Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Landslide on the Horizon
When I read Nate Silver, Sean Trende, Charlie Cook, Jay Cost, and the others who make a profession of political prognostication, I pay close attention to their attempts to dissect the polling data and predict what is to come. But I also take everything that they say with a considerable grain of salt. You see, I lived through the 1980 election, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I was struck at the time by the fact that next to no one among the political scientists who made a living out of studying presidential elections, communism in eastern Europe, and Sovietology saw any of these upheavals coming. Virtually all of them were caught flat-footed.
This is, in fact, what you would expect. They were all expert in the ordinary operations of a particular system, and within that framework they were pretty good at prognostication. But the apparent stability of the system had lured them into a species of false confidence – not unlike the false confidence that fairly often besets students of the stock market.
There were others, less expert in the particulars of these systems, who had a bit more distance and a bit more historical perspective and who saw it coming. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote a prescient book entitled Can the Soviet Union Survive 1984? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn predicted communism’s imminent collapse, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan suspected that the Soviet Union would soon face a fatal crisis. They were aware that institutions and outlooks that are highly dysfunctional will eventually and unexpectedly dissolve.
In my opinion, none of the psephologists mentioned above has reflected on the degree to which the administrative entitlements state – envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and expanded by their successors – has entered a crisis, and none of them is sensitive to the manner in which Barack Obama, in his audacity, has unmasked that state’s tyrannical propensities and its bankruptcy. In consequence, none of these psephologists has reflected adequately on the significance of the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, on the meaning of Scott Brown’s election and the particular context within which he was elected, on the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and of Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, and on the political earthquake that took place in November, 2010. That earthquake, which gave the Republicans a strength at the state and local level that they have not enjoyed since 1928, is a harbinger of what we will see this November.
Yes, Barack Obama is ahead in some polls. And, yes, it looks like a neck-and-neck race. But that is because the President is spending everything that he has right now in a desperate attempt to demonize Mitt Romney, and it is because Americans are not yet paying attention. Obama’s support is a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep.
Of course, if Romney were a corpse as yet unburied on the model of Bob Dole and John McCain, he would lose. If you do not all that much care whether you win or not, you will lose. But Romney wants to win. He is a man of vigor, and he has a wonderful case to make. He is a turn-around artist, and this country desperately needs turning around. Barack Obama has no argument to make. He can only promise more of the same — yet another stimulus and higher taxes on the investing class. All that Romney has to do if he wants to win is to make himself presentable, and that should not be hard. He is handsome, tolerably well-spoken, and accomplished. If, in the debates, he stands up to the President, he will seem the more presidential of the two – and that will do the trick, as it did in 1980.
The question that everyone will pose to himself on the first Tuesday in November is this: “Do I want four more years of this?” And Romney can drive it home: “Do you want four more years of massive unemployment? Do you want four more years of food stamps? Do you want to lose the job that you have? Do you want to be out of work when you get out of college? Or do you want to see this country get moving again? Barack Obama took his shot – the stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank. And where has it left us? With the most anemic recovery in the history of this country!”
Romney can go on to speak of Obamacare. He can point to the corruption that Barack Obama brought from Chicago to Washington. He need only mention Solyndra and sound the theme of crony capitalism. Romney can also point to the President’s systematic misuse of the executive power – to defraud the salaried employees of Delphi and the bondholders of General Motors and Chrysler, to gut the welfare reform passed by New Gingrich and adopted by Bill Clinton, to let school systems out of No Child Left Behind, to sick the IRS on political enemies, to force people into unions, to encourage voter fraud, to deprive Catholics and other Christians of the free exercise of their religion. The list is long.
When the American people pause to pay attention, they will not vote for four more years of misery, four more years of corruption, four more years of lawlessness, four more years of race-baiting, and they will certainly not vote to embrace Obamacare.
If Romney wants to win really, really big, there are three things that he needs to do. First, he needs to tie his argument for paring back the administrative entitlements state back to first principles – back to the origins and purpose of government – and he needs to assert the necessity to return to limited government. What I am saying here is that he needs to occupy the moral high ground, to defend free enterprise not only as efficient but as right and just, and to criticize “spreading the wealth around” and taking from Peter to pay Paul as shameful and unjust. Politics is ultimately about justice, and justice should be his theme.
