Yes, it’s hard for incumbents to lose–I’ve never said otherwise. Obama may still manage it, despite the advantages of incumbency, because he’s alienated so many who previously supported him. Just check the polling data I linked if you don’t think that’s happened, or this link to a just-released Gallup poll for further data. The key graph is here:
In 2008, the percentage of the population that either identified as Democratic or leaned Democratic was 52% while the percentage of the population that either identified as Republican or leaned Republican was 40%. As predicted by that data, Obama won. Today, the parties are exactly even, at 45% each. A twelve percent lead for the Democrats has dropped to zero. This may be a very close race, and Obama has a real chance of losing it.
Finally, I never said anything about civil liberties independents, just independents in general. For some, civil liberties will be the deciding issue, for others, the economy, for others, foreign policy, for still others a combination, and so on.
Followup edit: jeffd, when you said…
…you got it exactly backwards. There’s abundant hard evidence of Obama’s support waning (i.e., the 12% to zip data above). You’re the one taking your opinion and applying it to the electorate.
jeffd
1602
Those numbers are pretty much made up from my gut, and they can obviously be moved around in various ways. The larger point is that I think there’s really only three groups in the electorate, and they behave in fairly predictable fashions.
Also: there’s a fairly lengthy amount of poli-sci research showing that self-declared undecideds and independents are, for the most part, reliably partisan.
Hugin
1603
This is somewhat misleading, because it doesn’t take into account that the distribution of Democrats and Republicans in the country is not even. If Republican identification has made great gains in what were already “Red” states, that doesn’t matter much. The question is, how are the party ID numbers looking in the “purple” states or the “swing” states?
That was covered in the Gallup poll from DecemberI linked yesterday. Here’s the relevant section:
This is the second in a series of surveys that USA TODAY and Gallup will be taking through the 2012 campaign focused on 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Most other states and the District of Columbia are all but guaranteed to be won by one party or the other, giving Obama a likely base of 196 electoral votes and the Republican nominee a base of 191. A candidate needs 270 to win the White House.
But these battlegrounds — chosen based on their voting histories, the results of the 2010 midterms and demographic trends — are up for grabs. Obama carried all of them in 2008 and needs to claim half of their electoral votes this time to win a second term.
In swing states, Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among registered voters by 5 points, 43% vs. 48%, and former House speaker Newt Gingrich by 3, 45% vs. 48%.
That’s a bit worse than the president fares nationwide, where he leads Gingrich 50%-44% and edges Romney 47%-46%.
Obviously, these numbers are going to change–it’s far too early to call elections based on polling data–but they do show that Obama could lose and that it’s likely to be a hard-fought and potentially very close contest. The fact that he’s trailing Romney in the swing states has got to be sounding alarms in his campaign HQ. I’m laying in a good supply of popcorn.
One thing I think the Democrats will do is campaign against the Ryan budget bill, and they will do their best to conflate that with Romney in the minds of voters. Romney’s a Republican and Republicans voted to take away your Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that will run out and leave you without health care.
I also expect the Democrats to perhaps engage in more anti-Romney ads than they might otherwise do if the economy was better. I’m sure there’s more than flip-flopping to get on the guy about. I get so tired of it but it works. Bring the other guy’s numbers down.
Watch the Gingrich video Charmtrap linked to. Romney is vulnerable on economic issues, especially unemployment. Look for the democrats to co-opt the language of the OWS movement - “things are great on Wall Street, people are hurting on Main Street. Where do you think Romney lives?”
Jakub
1607
Where do you think Obama lives?
Yup, Obama clearly lives in luxury, but a) he wasn’t born to it like Romney, and b) his policy preferences are more egalitarian than Romney’s. The Dems just need to run that soundbite of Romney saying how there’d been a couple of times he worried he’d get a pink slip, then flash O RLY? on the screen.
You think Obama is vulnerable to this the same way Romney is?
Jakub
1610
My point is it makes no difference.
Obama is owned by Wall Street the way Romney is. It may be a difference of degree, but I doubt it - appointments like Geithner and Schapiro, and the fact that officially recorded donations from the likes of Goldman Sachs topped his campaign (almost $1m in 2007-2008) - suggest to me it’s a matter of public appearances, rather than reality. That the Democrats with an absolute majority couldn’t tap into the anger on both left and right to enact real financial reform - well, really, what else do you need to know?
Congress isn’t powerless, neither is the President, and they’re not afraid of tampering with the economy - they just know to stay away from the parts of the economy that butter their bread.
Hugin
1611
Thanks. I’m still not particularly worried (I think some of these numbers are nominal “independent” voters who will largely revert to their 2007 affiliations in the crunch), but it’s a relevant argument.
Sounds like we’re in agreement. :)
That could happen, or Romney could widen his lead, or the numbers could remain the same. You’re optimistic things will work out well in the direction you desire, and you’ll probably try to help the process along. That’s what campaigns are for, after all. Great, go for it, and good luck. Me, I don’t care–I don’t want either of them to win, won’t vote for either, and the candidate I do vote for won’t have a prayer of winning. For the first time since 1980 (the Presidential election before I turned 18), I don’t have a horse in the race. Instead, I’m treating the election as a big show that’s mainly interesting from a “who are Americans now?” snapshot perspective.
Scuzz
1615
Dave: I think you are way, way overestimating the value of speechifying. As long as a candidate meets a minimum bar for coherence and doesn’t say anything egregiously awful, the margins at which speaking ability matter are so incredibly small as to be irrelevant.
I would be interested to know the percentage of voters who have actually listened to an entire candidates speech. I would bet it would be a very small percentage.
Newt’s doubling down:
Mitt speaks French! Smart people are obviously unqualified to be the Republican nominee.
He learned French while he was a Mormon missionary in France in the mid-late 1960’s. If he behaved like a good Mormon while there, I weep for his lost opportunities with hot young French girls while swilling good cheap red wine. Especially as a tall good-looking guy who came from money.
+1
Really kinda of sad that his good looks, and money were so wasted as Morman missionary.
Do we give the credit for remaining true his upbringing or fault him for missed opportunities?
The humorous thing is that Mitt great-grandfather who had 5 wives left Utah to start the Romney clan down in Northern Mexico. Evidently they are a prominent family (his dad is a dual citizen) in Mexico.
So in just a few generations they have gone from being able to enjoy multiple French girls at once to none.
JD
1619
Huntsman: Unsuprisingly, third place wasn’t exactly a ticket to ride.
RichVR
1620
Romney loses to Obama. Next four years brings up the big guns.
Hahahahaha!
