
They are the
independents (and even some right-of-center Republicans) who might
well have disagreed with many of Obama’s policies and prescriptions
but who were willing to accept four or eight years of an Obama
presidency in exchange for the promise his rhetoric offered of a more
civil America. Higher taxes, more wasteful spending, they
believed, were an acceptable price to pay for a “post-partisan”
America and maybe even a “post-racial” United States.
After four years of
the most viciously partisan presidency in anyone’s living memory
and the most race-charged administration most of us can ever recall
(not to mention the vile tactics so closely associated with Obama and
his administration, which are named after his hometown, “The
Chicago Way”), those who voted against their policy preferences to
elect the guy with “hope” and “change” are and can be nothing
less than disgusted with him.
The category pollsters
use to measure this sentiment is called “likeability” (or
“personal favorability”) and Obama’s rating in this category is
plummeting. The only way that a failed president can win a
second term is if the people like and trust him. According to the
latest New York Times poll, Obama’s tactics have left him
“favorable” to only about one out of every three voters (36
percent).
Other recently
released data suggest that Obama is in big trouble as well. Not
the least of them is the Obama camp’s inability to get people to
donate to their campaign. Not all that long ago, a confident
(arrogant?) Obama team was predicting so much support that they’d
bring in more money than any other campaign in human history – over
one billion dollars. So far, not only has Obama not come close
to being the greatest fundraiser in all of human history, he’s not
even the top fundraiser in his two-man contest for the presidency.
In fact, he trails Romney’s financial support by a wide margin.
This is important not
just because money is a plus in any campaign (though not nearly the
plus that many make it out to be) but because it is
a tangible action. Answering the telephone and saying
“yes” or “no” ten times to some stranger from a polling
company doesn’t require much of a commitment. People who
donate to a campaign are likely to do even more for that campaign and
they are almost guaranteed to do the one thing that matters most:
vote.
And there is more
evidence of an impending Romney victory to be found in how each camp
is conducting its campaigns. The strategies employed, the
rhetoric chosen, all of these things reflect the campaign’s belief
about where they stand at any given moment in the contest.
For example, it is
simply a truism in politics that a candidate who believes he’s
winning stays on the message that put him in the lead. Those
who believe they’re losing change their message until they find one
they believe is a winner. Romney has run almost the entire
time on a single, compelling and positive message. At its heart
it’s something like “America is in economic dire straits.
I’ve made my fortune and my reputation saving big and complex
things (the Olympics, major industries, etc.) from economic dire
straits. Vote for me and I’ll save America.” Romney’s
staying on that message makes clear that, at the very least, his own
internal polling and other evidence has convinced his campaign that
he’s winning.
Obama, on the other
hand, seems to be premiering a new message just about every week or
two. It’s a practice of the desperate not so delicately known as
“Throwing sh-t against the wall hoping something sticks.”
Clearly, then, the Obama camp’s inside information is telling them
the same thing my analysis and Romney’s intelligence is telling us:
their messages aren’t working and that they trailing in the
election.
Making matters worse
for the president is that, while Romney’s message is positive and
promising, the tenor of Obama’s ever-changing messages has been
singularly negative. As a failed president, since he can’t
run on his record, the only option available to him is to try and
render the alternative so far beyond the pale that, no matter how bad
Obama is, the alternative is just unacceptable. In other words,
the entirety of Obama’s message (whatever it is at the moment) is
comprised not of words like “Vote for me because” but only “Vote
against him because…” Such an unrelenting campaign of
negativity – the only option for Obama – only serves to further
undermine the only thing that could possibly help him win: his
“likeability.” It’s a catch-22 from which Obama is
unlikely to be able to escape.
Making matters worse
still for the current president is that, in these ever-changing
messages, Obama’s case against Romney has ranged from beneath
the dignity of a president of the United States to beneath contempt
to beneath sanity.
In a short time, then,
the Obama team’s message went from “Vote against Romney because
he once had a dog carrier built that attaches to the roof of his
family car,” to “Vote against Romney because fifty years ago he
engaged in a high school prank” to “Vote against Romney because
he’s a successful businessman (and therefore probably a felon)”
and so on. If this is all he’s got – and apparently it’s
all he’s got – start making plans to attend Romney’s inaugural.
But it’s even worse
for Mr. Obama because, not only did these ludicrous attacks utterly
fail to move the needle even the slightest in his direction, each and
every one of them totally backfired. Some, disastrously so.
For example, while no
one cared about Romney putting his dog in a carrier on the roof of
his car, it allowed Obama to become a laughing stock for happily
admitting that he had, at least once, put a dog on the roof of his
mouth. And, while no one cared about a childhood prank Romney
helped pull off a half-century ago, it did lead to questions about
Obama’s admission inDreams From My Father that, at about that
same age, he had shoved a young woman. And while no one was up
in arms about the fact that a wealthy man had investments in
countries outside of America, it not only exposed the hypocrisy of
the accusers when it turned out that virtually every Democratic
senator and congressman had similar investments, but it raised
questions about how so many supposed “public servants” had
amassed the kind of money usually associated with titans of industry.
