Why Romney will probably win, its the economy, stupid

[Jay20]

I'm normally a Democrat, I voted for Obama in 2008, and I agree with the Dems far more than the GOP on most things, except foreign policy, on which I'm almost a "neo-con," so to speak. But I think Obama is likely gonna lose. Here's why: despite all the attacks which should have ended Romney, he's still within the MoE in almost every poll against Obama nationally, and 94% of the time, the pop vote winner wins the election. This against an incumbent president. Obama is also not picking up any new states.

But most importantly, his numbers on the economy and health care are so bad that by the time Romney has been hit with all the Bain stuff, which he has, and successfully makes it a referendum on the economy, Obama will probably lose. Not like Jimmy Carter electorally, but more like Gerald Ford electorally by the numbers. I don't think the Latino lopsidedness for Obama will outweigh the general disatisfaction with him on the economy, and the Mormon vote will be monster in Nevada and the West. Plus, rednecks hate Obama more than Hispanics hate Romney. Romney is also making a much bigger splash on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube than McCain did in 2008. Don't get me wrong, Romney could still lose, but if he loses it will be by a hair, like John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, who Romney is very similar to, Romney has actually attacked the incumbent president, whereas Kerry tried to "take the high road."

The fact that this ultrarich Mormon flip-flop is still in the race at this point shows the trouble Obama is having. not to mention that Obama is probably gonna get the smallest Jewish vote for a Dem since Carter in 1980, which matters up north, in FL, and CA.

[pbrower2a]

I'm normally a Democrat, I voted for Obama in 2008, and I agree with the Dems far more than the GOP on most things, except foreign policy, on which I'm almost a "neo-con," so to speak. But I think Obama is likely gonna lose. Here's why: despite all the attacks which should have ended Romney, he's still within the MoE in almost every poll against Obama nationally, and 94% of the time, the pop vote winner wins the election. This against an incumbent president. Obama is also not picking up any new states.

But most importantly, his numbers on the economy and health care are so bad that by the time Romney has been hit with all the Bain stuff, which he has, and successfully makes it a referendum on the economy, Obama will probably lose. Not like Jimmy Carter electorally, but more like Gerald Ford electorally by the numbers. I don't think the Latino lopsidedness for Obama will outweigh the general disatisfaction with him on the economy, and the Mormon vote will be monster in Nevada and the West. Plus, rednecks hate Obama more than Hispanics hate Romney. Romney is also making a much bigger splash on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube than McCain did in 2008. Don't get me wrong, Romney could still lose, but if he loses it will be by a hair, like John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, who Romney is very similar to, Romney has actually attacked the incumbent president, whereas Kerry tried to "take the high road."

The fact that this ultrarich Mormon flip-flop is still in the race at this point shows the trouble Obama is having. not to mention that Obama is probably gonna get the smallest Jewish vote for a Dem since Carter in 1980, which matters up north, in FL, and CA.

Southern blue-collar whites (please don't call them 'rednecks') may not relate to President Obama, and that showed up in his spectacular failure in five states  (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that Bill Clinton won twice. He is not going to win any state that has not gone for a Democratic nominee since 1976. Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia are the last such states that a Democratic nominee for President is going to win for a long time.  That is unlikely to change enough to make a difference; 12% margins might go down to 8% margins at most, which would more likely flip either Georgia or Missouri. But note well that no plan for an Obama victory implies that any one of those states is in contest. He won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia to the extent that those states have large populations not connected to rural blue-collar populations largely of Scotch-Irish stock that trusts nothing exotic.  Note well that those populations are heavily concentrated in the southeastern quadrant of the United States.

Mitt Romney has done well at letting surrogates like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist do the attack ads... that is how Republicans win. Stand for the most selfish and questionable interests, the best-organized but morally-suspect, but keep a safe distance. Sure, we liberals loathe the Orwellian Two Minutes Hate directed at our candidates... but we have read Orwell and know how effective propaganda can be. The proles of the fictional "Air Strip One" may have no reason for living, but they aren't going to rebel. (Let people like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist establish the political norms and most Americans will have little to live for except the promise of pie-in-the-sky-if-you-die-if-you-obey-the-Ruling-Class, something that Orwell missed).

President Obama depends heavily upon minority votes -- non-white, non-Christian, non-Anglo, over-educated, and LGBT votes. If he gets those he can get about 40% of the other vote and win.