Second, he needs to force Obama to make errors. To this end, he needs to get under the President’s skin. He did this to Newt Gingrich in Florida, and it worked like a charm. Obama is even vainer than Newt, and he cannot stand mockery. Moreover, he hates Romney with all the resentment that phony intellectuals ordinarily harbor for successful businessmen. The gentler the mockery in this case, the lighter the touch, the more devastating it will be. Romney’s theme should be that the poor fellow is just not up to the job and that he should be left free to spend all of his time doing what he really enjoys — playing golf. The SuperPACs may be able to carry the ball on this.
Third, when the debates come, he should do a Newt Gingrich. When one of the pundits asks a really stupid question that is of interest only to the credentialed elite (and this is inevitable), he should disembowel the man, asking him how he could waste the time of the American people on a matter of this sort when we are on the verge of a second recession and millions are looking for work. In the debates, the trick is to show strength – and nothing shows strength like a dramatic gesture of this sort. He might even find an opportunity to do this to Obama himself. It would be a knock-out blow. At some point, Romney needs to set aside his natural caution and timidity and go for the jugular.
In the meantime, you should not be afraid. This is going to be fun, and our margin of victory is going to be large.
— If you liked this post and want to join the conversation on it, click here to sign up for a One-Month Free Trial Offer. —
Published in General
You’re right. A lot of the people that voted for Reagan are dead now, and therefore have switched parties.
But how does Romney respond when President Obama gives the reply he’s certain to give?
“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you’re voting to stop that recovery in its tracks and return to all the policies that ran our economy into a ditch in the first place. Yes, this recovery is taking longer than we expected — because the policies of the past were more destructive than we thought — but now we’re moving in the right direction again. Mitt Romney will destroy all the progress we’re making toward an economy that’s better and fairer for everyone, not just the people at the top.”
Ugh. ·1 minute ago
“What recovery?”
This election has now become Romney’s to lose and his strategy of media avoidance is paying off. Even the media is balking at made up stories and Soptic sophists.
If I’m a psephologist at all, I’m a schizophrenic one, because I find myself agreeing with and LIKE-ing all the disparate viewpoints above. Dark-times, landslide, collapse of western civilization, people want to earn success…
This last point is the one I wish Romney would emphasize. Obama has been peddling false hope in government his entire career. People will not find happiness at the bottom of the entitlement barrel. Personal satisfaction comes from having earned what you have. Real hope is in the opportunity to provide for yourself and your family.
But how does Romney respond when President Obama gives the reply he’s certain to give?
“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you’re voting to stop that recovery in its tracks and return to all the policies that ran our economy into a ditch in the first place. Yes, this recovery is taking longer than we expected — because the policies of the past were more destructive than we thought — but now we’re moving in the right direction again. Mitt Romney will destroy all the progress we’re making toward an economy that’s better and fairer for everyone, not just the people at the top.”
“There you go again…” in the best Reagan voice and visage, and then follow-up with a devastating recap of Obambi’s actual failures.
Thanks, WC. That just became my FB “status” for today.
The author is an addled professor. ·1 minute ago
Addled professor, as opposed to… ? ·1 hour ago
. . . addled community organizer.
The author is an addled professor. ·1 minute ago
Addled professor, as opposed to… ? ·1 hour ago
. . . addled community organizer. ·0 minutes ago
LOL!
I was trying to ask, in a sidelong way, if there was any kind of professor besides “addled.” :)
World markets and economies are also under tremendous pressures and reveal their own array of cracks, crevices and rumblings not unlike the US political system. Conventional wisdom is in full display there also. Economics may yet add another monkey wrench to this election cycle. ·33 minutes ago
The European economy is a house of cards. Re-capitalizing banks with borrowed money and using gimmicks like debt swaps to mask the problem can only put off the day of reckoning for so long. Ever known someone who quit work to party on his credit cards until his credit limit ran out? Same thing here. My guess is that the European debt crisis will be the trigger for worse things to come.
