Last week, Charles Krauthammer summed up what this presidential election is about in one nice tidy sentence, "At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract." While every four years we hear "this one" is the most important ever, this election is special because with an Obama victory the relationship Krauthammer wrote about will be fundamentally and forever changed. Taking this into account, let's take a look at the state of the race and what MediaPolitical knows, believes, thinks, or doesn't think, will happen. (Yes, some simple math is involved, you have been forewarned.)
The first thing we know is that the national polls basically show the race is a tie, but the election is not a national popularity contest. It is a state by state popularity contest and who wins enough of these states to get to 270 electoral votes is the next president. The guys at The Fix blog made the following maps showing what they believe to be the most likely paths (based on polling data) each candidate has to 270. I'll use their maps as a starting point because in general I agree with them. You should notice right from the start that there is very little difference between the two. This first map has Obama winning with 277 electoral votes (Romney 261).
This second map shows a Romney victory with 279 (Obama 259).
Notice the difference ? It's Ohio, and it's 18 electoral votes. Most pundits agree that Ohio is key to either candidates winning, but to take other states out of play would be wrong. A lot of what we think we know about future elections we gather from past elections. It's true that no modern Republican, and not many Democrats either, have won the presidency without Ohio, but it can be done and in this case, it is doable.
Take a look at the first map with Obama winning Ohio. Now look at all the other blue states and think about which ones can actually be flipped to red and more importantly which ones have enough electoral votes to change the outcome. It should sort out pretty quickly for you, it's Wisconsin with 10 votes. Turn Wisconsin red on Obama's map and Romney wins with 271.
The other state in play here is Virginia. Obama can lose Ohio, but win Virginia instead and still win the election. Again, it puts Wisconsin in play because in that scenario it still matters who wins it. Obama loses Ohio, but wins Virginia and Wisconsin, he wins with 272. Romney wins Wisconsin and he comes out on top with 276. (You can make your own maps here, but the way I have laid it out here is the most likely route.)
It's pretty clear President Obama knows how important Wisconsin is given that he has visited America's Dairyland three times in the last four days leading up to the election. These visits tell us a few things, first is that Obama doesn't think he has Wisconsin in his back pocket. In other words, his polling data tells him that he is either losing or it is too close to call. Where he has visited also tell us something. Last week was a typical stop in Green Bay, then Milwaukee on Saturday with pop star Katy Perry. On Monday in Madison with old rocker Bruce Springsteen. Why Milwaukee and Madison (his second big trip to Madison too) ? Well, the campaigns like the visuals for TV with large crowds of the adoring faithful, and in deep blue Milwaukee and the deeper blue People's Republic of Madison he will certainly find those, but it tells us something else. Obama has a base problem, when he should be out trying to win states from Romney, he is having to play defense and rally the base. A base problem translates into a voter turnout problem. More on that later. The music stars were just to be sure people showed up, which is another sign that Obama feels his position is weak.
Here are the things that need to be watched as the election results come in. First is Florida. If Romney loses Florida, you can pack it up and call it a night because it's over for Mitt. Yes, theoretically he can still win, and theoretically a spaceship can go the speed of light. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, and Romney is not going to win this election without Florida.
Next is, as discussed before, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin. Whoever wins two out of those three will most likely be the next president. (Yes, theoretically Romney can win without them, but in reality without these states you can jump on that spaceship I discussed before.) At that point, depending on how the states play out, it could bring Colorado into play, but to discuss that would really be getting into the weeds, the ones I hope to avoid. The one thing you need to know about the Rocky Mountain Wild Card is that if the media start really focusing on it (during the election night coverage), it's Obama's last hope, which will mean Romney is in pretty good shape.
We can get into things like what if Romney wins Pennsylvania, but I said I am trying to avoid the weeds here and look at the most likely routes. One thing to note is that New Hampshire is not a lock for Romney, however, historically Iowa has gone the same way as Wisconsin. Only once since 1976 have the two split. So, if Romney loses N.H., wins Wisconsin and Virginia, but not Ohio, he will need Iowa to tag along with Wisconsin (as it usually does) to make up the 4 votes lost in N.H. Now, back out of the weeds.
Many pundits think the race will go heavy one way or the other, with either Obama or Romney getting into the 300 electoral vote range. We do not believe this will happen, either way. If Obama wins, he will have between 283 and 287 votes. If Romney wins, he will have between 271 and 279. There will not be a 269-269 tie, but if there is it means Romney will win because the House of Representatives is going to remain in Republican control and the House holds the tie breaker vote.
Given how close the national polls are, it is possible for Romney to win the popular vote but not the electoral college. However, because the popular vote tracks so closely to the electoral vote, it would have to be a very narrow margin. It has happened before, in 2000 Gore narrowly won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral college.
