In the last week, there have been two consistent themes being sounded by the Democrats. One is the assertion that Mitt Romney’s momentum has been halted and even reversed. The other is that their ground game is so good that the president is bound to win the election no matter what the polls say. These two talking points are closely related, since the polls that liberal analysts cite in order to assert that the president is edging back into the lead are based on assumptions about the composition of the electorate that are only possible if the Democrats match or even exceed the massive turnout they achieved in 2008.
Why pollsters would assume that a correct sample for the 2012 election would mirror the 2008 results when Obama rode a wave of disgust for the Bush administration and belief in his promise of hope and change is a mystery that demands an explanation that has yet to be forthcoming. Yet Democrats say the question is irrelevant since their ability to generate turnout is so expert and so superior to that of the Republicans they believe there is little doubt that once again the number of their voters will outnumber those of the GOP. To that end, journalists have been citing the fact that there are far more Obama campaign offices in states like Ohio than those working for Romney. But that is an argument that even some on the left understand is largely meaningless. Not only may the ground game advantage be a myth, the changes in partisan affiliation in the last four years render the optimistic poll numbers that are encouraging Democrats in the past week a self-deception that could lead to bitter disappointment on election day.
The field office gap has become as popular a talking point in recent days as the gender gap. Earlier in the week the Atlantic’s Molly Ball reported that not only are the Democrats’ offices more numerous, but that the GOP outlets are either sleepier or lack interest in Romney’s fate as opposed to those of local Republican candidates. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough was so impressed by this argument that he wrote in Politico that it showed that Romney was depending on emotion and intangibles while the Democrats were relying on practical organizational skills.
The problem with this simplistic argument is easily illustrated. There are far fewer GOP field offices, but that’s because as even Kevin Drum, a writer for the left-wing Mother Jones, wrote on Friday, Republicans are operating on a different paradigm:
There’s been a disconnect in the ground games of the major parties for some time. Democrats tend to rely on paid, professional operations, while Republicans rely more on volunteer efforts, largely from evangelical churches. This is something that actually works in the Republicans’ favor, since volunteer efforts from friends and neighbors tend to be more effective at switching votes than professional phone banks. (Also cheaper.)
The other reason why Republicans are not as obsessed with turnout is that their base tends to be more highly motivated and, as a rule, are already registered rather than having to be schlepped out to the polls with great difficulty. They are instead working on convincing independents to give Romney a second look, an effort that has borne fruits as polls show their candidate gaining ground among centrists.
That’s something that gets us to the heart of this conundrum about turnout. As Josh Jordan explains in National Review, both Gallup and Rasmussen agree that the partisan split between Republicans and Democrats has changed markedly since 2008. Whereas four years ago the Democrats had a seven-point advantage, this fall that has become a 1 or 2 point Republican edge.
Under those circumstances, it’s difficult to take seriously those polls like the Investors Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll that shows Obama up by one point, since its sample has seven percent more Democrats than Republicans. But even there, there is little to encourage the president’s supporters since his numbers have been declining in that poll over the past week. You have to believe along with Obama staffer Jim Messina that their ground game that will produce an electorate that is disproportionately Democratic with more minority and young voters than even in 2008 to think such a result is even possible.
This makes the operative question this week not so much whether which polls are accurate as it is how even with a field office advantage can the Democrats possibly manufacture the sort of partisan turnout advantage that could re-elect Obama? In a year when independents are flocking to Romney, there simply may not be enough Democrats, youth or minority voters to offset the fact the GOP base will turn out in numbers that will far eclipse their totals in 2008. Discussion about a ground game may be simply an attempt to distract us from the fact that the president’s campaign is betting everything on an organizational plan that can’t overcome the way the electorate has changed over the course of the Obama presidency.
In other words, another shellacking coming up.
Yep. And remember, liberals were in denial last time around. True to form, they're hanging their hopes on this race being neck-and-neck, giving them a chance to win by a nose. More likely they'll lose by several lengths.
The biggest wild card of all is whether or not fundamentalist Christians will show up to vote. Quite frankly, I doubt it. Mitt is not a Christian, but rather belongs to a sect well outside of mainstream Christianity.
The question may not be whether Mr. Romney will win, but by how much.
