The 2012 election is once again proving that having most of the mainstream media in your pocket is a huge advantage for a presidential candidate. President Obama’s re-election effort has been materially aided by being largely able to set the narrative of the race as the year unfolded. Mitt Romney’s gaffes were treated as game-changers, while Obama’s misstatements and scandals, like the security leaks from the White House, were often treated like footnotes rather than major stories. Media spin helped turn his convention into a hit and the Libya disaster, combined with Romney’s “47 percent” gaffe, has seemed to produce a genuine surge for the president in the last weeks. Conservatives may dispute the accuracy of polls that may be based on samples skewed to the Democrats or based on expectations of a repeat of the “hope and change” turnout figures of 2008. But after months of the race being seen as a dead heat, there’s little doubt that Obama is ahead right now. However, the glee on the left contains within it the possibility of a reversal.
The media narrative of the election having been largely decided in the last month is so strong that, as I wrote earlier this week, prominent outlets are openly expressing shock that the GOP hasn’t already conceded the election. Some are speaking as if Romney must not just win the first debate next week but mop the floor with the president if he is to have a chance in November. But the problem with this triumphalism on the left is that it can breed a fatal overconfidence. As encouraging as the president’s current poll numbers may be, his margins are still too small and there is still too much time left before Election Day for the left to assume the thing is in the bag. Even more to the point, it can breed a backlash against the media that can energize Romney’s camp and help fuel a competing comeback narrative. The president may not only have peaked too soon, but the overkill on the part of his journalistic cheerleading squad could be just the shot in the arm Romney needed.
It should be conceded that with 40 days to go, it is a lot better to be ahead — no matter how large or small the margin — than behind. The president’s good month has encouraged Democrat donors and depressed those of the Republicans. Such a state of affairs could, if the GOP misplays its hand in the coming weeks, theoretically snowball into a repeat of the party’s 2008 debacle.
But the notion that Romney is already so far behind that he will never be able to catch up is risible. For all of his missteps, he remains within striking distance of the president. The economy is still poor and the idea that the patent collapse of his foreign policy vision as our embassies are attacked in the Middle East will help rather than hurt him among voters is highly debatable.
Moreover, Americans hate being told that an election is over when they know it is still close. That gives Romney a clear opening to spend the remaining weeks running hard against the media as well as the president. Nobody may like a heartless plutocrat — the false image that the left has foisted on Romney — but everyone likes an underdog who is being undercut by a chattering class telling voters that all has been decided even before they vote. If Romney can tap into this sentiment, dissatisfaction with the president’s performance in office can still be the decisive factor in determining the outcome.
Liberals have spent the last several weeks telling themselves that they can’t lose. But this sort of talk can breed resentment. It remains to be seen whether Romney is able to take advantage of this opening but if he does, Democrats will regret the way their media amen corner attempted to declare the game over when there was still so much time left on the clock.
For those who recognize my moniker, you know how pessimistic I am, but, after reading a considerable number of articles and interviews about the most recent polls and their party identification weighing, I do believe that Obama's margins are being overstated a bit. I'm not sure, however, that Jonathan is right about Obama voters becoming overconfident. If they will be, and therefore supress Democratic turnout, I would guess this might be countered by discouragement of Republican turnout. Even my wife who can't stand my pessimism, and who has rationed the time I can bash Romney around the house, confessed today that she's getting discouraged. But, work we will and hopefully you folks will too.
As President Dewey showed us, it could happen. But Tobin's probably whistling in the dark.
"As President Dewey showed us, it could happen. But Tobin's probably whistling in the dark." n nWhoa. I know you're attempting to be ironic here. Or is it sarcastic? Tobin hasn't declared anyone the winner. So your allusion to Dewey is pointless. Also, the "But" in your second sentence is hopelessly confused and all but meaningless if you intended it to coordinate with the meaning of your first sentence. I mean . . . . Forget it. There is no discernible coherent meaning in what you wrote. Your fingers are wandering around the keyboard like a drunken driver's car on a highway. n nTell you what. Follow your psychiatrist's advice for a change. Get some rest, take your meds, and report back in January.
>>anadessma: Get over it. If the most you can contribute is nastiness why don't you follow your own advice, " Get some rest, take your meds!"
Do me a favor—once you've recovered from your fainting spell, I mean—YOU translate GOM's sentence into coherent English.