True, all too true. But his advantages are such that a slavish adherence to conventional wisdom will not prevent him from winning.
To your first task of Romney I think you should add that we have a choice, not only between a government supported and regulated world versus the first principles of Constitutional limited government. We also have a choice between American Exceptionalism and seeing the USA as just another big country among the nations.
Playing on pride generated by the Olympics, Romney can remind voters to feel good about America. Playing on the chaos in the Middle East and the impending collapse of European economies, he can remind voters that American leadership and strength — economic, military, diplomatic, cultural — is the greatest force for good in this world.
The twin arguments are very powerful and the contrast between Romney and Obama is enormous. Together with forcing Obama into errors, Romney does have a chance for a landslide, even with 90% of the MSM slanting against him. ·1 hour ago
Amen.
Do you remember when McCain started gaining traction in ’08? It was before Palin, before the conventions, before the economic crapper. He started running an ad (The One?) that mocked Obama’s hubris. It was the first time I’d seen the future FBP flustered. The man’s skin is very thin, and he’s riding naked through the streets. Someone needs to start pointing that out again. ·57 minutes ago
Romney should revive that ad and frame it with some commentary.
I think there are vast numbers of people who really feel the answer to those questions is ‘yes’. They have Universal Healthcare. They have food stamps. The President and his wise men saved the global economy. There is no Chimpy McBushitler and we’re basically out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama shot Bin Laden.
World markets and economies are also under tremendous pressures and reveal their own array of cracks, crevices and rumblings not unlike the US political system. Conventional wisdom is in full display there also. Economics may yet add another monkey wrench to this election cycle. ·51 minutes ago
Indeed.
Edited 34 minutes ago
You underestimate the intelligence of non-white Americans. More of them will vote for Romney than voted for McCain, and the turnout for Obama will be low. Remember November, 2010.
You’ve been distracted. How are your spirits?
Sorry to be all personal here.
The author is an addled professor. ·1 hour ago
Mel Foil, it’s a darn good thing I hadn’t just taken a sip of my coffee when I read this. Too funny.
Well, kind of.
….And Romney can drive it home: “Do you want four more years of massive unemployment? Do you want four more years of food stamps? Do you want to lose the job that you have? Do you want to be out of work when you get out of college? Or do you want to see this country get moving again? . . . ”
But how does Romney respond when President Obama gives the reply he’s certain to give?
“If you vote for Mitt Romney, you’re voting to stop that recovery in its tracks and return to all the policies that ran our economy into a ditch in the first place. Yes, this recovery is taking longer than we expected — because the policies of the past were more destructive than we thought — but now we’re moving in the right direction again. Mitt Romney will destroy all the progress we’re making toward an economy that’s better and fairer for everyone, not just the people at the top.”
·28 minutes ago
“Recovery?” Romney will say, “What recovery?”
The author is an addled professor. ·1 minute ago
Addled professor, as opposed to… ? ·1 hour ago
. . . addled community organizer. ·0 minutes ago
LOL!
I was trying to ask, in a sidelong way, if there was any kind of professor besides “addled.” :) ·15 minutes ago
I know. I couldn’t resist.
The author is an addled professor. ·1 minute ago
Addled professor, as opposed to… ? ·1 hour ago
. . . addled community organizer. ·0 minutes ago
LOL!
I was trying to ask, in a sidelong way, if there was any kind of professor besides “addled.” :) ·15 minutes ago
I know. I couldn’t resist. ·1 minute ago
Neither could I. I’m just in that kinda mood today.
Sorry to be all personal here.
The author is an addled professor. ·1 hour ago
Better. The pneumonia is gone. I am in the hospital still, but the sclerosis aimed at closing the cavity near my left kidney seems to be working. I might be out next week.
Sorry to be all personal here.
The author is an addled professor. ·1 hour ago
Better. The pneumonia is gone. I am in the hospital still, but the sclerosis aimed at closing the cavity near my left kidney seems to be working. I might be out next week. ·0 minutes ago
All kidding aside, you’re in my prayers, Professor.