I just want to make a point here. How many people are arming those campaign field offices? I say the larger city offices are manned, the smaller, are closed. How do I know? The field office in my city is hardly ever opened. In the last few months I have seen two people in that office for a few hours on a Friday, I know this because the republican field office is in the old post office across the street and we are open every day, manning the phones, stuffing envelopes and there are a few(25) of us knocking on doors, placing yard signs(where we can). This is a republican city and guess what it's in Pennsylvania.
I still believe this election is not over, and we are far from a "shellacking" likelihood. The polls this week should tell us much more reliably where the most recent Romney improvement will take him. For a shellacking to occur the polls will have to be consistent; even the type that Jonathan mentions will have to show clear Romney leads–5 points. State polls in the swing states will have to show leads. And, to me, most significantly, we will have to see Pennsylvania tied in several polls which will force a personal Obama or Romney visit to that state. If by the end of the week, we don''t see the aforementioned, my take is the election will be very, very close. n
Perhaps, aroundthetrack, perhaps. But I still wager on a mini-landslide, of at least seven points for Mitt. Obama's hit his growth limit, his "peak base support," to borrow a term from the enviro-nutters. Among other things, such as the possibility that the pollsters and the polled are being less than totally honest, the appearance on the scene of conservative Christians, a few of whom sat out the 2008 race…"a few" to the tune of around 20 million…will make a discernible blip, I'm sure. I've placed my trust in the best prediction and projection experts, the true political prophets of our times; the Las Vegas bookies. n nFear no more the frown of the great, nThou art past the tyrant's stroke: nCare no more to clothe and eat; nTo thee the reed is as the oak: nThe sceptre, learning, physic, must nAll follow this, and come to dust. n–from Wm. Shakespeare, "Fear No More"
One thing I have noticed, In the avg of all the polls nationally, Obama is at 46.8%. That seems very low for a sitting President. On the main issues of today, Obama is behind in every poll. I find it hard to believe people will vote for the guy they trust lest on the economy
ATT – What's your take on the seemingly Democrat-heavy polls, in OH, NH, Iowa, for example? Seems to me that one of the reasons those races look close is because pollsters are predicting considerably more Dems to vote than Reps. nOn a positive note, Biden is heading back to PA, and everybody and their dog is going to WI. I still don't see how Ohio is really neck and neck if WI and PA (and perhaps MN!) are actually competitive.
Two interpretations here – Democrat view is that Romney is desperately looking at new states that have not been fiercely contested yet to make up for an Ohio loss they see coming. In this view Virginia and Colorado are trending back to Obama and NH, Iowa, and Nevada remain solid Obama. But Romney, instead of defending his narrow path, is taking a Hail Mary pass to expand the map. n nRepublican view is that Ohio early voting and electorate composition have improved enough over 2008 to make win likely, and CO, IA, and NH also trending nicely, so keep Obama on defense by opening new fronts in WI, MN, PA so he can't rally for a comeback in Ohio. In this view Obama is still traveling to VA and FL only in a desperate attempt to replace an Ohio loss, similar to McCain betting the farm on PA and counting on light-red states to hold. A Romney move on PA and MI would stretch Obama very thin. n nGoes without saying that we will see who is right over the next few days. If Romney pushes seriously into PA, MN, and MI then Obama is on his heels in Ohio and it's just a question of how big the Romney margin will be. If Romney's feints to MN and PA prove to be bluffs and he spends more time in VA, FL, CO, IA and WI, then he expects a loss in Ohio and needs to thread the needle and Obama will likely hit 270. Don't look at OH activity to judge, both campaigns will spend plenty of time there regardless if only because pulling back will be seen as conceding the election.
I don't think that the outcome turns very much on how many appearances Romney makes in this state or that. However, history shows that investment of other resources is often important in moving a few percentage points of the vote toward one candidate or another. But content is more important than the dollars spent. Romney has the problem of not having spent much if any money in Pennsylvania, and the problem that his ads are not as direct as they could be. He should be deploying effective ads like the one from 1988 that reminded voters of Mike Dukakis' blunder in furloughing Willie Horton. Instead he's running (here in Virginia) an idiotic commercial that touts nonsense about "reaching across the aisle." I don't want him reaching across any aisle to the socialists who would happily plunge a knife in his heart – and the Constitution – if they could. So I guess I agree with your fundamental point that inept campaign strategy on the part of the Romney team could produce a win for Obama. My hope is that overall the Romney team is better than that. And on balance I have to give them credit for closing strongly in several of the Midwestern primaries.