Successful politics often depends upon appealing to the irrational subconscious -- bigotry, unexamined fears, wild hopes (I just might win the super-duper-Megabucks lottery!), superstition, and virulent nationalism. President Obama is inept at that. Maybe he is better at that. So was Al Gore. 

From 1980 until 2000, Republicans typically had the finishing kick. They could easily organize the fundamentalist Protestant vote and the single-issue voters on abortion and 'gun rights'. That was when the youth vote was comparatively apathetic and conservative. That is over.   

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

But most importantly, his numbers on the economy and health care are so bad that by the time Romney has been hit with all the Bain stuff, which he has, and successfully makes it a referendum on the economy, Obama will probably lose. Not like Jimmy Carter electorally, but more like Gerald Ford electorally by the numbers. I don't think the Latino lopsidedness for Obama will outweigh the general disatisfaction with him on the economy, and the Mormon vote will be monster in Nevada and the West. Plus, rednecks hate Obama more than Hispanics hate Romney. Romney is also making a much bigger splash on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube than McCain did in 2008. Don't get me wrong, Romney could still lose, but if he loses it will be by a hair, like John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, who Romney is very similar to, Romney has actually attacked the incumbent president, whereas Kerry tried to "take the high road."

Mormons already vote heavily republican, and they already have high voting percentages. So there really won't be high Mormon turnout because it's already abnormally high. And the latest Latino Decisions Poll shows Obama getting 70 percent to Romney's 22 percent of Hispanics. That makes it extremely hard for Romney to take New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. And It's gonna be extremely hard for Obama to take Indiana and North Carolina, but Virginia is doing pretty well right now on the economic front. Almost every poll shows Obama at least marginally ahead. And Romney is highly unpopular there. If he takes Virginia, then he probably has already won.

[technical support]

I'm normally a Democrat, I voted for Obama in 2008, and I agree with the Dems far more than the GOP on most things, except foreign policy, on which I'm almost a "neo-con," so to speak. But I think Obama is likely gonna lose. Here's why: despite all the attacks which should have ended Romney, he's still within the MoE in almost every poll against Obama nationally, and 94% of the time, the pop vote winner wins the election. This against an incumbent president. Obama is also not picking up any new states.

But most importantly, his numbers on the economy and health care are so bad that by the time Romney has been hit with all the Bain stuff, which he has, and successfully makes it a referendum on the economy, Obama will probably lose. Not like Jimmy Carter electorally, but more like Gerald Ford electorally by the numbers. I don't think the Latino lopsidedness for Obama will outweigh the general disatisfaction with him on the economy, and the Mormon vote will be monster in Nevada and the West. Plus, rednecks hate Obama more than Hispanics hate Romney. Romney is also making a much bigger splash on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube than McCain did in 2008. Don't get me wrong, Romney could still lose, but if he loses it will be by a hair, like John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, who Romney is very similar to, Romney has actually attacked the incumbent president, whereas Kerry tried to "take the high road."

The fact that this ultrarich Mormon flip-flop is still in the race at this point shows the trouble Obama is having. not to mention that Obama is probably gonna get the smallest Jewish vote for a Dem since Carter in 1980, which matters up north, in FL, and CA.

Have you been looking at the polls lately. You have obama losing va?? And winning Iowa???  CO,NV going to romney. The west?? U can't be serious.

[technical support]

I'm normally a Democrat, I voted for Obama in 2008, and I agree with the Dems far more than the GOP on most things, except foreign policy, on which I'm almost a "neo-con," so to speak. But I think Obama is likely gonna lose. Here's why: despite all the attacks which should have ended Romney, he's still within the MoE in almost every poll against Obama nationally, and 94% of the time, the pop vote winner wins the election. This against an incumbent president. Obama is also not picking up any new states.

But most importantly, his numbers on the economy and health care are so bad that by the time Romney has been hit with all the Bain stuff, which he has, and successfully makes it a referendum on the economy, Obama will probably lose. Not like Jimmy Carter electorally, but more like Gerald Ford electorally by the numbers. I don't think the Latino lopsidedness for Obama will outweigh the general disatisfaction with him on the economy, and the Mormon vote will be monster in Nevada and the West. Plus, rednecks hate Obama more than Hispanics hate Romney. Romney is also making a much bigger splash on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube than McCain did in 2008. Don't get me wrong, Romney could still lose, but if he loses it will be by a hair, like John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, who Romney is very similar to, Romney has actually attacked the incumbent president, whereas Kerry tried to "take the high road."