Better. The pneumonia is gone. I am in the hospital still, but the sclerosis aimed at closing the cavity near my left kidney seems to be working. I might be out next week. ·2 minutes ago
I pray that your recovery is swift and stable and that you get out soon! I do like the idea that you’re rabble rousing from the hospital, I must admit.
Better. The pneumonia is gone. I am in the hospital still, but the sclerosis aimed at closing the cavity near my left kidney seems to be working. I might be out next week. ·2 minutes ago
I pray that your recovery is swift and stable and that you get out soon! I do like the idea that you’re rabble rousing from the hospital, I must admit. ·13 minutes ago
I have been meaning to write on this for weeks, but I have been too preoccupied and too sick. The pneumonia was pretty bad.
I think not only you have this view of how the election may pan out, but the Obama campaign sees it that way as well. I think it does much to explain the Obama strategy to go nuclear in August. Their hope is to get the 10% who will decide the election so turned off to the entire process that that they won’t show up to vote. That’s about the only way the election will be close.
I agree 100%. Obama has no ammunition but lies. Obama has spent his charisma, and is now borrowing against it. Come election time, the voters will repossess.
His oration skills are predicated upon people believing that he can turn his lofty words into action. Not many will be able to conjure up that amount of naivete this time. Obama can’t even claim with a straight face that he’s even been trying hard!
Polls are a lot like Reality television. They seem real, but all you need do is remember there is a camera crew in the room, and an ongoing agenda for drama and hyperbole to bring things back into perspective. Polls are becoming little more than a publicity tool for media outlets, and they prove their agenda when they tout polls with a 19% edge in Democrats as being basically accurate.
Anecdotal information, in cases like this, have it all over polls. All reports I’m getting are Obama voters switching, other Obama voters staying home, Republicans and independents itching to vote for whomever is running against Obama.
Like other phenomena Prof. Rahe cites, it’s a bubble. Call it the bubble of Hope and Change.
P.S. Get well soon. Didn’t read beyond first page of comments before putting my own comments in.
Looks like you’re not the kind to let a little surgery and pneumonia get you down. That speaks well for you. (Heck, my Phillies lose and I’m inconsolable.)
I mostly agree with your analysis, so long as we assume that the voters are rational. Or observant.
The Obama argument (if it were true) is equally compelling. Obama can say that his economic program may not be saving the country fast enough – but the GOP approach is what got us in trouble in the first place. He can say that with his agenda, we may not be going forward, but if we return to the failed policies, we’ll plunge back into disaster.
That’s the argument that needs to be confronted and answered.
Our agenda is based on low taxes and low spending, cutting both as much as possible. The Democrats say that this, along with a “neglect” of regulation, is what caused the financial crisis in the first place. Until we answer that argument, the fact that their agenda isn’t working isn’t enough. They’d simply say that the collapse had proved that our approach is worse.
Romney needs to answer that.
Professor Rahe,
This post is a model: a thoughtful, educated piece on an interesting and important subject followed by intelligent and good-humored engagement with those who comment. Thanks for the time you give to this. (That I happen to agree with every word you wrote here and generally write is entirely accidental.)
Very glad to hear you are on the mend.
My gut tells me that this is right. We have to weed through or fly over the push-polls the leftwing groups put out to try not to reflect but to influence, and look at the ones that have been generally correct. The lefty polls fake them right up until the election at which time they produce an accurate poll which comes pretty close to the final result. Then they can say, “we were one of the most accurate polls in the last election cycle.” And it is impossible all along the way to definitively say that theye were worng, because the proof is only in the actual returns at the end. Nonetheless, if we focus on Rasmussen, keep an eye on Battleground (the Ed Geoas group), and rely on the fact that histrically Presidents do not beat their job approval rating, then we should feel confident in the state of the race.
I suspect a “blowout” 5 pt. win, which is only a blowout by recent standards, even with a narrow electoral college win. However, I also fully expect a lot of government and DOJ aided and abetted election fraud. Also, Black Panthers out in force monitoring polling places . . . .