Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Our own Prof. Paul Rahe is predicting a landslide victory for Mitt Romney this November. I have been more cautious, persuaded until now by polls painting a picture of a closely divided electorate.
Today's news brings hard evidence supporting the Professor:
Democrats today announced that President Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will move from the vast Bank of America stadium to the much-smaller Time Warner indoor arena.
While organisers blamed weather forecasts of lightning, the switch means that Obama has avoided the possibility of having to accept his party’s nomination before a partially-empty stadium. Just hours earlier, officials had been insisting the speech would go ahead in the stadium 'rain or shine'.
'We have been monitoring weather forecasts closely and several reports predict thunderstorms in the area, therefore we have decided to move Thursday's proceedings to Time Warner Cable Arena to ensure the safety and security of our delegates and convention guests,' said convention chief Steve Kerrigan.
But convention sources exclusively told the MailOnline on Tuesday that the real reason behind the switch was fears within the Obama campaign that there would be large numbers of empty seats in the 74,000-seater stadium. The Time Warner arena has a capacity of just over 20,000.
Last week, Democrats were reportedly giving away tickets for President Obama's stadium speech at bars and other venues-of-opportunity throughout the Southeast, signaling a certain softness in demand. The man who four years ago promised to control the sea level and heal the planet now cannot fill an arena...or stop a simple rainstorm, if the official explanation for the change is to be believed.
I wonder what will happen to Sandman Obama when the rain really begins to fall?
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Here is an even more reliable indication. Nate Silver at Pravda-on-the-Hudson now says that there are three chances in four that Barack Obama will win.
Methinks I smell desperation!
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 12:01amMar '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Even the much maligned Todd Akin of the Missouri Senate race is picking up steam again despite his explosive gaffe:
A landslide victory may indeed be in the cards. Hmm, but will it really be a GOP victory? It is interesting that all the criticism from GOP leaders seems to be helping this particular embattled candidate.
It is the grassroots that are energized and driving this bus but it is not only the Democrats who conservative voters are displeased with.
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 12:28amAug '12
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
I couldn't agree more, Roberto. Establishment Republicans should be on notice. We're working to remove you from office as well.
John Sullivan lost his primary in Oklahoma's 1st District (my district). He had a decent voting record, but never once stood up to the leadership. It finally cost him his seat.
Roberto:
It is the grassroots that are energized and driving this bus but it is not only the Democrats who conservative voters are displeased with.
Aug '12
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
I hope it is a landslide, but I fear we will have a race that comes down to two or three states that will be contested by the assault of the ten thousand lawyers. I can imagine Ohio and two other states all counting chads, reviewing Diebold datasets, and challenging absentee ballots. I hope the GOP can muster a half-a-billion $$ for attorneys, investigators and monitors in November. Be prepared to not know who the president-elect is until Christmas Eve.
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Here is another indication -- the decision by Barack Obama to reverse the platform committee's decision to remove the references to God and to Jerusalem as Israel's capital from the platform, and the campaign's inability to get even a majority of the delegates to acquiesce in this change.
The decision is a sign of panic. The campaign's inability to get the convention behind the decision only increases the embarrassment.
To this one can add their airing of the video stating that we all belong only to the government and their decision to pull it thereafter.
The wheels are coming off the bus.
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 12:37amMay '10
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
I certainly hope you're correct, Prof. Rahe; one way to help that prediction come true is to share the even-worse-than-Obama record of Sen. Sherrod Brown here in Ohio!
To wit:
Like George, I'm not making any bold predictions - but the truth is unkind to hard-left politicians in the swing states presidential candidates so desperately need!
Apr '12
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
I was talking to at associate today, a huge Obama supporter, about a venue for a meeting. He recommended we change to a smaller room to avoid an empty room feel. I agreed and couldn't resist the dig observing:"If you can't fill the Bank of America stadium you gotta move the show." He sputtered for a moment and then proudly announced "My sister has tickets to that."
I could only smile and nod, biting my tongue to prevent saying something like "Yeah, my boy got tickets in a cereal box."
May '10
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
It says a lot that I even have to ask, but who is in charge of this debacle?! First they say "rain or shine" and then move into an indoor stadium. Now they are revising their platform a day after Democrats across the country had to defend deliberately removing God and Israel from their platform.
The Democratic Party is increasingly looking like a boat up a creek without a paddle.
Jun '12
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Speaking of the half-empty stadiums, over on the Member Feed, Trace Urdan points us to a WaPo piece that points out that reporters far outnumber actual delegates at the DNC.
Not sure if the same imbalance was at the RNC, but I suspect not, because the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) would have been all over it.
So I guess 5,000 delegates and 15,000 press still aren't enough to make the stadium look full enough for The Lightbringer.
Feb '12
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
To build a sandman Obama spelt doom from the start. It can only collapse and fall apart, doesn't have the granite Mt Rushmore gravitas.. just sand. Wet it and it collapses in a heap..
Jun '10
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Color me not-yet-impressed.
I think the reason for moving the speech may have been the crowd. However, they may well have filled the stadium. In this case, however, the story and ridicule end here with the indoor move. But even had they filled the stadium, there would have been tons of stories about how they did it. In the trade, it's called "papering the house," where you make sure seats are full to avoid embarrassment, create buzz, etc. But the detailed lists of forced busing of union members, bringing entire churches, schools and nursing homes from the all over region, even finding out the various bars in which the tickets were distributed could have made for several days of he-he ha-ha stories. Now, the story's dead before it happens.
Also, even though Romney is moving up, I wouldn't call Obama 58-to-41 on Intrade "desperation."
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 12:51amRe: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Eeyore: Color me not-yet-impressed.