These failures all
paled in comparison, however, to the utter fiasco that was Obama’s
attempt to sell the message: “Vote against Romney because
Republicans hate women.” Given how audacious a statement this
is — how horrible it would be if it were true and how despicable
the accusation if it wasn’t — the people waited for the President
of the United States to produce some evidence to support his claim.
When all Obama could produce was a woman named Sandra Fluke whose
“proof” consisted of opposition to tax-payers picking up the tab
for her condom use, the President’s credibility took a massive
hit…and Fluke was soon jettisoned (anyone hear anything from or
about her since?)
While the Obama camp
quickly threw Ms. Fluke under the bus, they weren’t quite prepared
to give up their effort to discredit Romney and all Republicans as
“women haters.” Soon – with great fanfare and
(media-generated) publicity – they unveiled their masterpiece: an
animated “everywoman” they named “Julia.” The campaign
soon became the stuff of pure mockery, doing nothing to help Obama’s
chances in November. In fact, while it did nothing to advance
the phony narrative of Republicans as being “at war” against
women, what it did was to expose the very real misogyny of
the liberal movement. While the storyline followed the feminist
meme, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” it also
made clear that these liberals believe a woman desperately needs a
nanny (state) to accomplish even the simplest of things in her life.
But even more telling
about the state of the race than the ever-changing slanders that
serve as Obama’s campaign themes, is who the messages are
targeting. The fact that, three-and-a-half years into his
presidency, a Democrat is still desperately trying to scare single
women into voting for him means that Obama’s internal polling must
be telling him that he’d better take desperate measures just to
shore up a constituency that should have been his from day one.
Similarly, this is
the only possible explanation for Obama’s desperate ploy
to suddenly end his “evolving” and embrace homosexual marriage.
It is hard to believe that after more than fifty years of life,
twenty-five years in academia or as a professional speechifier and
three-and-a-half years as president, he’d suddenly had an epiphany
that couldn’t wait just a couple more weeks until after what some
believe will be a very close election. The only possible
explanation for the timing of Obama’s announcement was that he
needed to placate the LBGT community, and the only reason he’d need
to placate them is because his polling showed he hadn’t even shored
up their vote this late in the game. If a liberal
Democrat isn’t even sure of the support from the LGBT movement a
few weeks before Election Day, chances are good he’ll be packing
his bags come January.
Finally, more
information can be gleaned from the choices the two camps are making
in how they conduct their campaigns. While some aren’t thrilled
with what they perceive to be Romney’s “play it safe” style, it
does indicate that his internal information is telling him
that he has a sizeable lead. Whether this “four-corner” approach
is wise or not, time will tell. Nonetheless, it does seem to be
borne of the old adage, “Never kill a man who’s already
committing suicide.”
Another indicator
along those same lines is that, while Obama is spending every penny
he takes in and then a full twenty percent more (in debt), Romney’s
“burn rate” is about eighty percent, saving twenty cents of every
dollar the way prudent people save for the possibility of a rainy
day. Obama’s spending every penny he can get his hands on as
fast as he can get his hands on it seems to indicate his
understanding that he needs to just survive July at any and all costs
and deal with the future if he makes it.
And it’s not just
Obama’s desperate attempts to buy his way back into contention that
is telling, so too is just what his campaign is spending that money
on. Spending this much money on television ads in July shows
a degree of desperation. Spending this much money on paid staff
seems to be an indication Obama is lacking for the support of
volunteers and so on.
Finally, the most
telling of all is how much Obama is spending on polling.
Polling to judge the state of the race in July is not much of an
imperative, especially when there are so many free sources for this
information (Rasmussen, Gallup, etc.) Typically such polling is
conducted at this time to test various campaign themes and messages.
Obama’s frantic spending on focus groups and other such polling
indicates that he is desperately searching for a message that will
work and that he hasn’t yet found one.
Believe it or not,
there are many more clues pointing towards a Romney romp that I
haven’t yet touched upon (the bounce he’ll receive from
announcing his running mate, the fact that Obama won’t have his
teleprompter if/when they debate, etc.)
But I’m already on
page five and, well, no matter where I look, all I see is a Romney
victory in November. In fact, it looks like it might even be a
romp.
1 comment:
of course if the author really believed this, he would have told you how many shares of Rommey that he owned on intrade. Of course, since he does not believe his silly blather, he owns none. Being not as rich as him, I will still call him. I will put up $50.00 on Obama. I would rather bet him directly than on intrade, since there the odds are in favor of Obama , about 6 to 4 I belive, So I would have to put up $60.00 to win $100.00
Do not hold your breath waiting for the author to accept
Post a Comment