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
I think that is a sizable number of people that will answer your question ‘yes’.
I am not saying that Obama wins based on a the ridiculous status of our welfare state, but I think we go to bed on Tuesday Nov 6th not knowing who wins because it will be too close to call. ·3 hours ago
My biggest fear is not that we lose this election, but that most future elections are lost because we may have reached that tipping point where more voters than not simply go to the polls to vote for the guy that promises them the most cash from “those rich people”. I’m afraid we may have hit the point where two wolves and a sheep are voting for dinner.
I hope you’re right, Paul. Last night I was talking with a few professionals, ranging from 25 to 45, I’d guess, in California. Not a good sample in many ways, I know. Perhaps it’s just the California bubble, but I was struck by the strength of their instinctive rejection on Romney. One of the guys used to be a Republican, and likes to think that he’s independent. He said that he would vote for a Republican, but Romney is beyond the pale. Romney? He’s about as moderate a Republican as one can find. To be sure, California can be a bubble, but I wonder whether Obama’s attacks, combined with attacks by the establishment media, have made it harder to get the word out.
P.S. I still like the idea, suggested by another commentator here, of Romney doing a bus trip down the Keystone route.
I mostly agree with your analysis, so long as we assume that the voters are rational. Or observant.
The Obama argument (…[un] 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.
Totally agree.
P.S. I still like the idea, suggested by another commentator here, of Romney doing a bus trip down the Keystone route. ·42 minutes ago
That is a fabulous idea.
Your 1st, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs tell the whole story. Those three taken together may be the smartest things of yours that I’ve ever read. Excellent analysis.
Dr Rahe,
Guess that they have broken out the euphoric inducing drugs over @ NIH. My heart want to believe in your analysis, my brain is having hard time watch the absolute scorched earth efforts of the Chicago machine and not being called on the carpet by the forth estate.
Mr Barnam did not die a poor man from betting on his observations of human nature, lets hope you are a better prognosticator.
This is a very suspect claim. I have outed so many of these people who claim they used to be Republican, but this Mc Cain fellow, or this Romney fellow, is too much for them. They hold the conceit they are “independent” but they are merely posturing so as to make their opinions carry more weight than a “partisan” one. This frees them from holding and defending a real opinion of substance. 90% of these people are nothing more than stealth Democrats, the other 10% are morons.
Not everything you say, should you write.
Not everything you write, should you publish.
We have to stay hungry. ·6 minutes ago
Not to worry. No one will believe me. Conventional wisdom rules. ·6 hours ago
Probably because it is right more often than not. I would love for you to be correct, but I am not an optimist about these sort of things. We were all sure about the Obamacare Supreme court ruling too, before it hit is in the gut and took our wallets. ·1 hour ago
I underestimated the cowardice of the Chief Justice. But I was right on the money about November, 2010, and I saw it coming in September, 2009.
I am not sure Mr. Romney would do a good job discussing first principles. On the other hand, he might might make a very effective attack on the modern regulatory state/ administrative state. Using the skills he developed as a consultant and as a ventury capitalist, he might describe the U.S. government as a failing business. The government today is run like the companies that he and his peers helped to turn around–by moving away from the 1950s model of bureaucracy to leaner and more modern, and more market friendly, approaches to the tasks at hand. He might also compare the transparency that is required of all public companies with the opacity of federal budgeting, rule making, and enforcement–no wonder there’s so much inside dealing.
From that perspective, perhaps Mr. Romney can point to the principles of limited government, and the rights of self-government, as against the desire of experts to govern us, and to make rules outside of the democratic process, and enforce them according to the whims of the bureaucracy.
To finish the thought. Mr. Romney can associate Mr. Obama with a government that likes to tell us how big the tanks on our toilets may be, and how much water our shower heads can use. He can connect Mr. Obama with a government that wants to tell you what kind of ligtht bulb you can buy, and what kind of car you can drive.
And, to bring it home, he can point to the cronyism of all that–note that GE supported the light bulb ban, because it would be a money-maker for them. That can be connected with all the green energy graft.
Finally, that might be a good line of attack on Obamacare, and one that Mr. Romney would be comfortable with. Note the cronyism of it, how the AMA, among others, was bought off. . . .
Dear Prof Rahe, it should help your recovery if Paul Ryan is the VP choice. Am I right? That would make us all feel better, I’m sure.
God Bless. ·18 minutes ago
If Paul Ryan is the VP pick, we can all just stop following the election news. Obama will win 40 states and we won’t see a red Florida again for a generation. ·6 hours ago
Edited 6 hours ago
If the implication is that entitlement reform is impossible politically, then, well, this is all a pointless exercise in any case, since we must reform entitlements.
Also, keep in mind that Rubio, for instance, won FL comfortably and didn’t duck entitlement reform one bit — and in fact made it a centerpiece of his campaign. So it can be done.
I share your concerns, wmartin, but at some point we’ve got to dare.
I underestimated the cowardice of the Chief Justice. But I was right on the money about November, 2010, and I saw it coming in September, 2009. ·2 hours ago
November 2010 was an election with much different demographics than what we will see in November.
Right now, Obama is beginning to pull away. Two new polls today-Fox News has Obama by 9 points, CNN has Obama by 7. Independents are now moving to Obama. The July jobs numbers and lowering of the weekly jobless numbers indicate that Obama is going to probably get a mini-bump in hiring going into the Fall. I have actually been quite shocked by Romney’s collapse in the polls over the last two weeks.
Ron Brownstein on “the racial chasm”:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/widening-racial-chasm-a-problem-for-both-parties-20120809
Professor, you wrote this while in the hospital? While fighting pneumonia? This is a superb post in any event, as yours always are,…but from the hospital? If your body has only a fraction of the strength of your mind, you’ll be in fine shape in no time at all. Oh yes, … and I think you’re right too. It’s not a done deal. But it’s ours to lose.