You didn't mention Obama's cash problem. It was reported last week he borrowed 15 million from BOA. While Romney had 163 million cash on hand.
Nah, 5 point leads are not required. Remember, any poll, except Rasmussen, in which the Obama “lead” is within the margin of error is a win for Romney (since the others are so liberally slanted).
It is not necessary for Romney to even have the lead in some of the swing states for him to win them. There are several, like Ohio, where Obama is ahead by one, but there is a 4 point undecided. Assume 1% are going to 3rd party candidates the other 3% undecided have been shown to go 75% to 80% against the incumbent. 48 – 47 +1 Obama when the undecideds are included will probably be 50 – 49 Romney when the election takes place.
I am not responding to add or subtract from your thoughts, but reflect on what you have stated as a solid basis for consideration. Yes polls do not always reflect what happens on a certain day but generally are an accurate view of what will happen if all things continue as statistically measured during the last 30 days. Hence the rise of the "October Surprise" to change expectations. Weather is now in the cards, too late for scandal news, and more probable no other Geopolitical event will further skew the polling. Therefore, the weather is in play with hurricane Sandy. How that would actually affect the real polling on November 6th is unknown. I do know a storm dampens the turnout and local resources are on damage control in key states for this election. History may report, later on who Hurricane Sandy voted for president. That poll has not been taken.
That's my boy, undie, you're using your noggins this time, but you're pre-empting The One's last excuse of his collapsing presidency: Sandy voted against me!!!
julia will tho. i guess sandy doesnt want free contraception.
Thank you, Mr. Tobin, for this information. I've been somewhat amused and bemused by these arguments. nAnd ATT, I appreciate your (continuing) sober approach to this election. I might be getting too excited, but I remain optimistic. At any rate, the day you show excitement, I'll let loose with all my pent up emotion!
God, I hope you’re right.
RE: even the type that Jonathan mentions will have to show clear Romney leads–5 points. State polls in the swing states will have to show leads. n nMore important than a Romney lead is Obama is unable to poll above 50% and his favorable rating is dropping quickly as the Libya cluster- ***k finally breaks out. Libya shows that there is nothing Obama won't say to keep his job. Honesty is not optimal. An incumbent below 50% with a net unfavorable rating on election day is in trouble.
"In the last week, there have been two consistent themes being sounded by the Democrats. One is there assertion that Mitt Romney's momentum has been halted and even reversed." n nam i supposed to trust someone's analysis that can't even get basic grammar right
Barack Obama won the presidential election because the Republican candidate, John McCain, ran such a poor campaign. McCain insisted on only taking money from the government, $85 million, I believe, while Obama refused this and raised lots more money. McCain's campaign was so financiallyt poor that it didn't even have a campaign office in Washington, D.C. McCain also refused to attack Obama on being a member if Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, Wright being a communist ("Marxist") advocate of "Black Liberation") anti-white, anti-semitic, anti-American, because – said McCain – he did not attack a person's religion. Nor did McCain attack Obamas's connection to Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, nor to financial racketeer Tony Rezko. nI speak from having worked in the McCain campaign.
He was so supremely self-rightous it was a clear case of self destruction. I was infuriated he wouldn't unmask Obama in 2008 and am even more furious that with all the record Obama lugs now our media refuses to do the same. Pat Cadell is right; the press in the USA is now a grave threat to our republic and an enemy to us all.
And he suspended his campaign just as he held a lead. He run an honest campaign against a dishonest campaigner(obama)
I think the Dems really believe they can get a lot of the ten million new voters since 2008, mostly people who have had their 18th birthday since 2008. nExplains why all he talks about is college tuition, the Lena Dunham Youtube. n nAs to the ground game? Beyond my imagination what Obama door-knockers try to say when the door opens…actually, I know what they are saying because I still read tnr.com, seems to consist of Liar/MediScare. n n
What can they say? n nOnly something negative about Romney. n nLook at these three headlines that appeared next to one anther yesterday. n nObama assails Romney's record as Governor Of Massachusetts. n nRomney pushes bipartisanship. 'My team will work across the aisle'. n nObama slams Romney in New Ad. n nSad to see a President reduced to this. n n
I agree ew1. I have never seen such a negative campaign. I'm just holding my breath & crossing all my fingers that the R & R team pulls it off & gets us out of this mess.