I think the reason for moving the speech may have been the crowd. However, they may well have filled the stadium. In this case, however, the story and ridicule end here with the indoor move. But even had they filled the stadium, there would have been tons of stories abouthowthey did it. In the trade, it's called "papering the house," where you make sure seats are full to avoid embarrassment, create buzz, etc. But the detailed lists of forced busing of union members, bringing entire churches, schools and nursing homes from the all over region, even finding out the various bars in which the tickets were distributed could have made for several days of he-he ha-ha stories. Now, the story's dead before it happens.
Also, even though Romney is moving up, I wouldn't call Obama 58-to-41 on Intrade "desperation." · 13 minutes ago
Edited 11 minutes ago
The folks who bet on Intrade follow the conventional wisdom.
Dec '10
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Well, Prof, you are correct, but we are conservatives, so we should not use hinky numbers. For example, we can never expect a stadium's football capacity to equal that for a concert, or a speech. A one sided event, unlike football, eliminates the seats without a stage view, then adds a modest amount of premium seats (unstacked), on the field. That's a huge reduction that is always overlooked by promoters of public events.
In my opinion, and I have worked many arena/stadium events, your real numbers for a one-sided event are something like 65 % of bleacher capacity, at the very best case. A realistic number for BOA stadium, actually seated with a view, may be 50,000, as a maximum, including seating on the field. In a 20,000 seat arena, I would guess 12,000, for a one-sided event.
It is possible to sell many more seats than this, to people that just want to be somewhere, but that will not actually see an event not portrayed on a TV screen.
However, I just can't see it, this year. I don't think seats behind the stage will sell/be occupied.
Apr '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Paul A. Rahe
The folks who bet on Intrade follow the conventional wisdom. · 0 minutes ago
And the swing state polls, which all have Obama leading in every state except North Carolina. Our convention last week was a dud; we may actually be getting a negative bounce in the polls (I loved our convention, but it just isn't doing the trick with voters). And I can't just blow off Nate Silver because he is a liberal: he has been right before.
Some good news: Romney raised 100mil for the third straight month. If we lose, it won't be in part because we were cash-strapped at the end like McCain.
On another point, Sandman Obama is the ugliest ,stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life. Anyone with a sense of shame would never have allowed it to be built.
Edited on September 6, 2012 at 2:08amRe: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
wmartin
Paul A. Rahe
The folks who bet on Intrade follow the conventional wisdom. · 0 minutes ago
And the swing state polls, which all have Obama leading in every state except North Carolina. . . . And I can't just blow off Nate Silver because he is a liberal: he has been right before.· 26 minutes ago
Edited 20 minutes ago
The swing state polls do not all have Obama leading in all of those states. Many, of course, do -- but if Gallup is right about the current partisan division (and Rasmussen's count is close to Gallup's) these polls greatly over-sample Democrats.
Sure, if you think the Republican-Democratic split on election day will be like that of 2008, Romney will lose. But is it sane to think that?
Let me add that the latest ABC/Washington Post poll shows that Obama is losing ground to Romney big-time when it comes to women.
I have no idea whether Nate Silver is a liberal, but I know who pays for his livelihood.
Jun '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Enough of the pessimism!
I don't have a crystal ball, but I know this election is more than competitive. Romney probably only needs to fight Obama to a draw in the debates in order to win the Presidency. (Obviously it would be better to win the debates handily, but Obama can talk his way out of anything it seems & the press won't score it fairly anyway.)
So there!
Apr '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
The stadium was "too big to fill".
I live outside of Asheville, NC, west of Charlotte. After a few days of overcast weather, the sun broke forth today and appears to be only getting better as we head into the weekend. We know that the venue was changed because of lack of interest not because raindrops are falling.
However, my mom sometimes told me that if I told a lie, God might send a lightning bolt. Maybe all the lies have them scared.....
May '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
wmartin
On another point, Sandman Obama is the ugliest ,stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life. Anyone with a sense of shame would never have allowed it to be built. · 1 hour ago
Edited 55 minutes ago
The man in the flesh is much better looking than Mr. Sandman. The sculpture looks more like Louis Armstrong.
Alas, that's the best compliment I can muster up for the POTUS.
May '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
John Postley:
· 45 minutes ago
Just watching snippets of coverage from Charlotte, I think Obama will get a bigger bounce from his convention. The speakers I've seen are doing a great job of misstating Romney/Ryan positions (They want to ban contraceptives. They want to turn Medicare into vouchers. They want to cut taxes on the rich and raise them on everyone else.) I'll wait in vain for the "Factcheckers" to challenge these.
But the speakers are also successfully clearing hurdles that dog Republicans, like mushrooming debt (Obama let's your kids stay on your health insurance until 26. This time, the insurance companies wrote a check to YOU.) and separation of powers (when Congress failed to pass the DREAM act, that didn't stop our president!)
I think this is going to play very well beyond Charlotte. I predict a 5-7 point post convention bump for Obama.
Hoping I'm wrong.
Apr '11
Re: Evidence that Paul Rahe is Right
Paul Erickson
Just watching snippets of coverage from Charlotte, I think Obama will get a bigger bounce from his convention. The speakers I've seen are doing a great job of misstating Romney/Ryan positions (They want to ban contraceptives. They want to turn Medicare into vouchers. They want to cut taxes on the rich and raise them on everyone else.) I'll wait in vain for the "Factcheckers" to challenge these.
I think this is going to play very well beyond Charlotte. I predict a 5-7 point post convention bump for Obama.
Hoping I'm wrong. · 1 hour ago
Me too. I have had a sinking feeling all week seeing how well their convention is going. Their two prime time speeches have now been better received than any of ours were, they are playing to bigger audiences (first night, anyway), and Bill Clinton just blew us out of the water. My prediction (and this is like an advance pick of who will win the Superbowl: pure conjecture) is that Obama takes a solid lead over the next week, never loses it, and wins.