Monday, November 5, 2012

Final Pre-Election Roundup

All right. . . one more election roundup before we move on from this topic, thankfully. Things look good for Romney, but not so good for the Republicans in the Senate. That could make for an interesting and difficult four years.

The Presidency. The polls are all over the place. There are polls showing Romney/Obama tied in Michigan, Romney ahead in Ohio, Romney ahead in Pennsylvania, and there are polls showing the reverse. Pretty much every battleground state has contradictory polls. So forget the polls and focus on the momentum. As we head into the final hours of the campaign, Romney is hitting his stride and he’s giving off all the signs of being the winner. He’s talking about big themes, love of country, and setting a very positive, enthusiastic tone. He’s talking about the future. He’s also drawing crowds of around 30,000 people. Even the press is noticing his tone. Obama, on the other hand, is speaking to nearly empty venues and just told his supporters “voting is the best revenge.” Talk about exposing a hateful leftist mindset if you need to appeal to anger and spite to excite your supporters.

Moreover, the Romney people are starting to predict victory. One Romney aid predicted 300 electoral votes. Michael Barone predicted 315. Sen. Rob Portman says he’s confident Ohio will swing Republican. They are spending money in states where they shouldn’t even be competitive, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. On the other side, Team Obama is defensive. They are pouring money into the same states, talking about firewalls (which indicates a disaster) and spending their time trying to deny that Romney has momentum. . . they don’t claim any momentum of their own. The hurricane bounce appears to be three points, like all his bounces, and should have already faded -- plus, it won't translate into votes.

Now add in a rash of surprise newspaper endorsements for Romney with eleven major papers switching from Obama to Romney, and a demoralized press corps that hasn’t attacked Romney with any enthusiasm and which seems resigned to dealing with “President Romney.”

All of this suggests that things are indeed going Romney’s way.

The House. There’s no serious contention that the Republicans will lose the House. Pelosi kept claiming she would win the 25 seats they need to take over, but now they are only promising 5 seats, and they are privately concerned about losing 1-2 seats.

The Senate. The Senate is not turning out well. At once time, it looked like the Republicans could win as many as nine seats to get a 56-44 lead. But things have gone wrong. Uninspired candidates didn’t help. Then we got a surprise retirement in Maine. Then some of our candidates turned stupid. . . really stupid. Now it looks like we’ll be lucky to get the four seats we need to take the chamber 51-49.

Of the seats “in play,” the Republicans are defending four: Massachusetts, Indiana, Maine and Arizona. All but Arizona are endangered, and I think we’ll lose them all. Massachusetts is simply too liberal for a Republican to win barring something unusual in a bi-election. In Maine, another liberal state, the race will go to a popular former governor who will side with the Democrats. Indiana was a mistake, where a popular Republican got tossed in the primary by a “Tea Party” candidate who made a huge slip-up on abortion. . . something the Tea Party doesn’t normally worry about.

So we start by losing three seats, which puts us at 44 seats.

The Democrats are defending the following “in play” states: Hawaii, Wisconsin, Connecticut, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. All but Florida are endangered.

We got stupid again in Nebraska (thank you Sarah Palin) and picked a bad candidate, but I think we’ll still squeak that one. Wisconsin in trending our way. Virginia is a race between two former governors and ours isn’t as inspired as he should be. It’s a toss up right now. We should be winning Montana, except a libertarian candidate is draining away just enough support to keep that one close. I think we win that too. Missouri was ours for the taking until our Religious Right nutjob candidate started talking about abortion. Now the race is too close to call. Everyone talks about how great the Democratic candidate is in North Dakota, but I don’t buy it. . . we win that one. Hawaii is a toss up, as is Ohio. I think we get Ohio, but not Hawaii. And finally, I think we lose Connecticut in a squeaker. That means we win 5, lose 2, and 2 remain undecided.