I'm staying away from political news as much as I possibly can these days, which means that I'm not looking at polls every 20 minutes or checking Contentions obsessively for new posts. But when I do dabble in the news or look at polls I feel like I'm in an alternative universe. I would add to Tobin's comments by saying that at some point it is possible to so overplay a position that you (the liberal propaganda machine in this case) look foolish, and the value of everything you have to say decreases. Credibility still matters, I think. nWhen I see polls that show Obama winning by a greater margin than in 2008 I am immediately skeptical. How is that possible? I don't care if Romney really is as bad a candidate as Aroundthetrack thinks he is (loved your comment about your wife limiting your negative comments about Romney!), there is no way he loses worse than McCain. nTwo conclusions -First, the polls are ridiculous – ergo, paying attention to them is pointless. Second, if Obama wins by the margins projected by these polls, we are done for. Strangely enough, I find myself much more relaxed since I've adopted this approach.
mike- I feel just like you. I am not as pessimistic as Around….and am also incredulous of these polls that come fast and furious. It is becoming a joke and I wonder whether the people don't dismiss them totally. I think- in contrast to aroud..- that the 2008 election was an outlier that only comes in very unusual times- 1960 for the first catholic- maybe 1932 for FDR- and it will not be replicated,. I think this will be like 2004,rather than 1980 0r 2008- a close election and both can win it. We forget that kerry came close to winning, in spite of a (at the time) popular Bush. if Romney is still within shouting distance ,in the face of the most blatant media bias and fighting a historic figure (first african american), then there is still hope.
To both Mike's, when I read your posts, I had to smile. I just finished reading an email from my best friend who still lives where I moved from two years ago. He and I used to impose, what we called, a blackout on the news when it was depressing us. But, as he just wrote, presidential races seduce you and make it difficult to ignore what's going on. So, my guess is you two will weaken, read the polls, look at blog discussions, and slap me on the wrist when you think my pessimism has gone too far.
Well, I just read this, so maybe you're right… nThough, luckily, my job is kicking my tail these days, so I have less time for it, too. nOn another note – I hope that in my reference to you in the above post the intended light-heartedness was conveyed. nOK – back to work.
Just as an aside- if you watched Rasmussen last night on O'Reily, you see that he is the most realistic of all pollsters. He calls the race a toss up but said that if consumer confidence improved- which is what made the race move towards Obama- then Romeny will lose. i hate to be like that and hope for bad news, but in this context bad news is good news for Fomney.
Given that recent events (for example the Martin/Zimmerman shooting case) has shown that the MSM has absolutely NO compunction when it comes to publishing lies to support whatever viewpoint they hold, I don't see much reason to believe ANYTHING which they publish. I now rely on either foreign news outlets or extremely local (such as town papers) to get information. n nFrom them I have seen where the Obama administration has been working against the best interests of MOST of the Democratic Party's natural constituency, whether it is coal miners, ship builders, pipe fitters or any one of a dozen other unions. About the only ones his cabinet hasn't directly opposed have been the UAW, the NEA and the SEIU, and given his public indifference to their causes (during, for example, the recent strike in Chicago), the latter two probably aren't especially enthused about him just now either. n nWhile I can't see them voting for Romney, after the EPA has forced the closure of coal mines and associated power plants, I can't see the related unions supporting Obama for four more years of the same (not that they would EVER reveal that to pollsters). This is just a small sample of his transgressions against his natural base. If they don't stay home, they'll probably just put in a protest vote (such as the 40% who voted to nominate a prisoner in W. Virginia)
Obama has been having a very bad two weeks, and polls show that his approval rating is exactly the same as it was in 2010, so I simply do not buy the idea that he is having any kind of a surge. However, Democratic overconfidence can certainly work to the GOP's advantage.
Meanwhile, the national debt is hardly discussed. The President says that there is no problem in the short term. I guess he is parsing his words because it depends on what the definition of "short term" is (hello Bill Clinton). n nBut, in 2011 the Treasury was able to sell only 39% of the bonds needed to cover the deficit to the general public. The remaining 61% was bought by the Fed. The Fed just printed the money! I can't believe that 2012 will be any better, probably worse. So, we may be in for a fiscal crisis in the short term after all , at least my definition of it, if not the esteemed President. n
The inflation we're in for, regardless of the winner, does not bear contemplating.