Most political prognosticators look at election models based on various polls and some throw in economic factors, or trending of past voter patterns, these type of things, to make their model different from others. One model I like is the "Fair Model", by Yale economics professor Ray C. Fair, because it does not consider poll numbers. Fair uses economic data, and his model has been right every time but twice since 1916. It was wrong in 1960 because it predicted Nixon should win, but it didn't take into account that Kennedy was such a political star that people would actually vote against what would seem as their economic best interest. It was also wrong in 1992 because the model couldn't account for Ross Perot as a third candidate. Even with these misses, this model was not off by much.
Now, what this model predicts is the popular vote, not necessarily who will win the election. It predicted Gore would win the popular vote in 2000, so the model was right but the election result was not for Democrats. Fair's model for this year says (in rough numbers and with a margin of error) Obama 48% to Romney 51%. This bodes well for Romney simply because the two votes, popular and electoral, cannot really vary by much more than 0.7% and still deliver a split decision. The problem for Romney is that Obama's supporters have proven they are more than willing to suspend reality and vote against their own best interest. Given the economics of the country, this race shouldn't even be close. That is your proof of Obama's cult of personality, or at least of the ever growing size of the population who are dependent on government. In those folks case, it is in their best economic interest to vote for Obama and he has made that very clear to them.
Knowing how close this race is, I will give you a warning. On election night, don't chill your champagne on ice because it will be melted warm water before you know whether to pop the cork or not. As a matter of fact, you might eat your Thanksgiving turkey (or tofu for you veggies) before you know whether or not to pop that cork. MediaPolitical fully believes, short of some sort of landslide one way or the other, that there will be recounts and various legal vote challenges, from both sides in many states. Think about the 2000 Florida recount times three or four. Both sides are already lining up their legal teams (and making pre-post-election legal arguments) in Ohio. But what the legal problems in Ohio start will create a domino effect leading to legal challenges and recounts in other states. I can easily see Wisconsin being close enough for a recount, same for Iowa. Colorado and Nevada could also fall into recounts, but only if they are needed to settle the election.
None of this kind of stuff is pretty, but democracy was never designed to be a beauty queen's evening gown. It doesn't fit well or look good. It is messy and ugly, it has been since the time of the Greeks who gave us this wonderful institution. Only we polished it up with a republic that doesn't fully allow the crazies to take over in one election cycle. But at the end of the day, somebody has to be the president. Which means somebody has to win, even if the voters popular opinion doesn't determine that winner.
President Obama has some very distinct advantages going into the election. The one thing the Fair popular vote model, and all other models, polls and past history tells us is that it is very rare the electorate throws out a first term president. Obama has the incumbent advantage, many folks vote for what they know. They know Obama, so by default they will vote for him. Yes, this would make them scared of "change". The "vote what you know" demographic is a large part of the independent voter block, it takes a lot to move these type voters.
Another thing with independent type voters is a rather simple human emotion, people do not like to admit they were wrong. Many people cannot admit they made a mistake in '08, so they will vote for what they know was a mistake again just so they do not have to admit to themselves they made a mistake. As WISN's Mark Belling likes to say (or something to this effect), "Rationalization is the most powerful human emotion." Just for the record, sex and hunger are the two most powerful emotions, you can put them in what order you want to, but take into account that one needs a certain amount of rationalization to eat some things or have sex with "some things", but we generally find a way to do it when we really have to. It all depends on how hungry, or horny, you are. When you look at it this way, you begin to understand what Romney is dealing with. It's not the people who never slept with Obama, he has to get people to jump out of Obama's bed and come to his. This is not an easy thing to do.
To get an idea of how many folks have jumped out of Obama's bed, the latest, and last before the election, CNN poll shows independents breaking over 20% for Romney. This CNN poll had to sample Democrats at +11 to come up with a 49 to 49 tie. A Washington Post/ABC News poll gives us a deeper view, it shows that 13% of people who voted for Obama in '08 say they are going for Romney this time around. This is Obama's base problem, not only Democrats who may sit out the election, it is these swing voters who will vote their dissatisfaction (bed jumpers). Or if they cannot bring themselves to vote for Romney, perhaps they will just stay at home. The Washington Post/ ABC News poll suggests that is around 3% of '08 Obama voters. Obama won the popular vote by 7 points in '08. If he loses 16% (13% going for Romney, 3% not bothering to show up) of people who voted for him in '08, Romney will win by a landslide. But we know that is not going to happen, neither candidate will get a landslide. So, what gives ?