Doing the math means we get somewhere between 49 and 51 seats, with a likely result of 50. A 50/50 result would not be good because that means nothing will ever get out of committee. Indiana and Missouri are the real killers here and abortion is again the problem.

Also, let me remind people of Christine O’Donnell. Conservatives lost easily-winnable seats in Nevada, Delaware, and now likely in Missouri and Indiana because they got stupid and picked unpalatable candidates. Those four seats may well be the difference in Obamacare going into effect and conservatives will bear the full blame for this. Elections have consequences and so do failing to win elections. It’s time we got smarter about picking candidates.

81 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

there is a difference, in my view, between the philosophy of the "tea party" and a bunch of real flesh and blood people trying to claim the title of some actual physical political party. To me, it was a movement sick of the ever increasing entitlements granted by big government and the attendant loss of individual liberty. It was never a religious right movement

Politics remains the art of the possible. You need to win actual elections to make things happen. That sometimes means getting someone elected who is not a 100% ideological match with everything you believe

Tennessee Jed said...

I also agree with a recent column by Ann Coulter. Although she tends to throw red meat and fire bombs to gain attention, I often find her to be insightful despite her apparent love affair with Chris Christie. (I think she just wanted someone who would take the gloves off with the libs when she made that comment. Still, assuming Romney wins the WH and the senate remains in Democrat hands, there will be the devil to pay getting Obama Care repealed. We will have to resort to other methods. I do hope we at least take the senate. It makes a difference in what legislation gets brought up to the entire chamber.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree. The problem, however, has been that on several occasions (DE, NV, IN) the Tea Party has backed people who ended up not being palatable just because they were "outsiders." They need to get better about vetting people who are not only conservative, but also not idiots. That failure looks to me like it will end up costing us on the Obamacare issue and will make the next four years extremely difficult.

(Akin is Religious Right all the way, not Tea Party.)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think that Romney winning can solve 40% of our problems. But if we don't win 51 seats in the Senate, we won't get the other 60% solved and that includes Obamacare. That's why this is such a huge problem with the Senate.

DUQ said...

I see what you're saying about Romney and Obama, but man am I nervous! This should be an easy choice in America and the fact it's not is shocking to me.

DUQ said...

Also, that's funny about the House. I wonder if Pelosi will finally get the boot?

Doc Whoa said...

Everything tells me that Romney will win, but I wish I was more confident.

Doc Whoa said...

DUQ, I hope they keep her! What I don't understand is why we can dominate the House but barely win (or not at all win) the Senate?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It's tense, that's for sure. Unfortunately, this is what has happened in our country because too many people depend on the government. That needs to change.

I don't think Pelosi will get the boot, nor do I really want that either.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, We'll know tomorrow!

The difference is about redistricting, which can't be done to Senate seats, and it's about bad candidates. We picked some bad ones that have cost us. We need to get better about (1) finding better/more appropriate people and (2) getting professional management for their campaigns.

Individualist said...

Not Getting the Florida Senate Seat without a Fight

Race is down to 3%. nelson is still up but it is much more promising than last week. Any Florida voter out there don't lose hope. Get out and vote.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - actually, your excellent point on the tea party is really what I was trying to get across. "Tea Party backed candidates" is sort of an anathema to me. It assumes there are some official candidates. I am not particularly trying to 'dis' Sarah Palin, but I just don't consider her (or anybody else) to be some official voice of the mythical tea party. There are candidates, probably Republicans, but not always, who agree the priority should be to reverse the trend of spending more than we take in, and limiting the size and scope of the federal government. I want candidates where fiscal responsibility is their first priority, but it is not such an ideological test that I want it to be an electoral suicide pact. Give me somebody who may be slightly less pure if the more pure candidate has so much baggage they are unelectable.

I initially had plenty of reservations about Mitt Romney. Once it became clear to me he was going to be the opponent of Obama, I made a pact with myself to get 100% behind him. And darned if I didn't think he truly grew in the role. Is he perfect in his track record on fiscal policy. No, but he is a damned sight better than four more years of what we just experienced.