The fact that this ultrarich Mormon flip-flop is still in the race at this point shows the trouble Obama is having. not to mention that Obama is probably gonna get the smallest Jewish vote for a Dem since Carter in 1980, which matters up north, in FL, and CA.

going back to read most of your recent post and most of your post are anti-obama so this map you put up is FLAWED.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's not that much of a flawed map. Nevada is probably out of Mitt's reach, but other than, I could actually see something like this happening.

My predictions for November have gone on a rollercoaster ride this week. After the Bain crap and the refusal to release more tax returns, I was almost sure Romney would be finished. But almost all polling suggests Obama's attacks aren't working (or even having an opposite effect). So I figure if Romney can whether this, he's got a good shot at coming out on top once the worst of this is done. Obama's attack lines are going to get old pretty fast.

[5280]

Why would hispanics vote for president Obama a 2nd time when their UNEMPLOYMENT is 12.1% and hasn't changed? Obama hasn't done anything successful, he never held a business, never worked in the private sector, keeps on bashing success, keeps on pandering to a specific ethnicity. Tell me that's not pathetic?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Why would hispanics vote for president Obama a 2nd time when their UNEMPLOYMENT is 12.1% and hasn't changed? Obama hasn't done anything successful, he never held a business, never worked in the private sector, keeps on bashing success, keeps on pandering to a specific ethnicity. Tell me that's not pathetic?

Because Romney and the GOP have been extremely hostile to them and Obama has attempted to help him.
And stop acting like business experience makes you more prepared to be President than a US Senator. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton had NO business experience whatsoever and they still did great jobs. But you know who did have business experience? Herbert Hoover (Great Depression), Jimmy Carter (78-81 Recession), George H.W. Bush (91-92 Recession), and George W. Bush (Great Recession). He's not bashing success, he's bashing Romney's record. Why do you guys always take attacking the business record someone claims qualifies them to be POTUS as an attack on capitalism and success?

[Jay20]

because he's not Romney or a Republican? Identity politics.

I could see Romney put Rubio on the ticket not because he thinks he's gonna win the Hispanic vote, but because it'll help him hedge Obama's Latino edge, shave off enough points to make it closer.

[Vosem]

Mitt Romney has done well at letting surrogates like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist do the attack ads... that is how Republicans win. Stand for the most selfish and questionable interests, the best-organized but morally-suspect, but keep a safe distance. Sure, we liberals loathe the Orwellian Two Minutes Hate directed at our candidates... but we have read Orwell and know how effective propaganda can be. The proles of the fictional "Air Strip One" may have no reason for living, but they aren't going to rebel. (Let people like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist establish the political norms and most Americans will have little to live for except the promise of pie-in-the-sky-if-you-die-if-you-obey-the-Ruling-Class, something that Orwell missed).

What's really Orwellian is that you seem to really believe this. I was originally going to reply with a simple 'lol', but that wouldn't be accurate. This didn't make me laugh at you -- it made me pity you.

President Obama is inept at that. Maybe he is better at that.

I feel compelled to note that you contradicted yourself here.

From 1980 until 2000, Republicans typically had the finishing kick. They could easily organize the fundamentalist Protestant vote and the single-issue voters on abortion and 'gun rights'. That was when the youth vote was comparatively apathetic and conservative. That is over.   

Remember several things, pbrower:
a) People tend to grow more conservative as they age. That's why the impending demographic Democratic majority that has been prophesied since forever has never come and never will.

b) Keep in mind (and, as a pro-choice Republican, I hate to say this) the trend on abortion over the past few years has been going the wrong way, from 55-45 opposed to 60-40 opposed. Gun rights having been trending slowly towards the anti-2nd Amendment crowd (unfortunately), but this isn't a winning issue for the American left at the moment; keep in mind polls taken in Florida, a swing state, continue to show very heavy support for the Stand Your Ground law (over 60%).

That isn't over, pbrower. Not even close.

[AmericanNation]

We haven't seen any recovery and with Obama as president it's hard to imagine anything better than treading water.  It just occurred to me that the effects of this drought will probably be felt past November.  Iowa and Wisconsin are also greatly effected.  You also have the coal industry collapsing.  Hard to imagine Obama winning when he's losing(and will continue to lose) on the biggest issue.