come on K2K, why are you dissing me for? Romney is losing minority votes by record numbers beyond anything ever before. That means he has to win white voters to an unprecedented scale. People get hung up on national polls but don’t break it down by region. Romney is killing in the south by huge margins, but that means nothing in the electoral college. Outside of the former Confederacy in the aggregate Romney is well below 50%, he has already lost Nevada and New Mexico. In early polling he is way behind in Iowa and Ohio. It is simple math unless all of the early voters are lying Romney has too huge a hill to climb.
I am not saying Romney can’t win. Maybe Obama has cannibalized all of his votes early but that is not what has happened historically.
According to Rasmussen, with Obama cashing in on 64% of the early vote and with that early vote constituting 32% of the total vote, Romney will need 56% of the remaining vote to win. That is definitely doable, especially with OH polling at 50% for Romney at baseline and many of the early voters skewing Dem. It will be close.
just factually speaking, youre wrong on iowa and ohio in the implications you make. iowa is mirroring 2004 early voting, where bush won the state (so far Ds have a 57k early vote adv. <60k is the R target, and theyve been gaining ground daily). iowa is looking good for Rs. and in ohio, only 20% have voted early according to state data. polls have dramatically overstated early voting (over 30% in most cases), thereby skewing Os numbers upward. but the two latest polls from OH overall have R-49% O-49% and R-50% O-48%. so i would actually say those two states are looking pretty decent for Romney. n nalso, O is cannibalizing his early votes much more than R. in OH (i believe, but it might have been a different state), 72% of early R voters have voted in 0, 1, or 2 previous elections, while 57% of O voters have voted in 0, 1, or 2 previous elections, showing how R has expanded his voting base, while O has cannibalized it (at least more so than R). n nRomney wins this race, and, by most indications so far, wins decisively.
Well, maybe they can get all those newly minted Lena Dunham's to the polls. Maybe not. Would be nice if Romney could remove Ohio from the Obama side of the ledger…
Fortunately for Republicans only Americans are allowed to vote in the 2012 Presidential elections because, if the rest of the world were also allowed take part in an election to decide who the next US President will be, Romney would be suffering a huge embarrassing defeat. n nIt also tells you something about what the rest of the world thinks about neoconservatism.
Well, I say that changes everything, undie. If the "rest of he world," especially the "Palestinians," China, Russia, Iran and possibly the Nobel committee prefer Obama, we need to listen. For fear of sounding reactionary, how did you determine what the "rest of the world thinks"? Pollsters can't manage to get a grip on what Americans think, yet you've necromanced world opinion all by yourself.
Those other countries where the people supposedly do not approve of Mitt Romney (not that more than 1% of them would have any accurate information about him) will be the first to ask the US to come to their aid when they get into trouble. n nAs to voting only by "Americans," unfortunately, Somalis and other foreign nationals are being bussed to the "early voting" locations by the hundreds (if not thousands) by their Democrat "interpreters" (handlers) in Ohio. The Republicans have no one who speaks Somali, so there's no way to confirm that these people are citizens. It's highly doubtful that they ARE citizens, because knowledge of English is required for citizenship (with a few exceptions not relevant here).
Such drivel, why don't you guys just give it up, you've lost.
I have been saying this for some time now. The one poll for Obama in the RCP average that is not eight days or more old, the IBD one, makes a ridiculous assumption regarding democratic turnout than any other poll. It actually claims that more independents will vote than republicans. So idiotic on its face for anyone with a shred of common sense. The polls in Ohio do the same.r nr nThe national polls show a landslide coming for Romney. Do not be fooled by a few flawed outliers.
Obama Campaign came to my sisters house today…. She lives a few blocks from me. Had a big button on for Obama…. My BIL told him Sorry, we are voting for Romney… The guy said Oh thats fine, I am just looking for Nellie *last name*….. Which would be fine…. except the fact that Nellie is their dog they adopted in March….. THEIR DOG. If Obama wins it is going to be by dogs and and dead people votes..
Yes. Dogs, cats, and dead people will vote by mail.