About the 40% job done, I wholeheartedly agree. It is a shame because it could have happened.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I hope so. I just have my doubts because Mack's been so far behind for so long. But we'll see. The state could surprise.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Thanks! And I agree on all points. I think you put your finger on it with the idea of a suicide pact. This is where we pay for taking "principled stands" that result in loses. We need to start looking for the most conservative candidate who can win rather than just the most conservative candidate. We need to learn the art of winning 80% at a time rather than going for 100% at once. Whenever a party goes for 100%, they lose.

I agree about Palin and the others. I see the Tea Party as just millions of people looking to reshape the Republican Party -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Unfortunately, their efforts sometimes get misdirected by people like Palin down blind alleys.

On Romney, I did not like him at all when this all started, but he's won me over with some truly insightful positions and a strong, continuous showing to me of Reagan-like conservatism. I will be thrilled if he wins.

I'm not giving up yet on the Senate. I still think we squeak 51-49, but it shouldn't have been this close.

Individualist said...

Andrew

A bad sign for Dems is that Nelson's adds on the radio have become very vitriolic. Honestly they sound more like the venting of trolls on Big hollywood. Evidently he is a drunkard, absconded with state funds, made little children cry, kicked a puppy and whatev3er else.

I really hate that Florida puts so many Progs into office in the Senate.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Florida is a strange state where everything comes down to turnout. Let's hope it goes in our favor.

Anthony said...

I haven't paid special attention to the swing states (I can't name all of them off the top of my head, though I know neighboring Virginia is one) so I can't speak authoritatively about Republican prospects there but I will be surprised if Romney doesn't edge out Obama.
Most Americans (even many of those who will vote for Obama) don't like the direction the country is going in and Romney comes across as a credible alternative.

The biggest concern I have is that the anti-Obama vote might split. As Al Gore can attest, in a close race, even a minor candidate siphoning off a small amount of votes can be the difference between victory and defeat.
------------

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/11/gary-johnson-obama-will-win-148493.html

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson said Monday he thinks President Barack Obama will defeat Mitt Romney to win a second term.

“I think Obama’s going to win, that’s what I think,” Johnson told POLITICO in an interview. “[My vote is] really spread out, meaning I don’t think there’s any state that I’m going to do better than another.”
---------------

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I'm not actually worried about the third-party guys. There are only two states where they are supposed to be relevant -- Virginia and Colorado, and I think Romney will win by a big enough margin that it won't matter in Virginia and in Colorado Johnson is siphoning off support from Obama.

I too think Romney wins. I think he wins 301 electoral votes. But we won't know how close things feel until late tomorrow night. I'm betting we don't get a sense until at least 11:00 pm EST.

To me, the bigger worry is a senate where I can see a surprise in either direction.

T-Rav said...

I am hoping against hope that in some of these states, support for Romney manages to pull some of these Senate candidates over the line. If not, I am going to scream. Mainly at Todd Akin. Assuming his email inbox will accept my messages (which it didn't last time).

StanH said...

I believe Romney wins 41 to 9, 300 plus electoral votes. I believe Mourdock and Akin will both win, though what they said was stupid, the Senate will be 53 to 47. I believe we’ll pick up 5 seats in the house, expanding our lead in the House. We’ll also pick up 6 to 8 governors, and down ballot candidates as well. 2010 was the very beginning, and nothing is better in fact it’s worse, so I’m optimistic. We’ll see.

On flip side if Barry wins, I’ll embrace my inner bum, and get on as much assistance as possible. If we’re all going to be bums, I intend on being good at it.

T-Rav said...

Also, I think you forgot about the Smith-Casey race in Pennsylvania. I know it's Pennsylvania, but hey. Again, it will depend almost entirely on turnout.

rlaWTX said...

part of me thinks that Gary Johnson is perfectly happy "helping" TOTUS beat Romney...
(yeah, 3rd party candidates that lean "right" make me a little bitter)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It's really frustrating. I'm still upset about us stupidly throwing away a free seat in Delaware and a great shot in Nevada. And now we're endangered Missouri, Indiana and Nebraska -- seats we NEED.