When pollsters start looking at an election months in advance they must poll registered voters. The reason for this is because you know a registered voter has at least made the effort to register to vote before, and probably voted before. Once polling gets closer to the actual election, pollsters start putting weight to likely voters because they are folks who say they are going to vote (which means they are registered). This polling technique has proven accurate in the past, so we stick with it. Here is the problem, all of these polls show likely voters as somewhere between 70 and 80 plus percent of the electorate. We know that even during high turnout elections, like '08, barely over 60% actually go to the poll and cast a ballot. Pollsters try to correct for this by modeling elections by party turnout. This is why CNN modeled Democrats +11 in the poll cited above. The problem they have is that in '08 Democrats were only about half of that, +6 or so. All of these things shift in Romney's favor. But.....
Romney has one big problem. When you look at the electoral map, take all the states that are locks, paint them red or blue, then rake them off the table and count them up, Obama has between a 25 and 30 vote lead in the electoral college before the election ever begins. This is why Romney has to win Florida, it's 28 electoral votes levels the playing field. Overcoming this advantage has been the Republican's problem for the last four years. Another problem Republican's always have, but it is really bad this time, is that the media are totally in the bag for Obama. They are basically an advertising department for his campaign.
Obama's last advantage is voter fraud. I cannot speak to other states, but it is clear to MediaPolitical, as proven by a decade worth of elections, Obama will get between 0.5 and 1% of the vote in Wisconsin due to Democrat cheating. Democrats will howl at that, but it is a fact in Wisconsin mainly due to our law which allows people to register and vote on election day without any sort of real identification. To give non Wisconsinites, and those who don't know, a view of this; One can show up at the polls with a piece of mail addressed to "occupant", register, then cast a ballot. The leftist groups also use this same technique to pad the voter rolls before an election. Either way, once that ballot is cast, what happens after the fact doesn't matter. It cannot be undone. That is why you have to stop voter fraud before the fraud is committed. If this election is as close as I believe it will be, and Wisconsin is as important as I think it will be, that half to one percent could make a major difference.
Romney's advantages are these. First is that most times a presidential candidate wins the popular vote, he ends up being the president. Most polls show the popular vote, and the economic model I cited above, lean to Romney. I think many folks know Obama sold them a bill of goods in '08, and that explains at least part of the 13% of Obama defectors I explained before.
Several months ago, Obama's political guru, David Axelrod, laid out the president's three paths to victory. One had Obama winning Florida, and it spelled out a landslide type victory. The other two were much more technical (and realistic), but they both included Wisconsin. Romney's entire campaign has been based on blocking Obama from these paths to victory, and here is where I think Romney has finally gained an advantage.
Some people say it happened after the first debate, others say it was already happening before that, but regardless of when it happened, the momentum of the election shifted. Romney was no longer the candidate other than Obama, he became the candidate people could vote for. Romney would never win the election if he was just "not Obama". Once Romney, however he did it, sent the message that a vote for him would be for something and not just a vote against Obama is when Romney went up in the polls. Win or lose, I can honestly say this is the first Republican presidential campaign since 1980 that has really been for something. I am proud of that, and how close this election is proves that many Americans are still open to a conservative message. How many of those voters there are will determine the election.
Who do I think will win ? Every advantage Obama has had handed to him in his life will be there for him on election night, but I think Romney has offered something to the average voter, something they haven't been offered in many years. A clear choice between two different ways government should look, and those voters have a clear vision of what Obama's government looks like. If Romney wins Wisconsin, then he probably will be the president. If Obama does, then I know the course our founding fathers set is lost forever. I think Romney can win Wisconsin, and that is not pie in the sky wishful thinking. This will not be easy, but it is realistically doable. With that you have MediaPolitical's prediction.
Here are MediaPolitical's other predictions.
While they will lose around 8 seats, the Republicans will maintain control of the US House of Representatives with a sizable majority. All Wisconsin's reps will remain the same.
The U.S. Senate will remain in Democrat control. It will either stay the same, number wise, or change by one (either way). The failure to gain control of the senate was always a longshot for Republicans, but they have run so many horrible candidates they honestly don't deserve to win many of these races. I think moonbat Lizzy Warren wins in Massachusetts, McCaskill wins big in Missouri and if Obama wins Wisconsin by more than 2.5%, then Tammy Baldwin wins too. Otherwise, Thompson wins.
The Wisconsin state assembly will remain in Republican control, and the Republicans will retake control of the state senate by 2. This retaking of the government will be the full vindication of Scott Walker, and he will be able to continue pushing forward his agenda for Wisconsin. And the ingrates will finally have to shut up for two years.
If Obama loses this election, he will run again in 2016. That is just the kind of person he is.
If Obama wins, unemployment will still be 7% or more in 2016 and GDP will not go above 2.5% for 3 consecutive months during those 4 years.
Yes, I have a bottle of Cold Duck.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.