Easy. Dead voters and multiple voters will make up the difference for Obama. Eric Holder has been quietly building a massive vote fraud operation for years. It will make Fast & Furious look like a stumblebum operation.
The only thing that motivates democrats to get out of bed in the morning is having to go the the welfare office to pick up their check. Now if they could vote AND pick up their welfare/disability check at the same place, then the Democrats would have a win win situation. The silent majority are going to put a boot up the a@@ of this failure, you can count on it.
What motivates people is fools like you who think you know everything, yet know nothing. The only prayer Willard has is if he can convince people he's not a loony toon mormon that thinks god lives on the planet revolving around the sun "kolob", and convince morons like you that Barack is a secret kenyan muslim antichrist.
You give new meaning to the word "bigot." I m a life-long Democrat, and I have never been on welfare.
"To that end, journalists have been citing the fact that there are far more Obama campaign offices in states like Ohio than those working for Romney. But that is an argument that even some on the left understand is largely meaningless." n nOf course it's meaningless. Romney could have tens as many offices than Obama in California and still have no chance to win the state. Obama could have one-hundred times as many offices in Texas than Romney and still have no chance to win the state. One store selling something everyone wants will always do better than twenty stores that sell nothing anybody wants.
I volunteered for the Obama campaign 4 years ago. If the ground game is anything like it was four years ago
Go on, undie, finish your thought….and if Grannie had wheels, she'd be a bus?
A local corollary to this mythology here in Nevada is the constant drone about the "invincibility" of the FEARSOME Harry Reid Turnout Machine, promoted here at home by Las Vegas sycophant Jon Ralston and even in the pages of the NY Times this week in a story about our US Senate race. n nAnd yet, no one seems to be able to answer the question: Why did the same voters turned out by the Machine in 2010 elect Republican Brian Sandoval governor over Harry's son Rory (Sandoval even carried Clark County!) and toss Dem Dina Titus from her CD 3 house seat? n nAnd why did the NY Times, in its "analysis" note that there are 90,000 more Dem than GOP active voter registrations in Nevada without noting that there are 6,000 fewer Dems and 5,000 more Republicans on the books than at the same point going into the 2008 election? n nBoth the presidential and senate race are too tight to call at this point, but I won't be surprised if the GOP takes both.
I think history shows that Incumbent gets what the polls say he will get, but no more. The challenger gets the rest. So in some states that will be the deciding move, depending on how many votes are stripped off to the Non major party candidates. The historic average is about 1.5%. I think the most significant polling shows Obama below 50 in many of the swings even though he holds a small lead. In my mind, take the remaining votes and give them to Romney and thats how this plays out.
I think on election night, as the votes are counted, people are gonna see one of the biggest election shockers of all time. I dont just think Romney will just win, he will win in a massive landslide. I dont doubt these poll numbers and I think the analysis in this article is sound. I just think that moderate dems and independents, wont be able to pull the lever for Obama, once they are in the booth.
Ha – these silly communist are sure in for a shock. Up here where I live in Rural CT – everyone is unbelievably excited about voting out this socialist. Not only is he going to lose the national vote by double digits – he will likely not even win my state of CT. From what I see Romney will effortlessly carry PA, MN, WI, IA, OH, FL, NC, VA, OR with absolutely no problem and will begin to push into states like CT, ME and god willing even the heart of the great liberal Satan itself – MA! woooo woooo
You've lost what semblance of a mind you have left.. nMitt couldn't put a dent in Massachusetts if his life depended on it. For one thing, we are too liberal. Second, we've seen mitt govern. Third, they don't call us the best educated state for nothing. 4th, you're wicked delusional. nYou better pray for some kind of mormon miracle.
Obama will win, California, New York, Illinois, Vermont and the District of Columbia.r n Obama May win Washington, Oregon, Maine, and Hawaii.r n r nAll other states will vote Romney.r n r nThe republicans will gain 12 in the Senate and hold the House with 7 to 11 seats gained.r nr nBased on the current polls, which are subject to change;r nThe Popular Vote Split will be – Romney 56 Obama 43
If you think mitt will get Massachusetts you've lost your mind.
The way i see things, and i could be wrong, is; Mr. Obama should have never been elected to term one. He is too far to the left. We knew it, we were unable to prevent it and IT has been proven correct. In addition, he has done tremendous damage in four short and painful years.