I too hope that Romney helps in each of these states, but we'll see. The Senate is going to be really, really close and could be a mess. Keep your fingers crossed.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I had that same thought! If Obama wins, I should go on welfare and whatever else I can find. Let his asshole supporters pay for my life.

I like you optimism and I can't say that you are wrong. All I can say is that this is going to be interesting!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's true. I forgot about that one. I haven't seen any polls lately, but it sounds like it could be close. Wouldn't it be funny if we won the Senate because of PA? Or Conn?

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I agree. I think Johnson would love to be able to claim that he "won" the election for Obama.

T-Rav said...

I trust I don't need to make my feelings on Gary Johnson known.

AndrewPrice said...

Nope, we know you think he's sexy. ;)

rlaWTX said...

[the first presidential election in which I could vote was 1992 - H Ross Perot hands it to Clinton. I still harbor ill-will toward 3rd party candidates]

rlaWTX said...

ANdrew, that is such a mean thing to say to T-Rav! (but it made me chuckle)

tryanmax said...

For what it's worth, the GOP will do better than squeak in NE. With one exception last week, Fischer has been >10pts over Kerrey in every poll since March.

Kerrey's been committing suicide with attack ads trying to paint Fischer as "not a real Nebraskan" which only serve to remind voters that he's been a New Yorker for more than the past decade. LOL!

Still, he disturbingly attracts some 40% in the polls, 75% of which I guarantee you live in Omaha east of 72nd street.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Well, T-Rav wasn't all that clear, was he? I was just reading between the lines. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I have little good to say about third parties on many levels.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I can only go with what I've seen and there was a poll showing Kerry within a point or two last week. I do think we win Nebraska, but it would have been easier if we'd stuck with the other guy -- who also just happened to be a Tea Party favorite until Palin crapped on him.

I've got Nebraska in the toss up column tomorrow as well because of that vote split possibility. Any thoughts on that?

tryanmax said...

I think I know which poll you're talking about, and it was a real bizarre outlier compared to all the rest. I have no idea who they sampled. I've been used to spreads in the teens for months.

I think turnout for Fischer and Terry in the 2nd district will turn it back red this go 'round. There's no way Obama could have won the district while keeping Terry in office if people hadn't split their votes last time. The likelihood of that repeating is very, very slim, and I don't see Terry losing his seat. His opponent is so unknown that several people I've spoken with didn't even know he was black until he announced he was running for Congress.

AndrewPrice said...

I hope you're right about the Senate.

On Obama, I don't think that Nebraska ultimately matters, but it would be nice to get the 1 point. The real race really comes down to Wisconsin, Ohio and Nevada in my opinion.

tryanmax said...

P.S. I'm guessing you were looking at the Omaha Warren, er, World Herald poll from the end of October. Buffet owns that paper now, and he doesn't buy things he can't influence.

tryanmax said...

And, no, Nebraska doesn't ultimately matter on Obama. Still, it was neat to see him working for that one EV a few months back.

BevfromNYC said...

I actually think that Johnson takes more votes away from Obama than from Romney.

I agree with everything about the "Tea Party" candidates. They are looking for "conservatives", but we haven't distinguished what KIND of conservative. In most cases they are more social conservatives than fiscal. And in most cases just bat guano crazy. Unfortunately we have a really great candidate, Wendy Long, running against Sen Gillibrand, but she hasn't gotten any support from the RNC. She could have made a dent if she had some money to back her. And the TP in NY can only do so much. The RNC sucks in NY...there I said it.

