Six more weeks, a zillion more news cycles (by Neocon Jennifer Rubin) with my own comments

[Kber]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/six-more-weeks-a-zillion-more-news-cycles/2012/09/25/535f1556-06a7-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

Six weeks from today the voters will go to the polls, the real ones, and we’ll know which party will control the White House, the House and Senate. Democrats and the media (pardon the repetition) (Nice gratuitous non-accurate attack, Jennifer, but whatever) are convinced that, at the very least, President Obama has this race sewn up. The media will continue to downplay or ignore altogether the burgeoning Libya scandal. (How many left-leaning pundits who wailed about Romney’s comments have been silent as the White House’s cover story has been blown to shreds? Answer: Lots.) (I'd provide the link to supporting evidence of Obama's story "falling apart", but Jennifer didn't and I couldn't find good evidence on my own.) And the Obama-liberal media team figures the voters are immune to bad economic news. So long as nothing changes, Obama is home free, right?

Well, let’s think about that. I’ll ignore the current controversies over polling samples and stipulate that Mitt Romney, at six weeks out, is behind. Is it possible he could move ahead? Let’s consider just five things that might have a significant impact on the race.

1. Obama gives a debate performance as bad as his interview on Univision or on “60 Minutes.” (Dream on, Jenn. Actually, the real problem Jenn has here is assuming her own biased version of the truth is accurate and shared by others. If she stepped out of the echo chamber once in a while, she'd probably take this point down.)

2. The economy further slows (due in part to the failure to address the “fiscal cliff”), making Obama’s argument that things are getting better untenable to average voters. (again - just not all that likely, but in any case, the argument isn't just that things are getting better, it's that real Americans trust Obama to continue to manage the recovery more that Mitt, whose preferred policies are what got us into this mess in the first place.)

3. The public comes to believe that the White House was derelict and/or dissembling with regard to the Libya attacks and the death of four Americans. (Again, is there some evidence to back this rather serious accusation up?)

4. Gas prices continue to rise, making energy and consumer inflation top issues. (and if they do, Jenn and company will be scrambling to revise their position on whether the president controls gas prices again. Aren't they getting dizzy?)

5. Another foreign policy issue arises, casting further doubt on Obama’s approach to Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and just about every other antagonistic power. (for this to have the effect Jennifer wants, Obama would have to fuck it up while Romney would have to present some evidence that he was up to the task of handling the situation better. Past performance of both the president and Mr. Romney would suggest that another foreign policy issue would probably help rather than hurt the Obama campaign. But, what ever.)

and finally, Jenn asserts " More than one of these can certainly occur. Moreover, it might be that, just like every other election in recent memory, the alte-deciders break against the incumbent." (All that I've read suggests that lated deciders usually break FOR the incumbent, not against. It's this kind of magical thinking that isn't grounded in reality that makes Ms. Rubin and her ilk not just amusing, but actually dangerous if they get their hands on real power. See: Iraq.)

Now, I agree with Ms. Rubin that a lot can happen in 6 weeks and we should be running as if we were 1% behind. But is this is what passes for critical analysis in GOP circles?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Rubin is so pro-Romney, she makes Fox News look independent

She possibly lies on Romney's behalf even more than he does. However, the WP would be afraid to sack her at the moment, because they have to keep some Republicans happy. Maybe they'll quietly move her on after the election.

Just as an example of her simple lies:

"4. Gas prices continue to rise, making energy and consumer inflation top issues. "

but they are falling at the moment, so it is impossible for them to "continue to rise".

[Kber]

2. She makes Ryan look honest.

[onenote]

3. Like a stopped clock, Ms.Rubin is probably right twice a day, or in this case once

The one thing she did get right is that undecideds generally do break for the challenger rather than the incumbent.
Which is why, as you aptly put it, we should be running as if we were 1 percent behind (and not high fiving as some here seem content to do).

http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

[Drunken Irishman]

4. The problem is that there aren't many undecideds.

Taking the average of polls, Obama leads Romney 48.6 to 44.8. That means there's 6.6% undecided. Of that 6.6, 1% of it is probably likely to vote for someone else other than Obama and Romney (as was the case four years ago). So, that takes it down to 5.6%. Yes, while that's greater than Obama's margin, it's extremely unlikely Romney will win all those votes. So, assume he wins 70% (which could be generous) of that remaining 5.6% ... that gives him 48.7 of the overall vote. If he wins 70%, that means Obama wins 30%, which gives him 50.28% of the overall vote - or a 1.58 margin. That, right now, is probably the best case scenario for Romney. Most likely, as was the case in 2008, the undecideds will probably break almost evenly.

For Romney to win, he'll need to win over 90% of the undecideds to win the popular vote. It's not going to happen. Even if he wins 82%, which I think is unlikely for a challenger in a presidential election, that only gives him 49.28% ... and Obama would eke out a win.

[onenote]

5. I still would strongly caution about becoming overconfident based on polls

When the margin of error of most polls is taken into account, and the undecided vote, particularly in swing states, turnout becomes absolutely critical. The Washington Post's recent Ohio poll is a good example -- there is 4.5 percent margin of error for the "likely voters" results in that poll. Moreover, the self-identified party affiliation of the voters in that poll broke down around 35 percent Democratic, 26 repub, and 35 percent independent. It also showed the independents going to romney by a narrow (1 percent) margin. The only reason that the poll show an Obama margin is that Obama is getting 94 percent of the self-described Democrats while romney gets only 91 percent of the self-described repubs.

So, as stated, turnout is critical.