The election in 08 was John mcCain’s to lose and LOSE he did. I do not see Romney having made similar errors this election campaign. On the contrary, his debate performances have been good and solid. Wheras his challenger has given weak and or superficial performances. Even his base support is not convinced.
I predict many former supporters of mr. Obama will either not vote or vote 3rd party. “Opps”
Obama is the Livni.
For the post below: Glad for å se "Commentary" leses i Norge! (Glat to see Commentary is being read in Norway!)
After polling samples way beyond the usual, both Gallup and Rasmussen show national Republican and Democrat ID to be almost exactly even. It's very difficult to conclude, therefore, that the party ID that shows up in some of these polls is even close to accurate. What concerns me is turnout we can predict in any given swing state. We all know the story about the man who couldn't swim, was told the river averaged two feet, but ended up drowning because he crossed where the river was ten feet deep. In other words, what are the party IDs in these states: average, above, below? Of course, party ID doesn't mean party turnout will reflect it, but it's a good frame of reference, particularly given Republican enthusiasm. Someone above mentioned Obama not getting to 50%. This is a very good indicator for us and this is something else I'd watch this week. If he's stuck where he has been–45,46, 47,48–particularly in the swing states, I'd become optimistic. Until then, I'm very cautious. By the way, besides finding myself living in a swing state, I now find myself living in a state that's likely to get whacked by the hurricane. So, if you are too, stay safe!!
Don't forget the impact of Hurricane / nor'easter / cold-front Sandy on the efficacy of either candidate's ground game. There is only so much a marginally invested voter will go through for a free van ride and a sandwich. n nI'm in no way pleased at the advent of a storm which will have substantial human and economic costs to our country, but the reality is that in a election this close and this important, everything — even natural disaster — has an impact on electoral reality. And that impact will disproportionately hamper the Obama campaign, with its reliance on early voting ground games. n nIf the early voting effort is flat in Philadelphia, Allentown and Pittsburgh, the state of Pennsylvania will go for Romney. It is solidly red outside of those urban hubs. A transfer of those 20 electoral votes to the Republicans will render Ohio far less relevant to this election and possibly turn the entire race to the challenger.
If Pennsylvania votes for Romney, he doesn't need Ohio, so I hope you are right.
Given much area this storm is going to cover, I wonder how much this will affect the accuracy of the national polls(or those states' affected by the storm). Will Rasmussen and Gallup, for example, decide to suspend national polling? Focus only on states? I haven't read anything about this. Has anyone out there?
I'll answer my own question. Yes, Gallup is suspending tracking for at least a day.
More local Democratic offices in Ohio means more opportunities for vote fraud. Perhaps that's the basis of their confidence.
"Obama ground game"?? nIs it anything as effective as Obama's "creating or saving" jobs? n5.2 million jobs "created or saved" – 4.9 million jobs lost over 3 1/2 years.
This discussion leaves out one major Democratic constituency that the Republican effort has not even touched. I t votes overwhelmingly Democrat.We should expect it to be out in force this year.r nr nThat constituency is the inhabitants of graveyards.r nr nWatch out, GOP!
Im curious as to the results of the election too. Personally, I am voting Obama (have voted, I should say, sent in my absentee ballot to florida last week). But I am far from certain he will win. The polls make me nervous, mainly for the reasons listed above. However, there are signs of Obama actually winning in the states he must win, such as Ohio. But then again, the only poll that matters is on the 6th.r nr nI guess what I want to say is this: We will see. It will be interesting.
Good article. I really don´t believe Obama´s turnout will be the same as 2008. I predice a 1992 type election. Romney will beat Obama, like Clinton beat Bush.
Those who are skeptical of the skepticism of the present polls need to remember the exit polls in 2004. I still remember the glum faces in the Bush field office in Santa Fe New Mexico when the first exit polls came in. The next day at the airport in Albuquerque as we waited for our various planes to take us home (we had been flown in for a voter integrity project) we were the happy few surrounded by a sea of glum Kerry supporters. If a poll taken the day of the election of people who have actually voted can be off as far as that one was, some skepticism of any poll is in order.
The author appears to be under the delusion that if I knock on a Million doors, a garner a million votes for my guy…. n nWhile I'm in CT, and therefore my vote for Romney matters little other than personal satisfaction, my mother, a life-long Democrat, former secretary for the AFL-CIO, president of an environmental group is voting for Romney. And in Middle PA, good luck finding more than a handful of even Democrats voting for Obama.