Welfare/Food Stamps/Medicaid/Housing sounds good, but only if I don't have to work for it. If I have to work to get it, I might as well just keep my job and my home and my electricity.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, if by "sexy" you mean "drop-kicked all the way back to New Mexico and the marijuana patch he crawled out of," then sure.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav, Andrew should be more clear! If I'd known that was what he meant, I wouldn't have griped at him for picking on you! :)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think it was a Buffett paper. You know he's bought a lot of those throughout the country now right?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You may not believe this, but that is EXACTLY how I define sexy! :)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Sorry, I'll try to be more clear in the future.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I agree. The New York GOP needs to be purged from top to bottom and completely replaced. They are horrible.

And I'm totally onboard with the "stop working and leech" plan if Obama wins. Why should we do all the work so his supporters can live off of us?

I agree about Johnson. From what I'm seeing around here, he's pulling away people who voted for Obama in 2008 and would never vote for Romney -- you see a lot of Obama 2008 bumperstickers on Johnson cars. I think they're druggies.

T-Rav said...

Oh, good Lord. Guys!

And yes, as long as we're drop-kicking people, throw in the entire NY GOP organization too. Worthless.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, oh yeah! A bunch of magazines did stories on it not long ago. Business Week was one, and Forbes was another. It has not gone unnoticed.

Buffet is targeting papers just like the OWH in his buys: small market papers with loyal readership and no competition. These he intends to put behind online paywalls. Now, you know I have no beef with overtly slanted news organizations, but it's worth noting that this models best serves such outfits. There's little to guess about which direction Warren's purchases will tip toward.

tryanmax said...

the "stop working and leech" plan

I love it! Democrats always whinge that they'll move to Canada or the UK when their party loses. Republicans should just say they'll quit their jobs and draw welfare.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Consider it civil obedience with extreme cynicism. If Obama's people want to live off the government, let them support the government.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, No doubt he will slant well to the left... except when it helps his interests to slant in some other direction.

I think in the end, he will lose his shirt on newspapers. They are dying and the paywall idea doesn't work because there's too much free competition. The only way newspapers survive is providing something other than news which people are willing to pay for -- like coupons or classified you need to pay to get.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I don't know how it is in your market, but around here, you don't even need a newspaper for the coupons anymore. There are a few services that just dump these annoying yellow bags full of 'em on people's driveways. And the classifieds have been replaced by craigslist, etc.

In other words, I agree completely.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It makes sense. Right now the democrats vote for bigger and bigger government because they don't need to pay for it, and because they know it works like a ponzi scheme and will run fine unless Republicans wise up. So I absolutely recommend signing up for any benefit you can get to drain the system dry. Kill it by exposing the ponzi-scheme way they are set up. Otherwise, it will be there forever so long as conservatives are willing to pay for it and never use it.

AndrewPrice said...

trynamax, Around here, the paper has gone to crap and its circulation is crashing because there's no reason to buy it, so people stopped buying it even for the coupons (or they just buy Sunday).

And it seems that grocery stores have picked up the slack by hanging coupons by the products, which means you don't even need the paper anymore. That seems to be where most people get coupons now.

AndrewPrice said...

Everyone should read this: Fred Barnes. None of it is truly new, but it's solid and it's encouraging. Key points:

In 2008, self-identified Democrats led Republicans in turnout by seven percentage points. Gallup’s projection is that Republicans will have a 49-46 percent edge this year.

And don't forget, independents are breaking for Romney according to every poll.

Early voting numbers are further evidence of ground game parity. Democrats have a slight edge, but their numbers are down significantly from 2008. Far more Republicans have voted early this year than in 2008.

The ground game wins battleground states.

Indicators. Many point to a Romney win. He does well among “high-propensity-voting” blocs such as, in the Battleground Poll, seniors (54 percent), married voters (56 percent), weekly church attendees (59 percent), white evangelicals (79 percent), and gun owner householders (60 percent). He also leads among key demographic groups such as suburban voters (54 percent), Catholics (53 percent), and middle class voters (52 percent).