Two points: Obama’s eliminating the work requirement from welfare is a game-changer. It’s picture-perfect confirmation of the suspicions of the working class — the Reagan Dems, including the union guys — that Obamanomics is about funneling gov’t cash to the freeloaders. Romney must not let up on this attack — cuz it’s an election winner.
Second, Romney will enjoy a convention bounce the likes of which we have never seen. To date, Mitt’s opponents and the media have introduced us only to “bad Mitt”. Truly, the electorate has not yet met “good Mitt”, and, yes, such a being exists. There are many stories that need to be told. The convention is where such an introduction can and will happen, MSM be damned.
Post-convention, Romney will spike 5 pts and stay there (since we’ve already met “good Barack” — yawn), and the MSM will be puzzled to no end — and fit to be tied.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Do you have anything to base this on other than prejudice? Romney’s campaign in 2002 was groundbreaking (it was the first campaign to use micro-targeting), and he’s repeatedly been a driver in paradigm shifting events; Staples, in particular, stands out.
It’s not like he wasn’t paying attention to politics in 2010, or as if he’s not been campaigning with Tea Party candidates.
Professor Rahe, you’ve offered comfort to me when I worried about Nate Silver’s model on the basis that Silver writes in the NYT. I’m curious about how you respond to this:
It’s from Nate’s site, but it’s easy to check. Those with skin in the game, people gambling on the results appear to have arrived at a ~2/3 chance of an Obama win. I think that they underestimate Romney’s odds, but my instincts lie between the market and yours.
Obama has had an absolutely tremendous week, along with some positive economic signs for autumn.
You seem to be missing the actual link/map/whatever. Is it something like this electoral map based on current Intrade results?
(FWIW, here is a brief master’s paper on Intrade vs polls (PDF).)
The CNN poll does not include demographics that I can see. Therefore, we can disregard it; if it was unbiased, they’d have included demographics.
The Fox News poll oversamples Democrats by 44-35, a 9-point spread (page 13 of the image on the page). It can be disregarded as biased.
The Gallup poll also doesn’t include demographics, not even on the downloadable .csv spreadsheet.
The Reuters poll is the only one of the four that show an Obama lead that has anything resembling a reasonable sample with Democrats slightly oversampled at 47-42 for the whole sample, or 47-45 for the registered voters in the sample.
In other words, the RCP average can’t really be trusted with so many problematic polls in it.
The pneumonia has waned, thank God. I am still being treated for the fluid problem. The treatment seems to be working. If it really works, I can escape having to have laproscopic surgery with anesthesia.
I underestimated the cowardice of the Chief Justice. But I was right on the money about November, 2010, and I saw it coming in September, 2009. ·2 hours ago
November 2010 was an election with much different demographics than what we will see in November.
Right now, Obama is beginning to pull away. Two new polls today-Fox News has Obama by 9 points, CNN has Obama by 7. Independents are now moving to Obama. The July jobs numbers and lowering of the weekly jobless numbers indicate that Obama is going to probably get a mini-bump in hiring going into the Fall. I have actually been quite shocked by Romney’s collapse in the polls over the last two weeks. ·15 hours ago
Be of good cheer. These polls are vastly oversampling Democrats. Gallup shows party identification in both parties at 30%. You need to know how far the polls you are looking at deviate from this. Use Rasmussen as a check.
It’s from Nate’s site, but it’s easy to check. Those with skin in the game, people gambling on the results appear to have arrived at a ~2/3 chance of an Obama win. I think that they underestimate Romney’s odds, but my instincts lie between the market and yours. ·13 hours ago
Those with skin in the game at this stage tend to follow the conventional wisdom and the polls, which are grossly oversampling Democrats. But who knows? I might be wrong. I do not think so, however.
Dear Prof Rahe, it should help your recovery if Paul Ryan is the VP choice. Am I right? That would make us all feel better, I’m sure.
God Bless. ·18 minutes ago
If Paul Ryan is the VP pick, we can all just stop following the election news. Obama will win 40 states and we won’t see a red Florida again for a generation. ·11 hours ago
Edited 11 hours ago
I disagree. Picking Ryan will be taken as an indication that Romney is a real man and has a real plan for dealing with or problems. People are attracted to strength, not to timidity.
James: Re Intrade, I’ve come to regard it as a measure of the accumulated wisdom and folly of the pundit crowd, nothing more, and therefore by definition it would conflict with an evaluation (such as Prof. Rahe’s) that challenges the conventional wisdom.
Which is to say, Prof. Rahe (and myself, and maybe you too!) should be throwing some cash down. :)
… A lot of the people that voted for Reagan are dead now, and therefore have switched parties.
Quote of the month. (The year?)
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. ·12 hours ago
Dear Prof Rahe, it should help your recovery if Paul Ryan is the VP choice. Am I right? That would make us all feel better, I’m sure.
And better yet when you are back to normal (that does mean, though: slightly addled).
God Bless.
Dear Prof Rahe, it should help your recovery if Paul Ryan is the VP choice. Am I right? That would make us all feel better, I’m sure.
God Bless. ·18 minutes ago
If Paul Ryan is the VP pick, we can all just stop following the election news. Obama will win 40 states and we won’t see a red Florida again for a generation.
Not everything you say, should you write.
Not everything you write, should you publish.
We have to stay hungry. ·6 minutes ago
Not to worry. No one will believe me. Conventional wisdom rules. ·6 hours ago
Probably because it is right more often than not. I would love for you to be correct, but I am not an optimist about these sort of things. We were all sure about the Obamacare Supreme court ruling too, before it hit is in the gut and took our wallets.