This "ground game" stuff is a lot of garbage. n nIn a book on the 1980 campaign the authors described a meeting in the White House with some New York political operatives including Democ-rat organization people, union leaders and Democ-rat money people. All said things were in place for Carter to win the State in both the primary and general election. He lost both and even conceded the general election after New York was awarded to future President Reagan. n nA participant at the meeting later observed, "It was all smoke and mirrors designed to fool other and we ended up fooling ourselves." (By the way, the New York City Democ-rat organizations supported Carter and Teddy Kennedy ran up his vote total there and the Erie County Democ-rat organization supported Teddy and Carter won there. So much for a "ground game"!)
The delusion in here is unreal. I voted for McCain in '08, but you guys are delusional. Obama has this thing pretty much wrapped up, learn how to lose people.
There may be a "silent majority" vote that will kick Obama out of the White House. A lot of voters don't say they are voting for Romney for fear they will be ridiculed and accused of not supporting him because they are racists. The reality is they voted for him before but don't like his policies.
Nate Silver puts Obama's chances at winning at 80% on election day on his 538 blog. There are several errors about the ground game: 1) it is largely staffed by volunteers, too. In fact, you can volunteer to call on Obama's website., 2) the serious activists have been turning out early voters and getting first time voters to vote early, as well as arranging to get people to the polls, 3) GOP's demographic is still aging out and their leadership is way farther to the right than the country. 4) The polls underestimate the youth vote and that will be a factor in this election, young women and their boyfriends really don't want to return to the sexual dark ages, 5) the media hypes the likely voters polls, tightening but part of this is an effect of Obama's early voter efforts moving likely voters to early voters, where he shows a substantial lead.
I'm in CA which is a "safe" Obama state. But the general lack of enthusiasm among my pro-Obama friends is notable. Even my 22-year-old daughter is questioning him. If that's happening here, it's plausible that it would be happening elsewhere.
as a politically moderate navy vet and christian, i voted for mccain in 2008 but have no interest in supporting a mormon for president. i was considering gary johnson but will probably vote for obama. cant trust someone who doesn't drink coffee or wine. the mormon faith is too extreme and chris christies endorsement of obama on superstorm sandy did it for me.
I don't know what this guy is smoking, but he is totally wrong. The Obama ground operation is composed of more than 99% volunteers–I know because I am one of them. After working for the campaign since the convention, I have seen only a handful of paid staff–often, there is not a single paid staff member present in our two large offices. Last weekend, 10,000 calls into the battleground states were made from our office in Mountain View, California, alone. Plus we are only one of the many campaign offices and other phone-banking locations in California, many of them in private homes. There are similar operations in all of the deep-blue and deep-red states. In the battleground states, every single precinct has a small Obama team to which we funnel data. This 2012 Obama campaign is without parallel in US political history. The Romney campaign, on the other hand, has many fewer offices and volunteers, and is making robocalls, which we do not do.
I can't help but wonder if the author of this column has, in the week that has passed, spent any time reflecting on how completely wrong he was. In every respect. Does it merit a "Hmm, what did I have wrong, here"? Or, are just finger pointing, blaming and accusations of "voter fraud" sufficient? So far, conservative pundits and yakkers have shown strong resistence to any sort of "learning from their mistakes."
John thank you for being willing to admit Obama was a bad call and changing your vote to Romney this time around. IMHO our country's very existence is at stake. I truly believe we are going to rout Obama out of office as a consequence of all of the disgraceful, divisive actions he's taken against this nation.
When Romney starts a war with china you might feel differently.
See my posting below. It's all smoke and mirrors, this "ground game" stuff designed to fool everybody but in the end they're fooling themselves. By the way John, I switched in 1980 and never looked back. It was, as the lefties of that time liked to say, "a liberating experience."
1980 was the year for me too. If you recall, a number of Reagan voters (me, and perhaps you) decided very late to fire Carter. It wasn't easy – he was a good man and a smart man. But "when someone's not doin' the job, ya gotta let'm go." nPollsters are probably right to look at 2008 for their turnout model – certainly, you can make the argument that the most recent election is the most germane. nBut this election sure reminds me of 1980.