Obama has large leads among groups such as Hispanics with a lower propensity to vote.


Suburban voters, Catholics and middle class voters chose Obama in 2008.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I, too, am tired of this election.

My prediction is Romney by 4. Senators 53. And only 2 more Representatives.

My wife's Pastor hates Romney, but he hates Obama more. While he didn't recommend Romney, he did say to vote against the Muslim.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, At this point, I'll take what I can get and it it's only "vote against the Muslim," then I'm cool with that. :)

On being tired, you and me both. I can't wait for this thing to be over.

Joel Farnham said...

What I am surprised about is that he (the Pastor) received an e-mail calling on him and his followers to vote against the Mormon. Interesting and very very odd. The e-mail basically said he would lose tax exempt status should the Mormon win.

One more prediction, contingent on Romney winning, the Main Stream Media will lose more than they ever have. I think we have turned a corner, only the legacy media doesn't know it yet.

tryanmax said...

Aside from the Mormon thing, I for the life of me cannot figure out what is so objectionable about Romney from a religious aspect. Unless you want to go the super-fundamentalist route and argue that he hasn't single-handedly ended abortion and gay marriage, which I've seen a lot of. It stuns me.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, One thing is for sure, if Romney wins, the polling companies will be in utter disgrace -- except Rasmussen and Gallup.

I'm not surprise the pastor got a BS e-mail, there are a lot of those going around these days. Never believe anything you get in an e-mail.

K said...

Question: Is there any chance that one or more Democrat senators will vote for Obamacare repeal? For example, the senators from Alaska and Ark are up for re-election in 2014.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It depends on whose side you're on. If you're a nut, then you object that Romney belongs to a cult and will cause Satan to fart on the country. If you're a liberal, then you KNOW that Romney is really looking to burn witches and gays at the stake.

If you're anybody else, you pretty much don't care unless he starts pandering to the witch burners.

Joel Farnham said...

tryanmax,

Well, the Mormon Church has only been around since 1830. To a lot of people, that equates to cult status. Wait a thousand years.

Still, I was told by a Baptist that Catholics practiced symbolic cannibalism.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I doubt it. Unless the Republicans do better than expected in the Senate, I would think that the lesson the Democrats will learn will be that they are fine because they can make all races local.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I've met several Evangelicals who are adamant that Catholics are cultists.

tryanmax said...

Joel, is symbolic cannibalism anything like literally standing on the brink of a depression?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You are making my head spin. :(

Joel Farnham said...

tryanmax,

I don't know. I do know that the Baptist was right.

"This wine represents my blood. This bread represents my body. This is the body and blood of Jesus Christ."

The interesting thing is, Baptists don't do that and Mormons do a modified version.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It's funnier when you have the Muppet Version of the Bible. ;)

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I recommend Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It skewers a lot of sacred cows.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I didn't know you met my grandfather!

AndrewPrice said...

Yummmm... sacred steaks.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Is he a Muppet or does he want to burn witches?

Jen said...

Andrew, Yeah, nature's candy (thanks T-Rav)!

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Yes, nature is good to us.

Jen said...

Andrew, and nature will be real good to me in a couple of weeks, because one of my own 'nature's candy' is going to the processor, and then...in my freezer.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, he thinks Catholics are cultists (or at least not real Christians).

T-Rav said...

Jen, what is this about candy????

Jen said...

T-Rav, don't you remember??? You called 'beef', nature's candy (oh, and pigs--your words "pigs, sweet, delicious pigs"). I made a comment to Andrew's article that referenced 'sacred cows', and that's what you called it.

T-Rav said...

Jen, I don't know....I think you're projecting. I don't remember that. But hey, sure.

T-Rav said...

BREAKING NEWS: The first votes have been recorded in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. Obama and Romney got five votes each. Based on this and my secret math skills, I project a tie in The Granite State.

Jen said...

T-Rav, Not projecting. I remember it because it had me laughing really hard.

Post a Comment

Post a Comment