Andrew Sulluvan's latest column: Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?

[spdirty]

Pretty funny. He is in total freak out mode right now.

8 Oct 2012 07:13 PM

Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?


The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 - 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 - 45 lead. That's a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama's performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.


Romney's favorables are above Obama's now. Yes, you read that right. Romney's favorables are higher than Obama's right now. That gender gap that was Obama's firewall? Over in one night:

Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That's terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney - even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president's ass:

By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin.... Romney has gained ground on several of these measures since earlier in the campaign.



Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points. In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).

Lies work when they are unrebutted live on stage. And momentum counts at this point in the election.
Now look at Pew's question as to who would help the middle class the most:



Look: I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week - throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? And after Romney's convincing Etch-A-Sketch, convincing because Obama was incapable of exposing it, Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era.


How can Obama come back? By ensuring people know that Romney was and is a shameless liar and opportunist? That doesn't work for a sitting president. He always needed a clear positive proposal - tax reform, a Grand Bargain on S-B lines - as well as a sterling defense of his admirable record. Bill Clinton did the former for him. Everyone imaginable did what they could for him. And his response? Well, let's look back a bit:

With President Obama holed up in a Nevada resort for debate practice, things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now. Pretty boring for Obama too, apparently. "Basically they're keeping me indoors all the time," Obama told a supporter on the phone during a visit to a Las Vegas area field office. "It's a drag," he added. "They're making me do my homework."

Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve. If he now came out and said he supports Simpson-Bowles in its entirety, it would look desperate, but now that Romney has junked every proposal he ever told his base, and we're in mid-October, it's Obama's only chance on the economy.


Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.


I've never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate - and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 2004 than Obama last week. Even Reagan's meandering mess in 1984 was better - and he had approaching Alzheimer's to blame.


I'm trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it's hard to see how a president and his party recover. I'm not giving up. If the lies and propaganda of the last four years work even after Obama had managed to fight back solidly against them to get a clear and solid lead in critical states, then reality-based government is over in this country again. We're back to Bush-Cheney, but more extreme. We have to find a way to avoid that.



Much, much more than Obama's vanity is at stake.


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html

[SoCalBronco]

To be fair, I think in PEW's turnout model, they had it something like R+2, which is not realistic, although most liberals on this forum told me a few weeks ago that the turnout models don't matter so long as there are sufficient amounts of likely voters, and this poll does have more than the usual 400-500 sample.

Just as NYT/CBS poll from a few weeks ago having Obama up 8 using D+11 was dumb, I dont think R+2 is realistic, either. I dont care about the likely/non likely. The turnout model is what is important. I know its prolly not going to be R+2 and I sure as hell know its not going to be D+7 like in 08. There just isnt that much of a gap in intensity. It will likely settle around the average of D+3 or maybe D+2 since there now appears to be a slight edge in intensity in favor of the GOP.

That said, I would not be surprised if Romney was ahead by 1 or 2 points, or tied. I think 4 is a little high, but I definitely would not be surprsied to see him very narrowly ahead at this juncture.

[DBruleU]

Someone might want to check on TonyR. As Sullivan goes, so does TonyR.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

To be fair, I think in PEW's turnout model, they had it something like R+2, which is not realistic, although most liberals on this forum told me a few weeks ago that the turnout models don't matter so long as there are sufficient amounts of likely voters, and this poll does have more than the usual 400-500 sample.

Just as NYT/CBS poll from a few weeks ago having Obama up 8 using D+11 was dumb, I dont think R+2 is realistic, either. I dont care about the likely/non likely. The turnout model is what is important. I know its prolly not going to be R+2 and I sure as hell know its not going to be D+7 like in 08. There just isnt that much of a gap in intensity. It will likely settle around the average of D+3 or maybe D+2 since there now appears to be a slight edge in intensity in favor of the GOP.

That said, I would not be surprised if Romney was ahead by 1 or 2 points, or tied. I think 4 is a little high, but I definitely would not be surprsied to see him very narrowly ahead at this juncture.

The reason it favors R's is because they took the RV and turned that into LV based on the enthusiasm they were seeing in their polling. I agree tho, +5 is generous, and it won't be that. I think it will be even and best case scenario more R turnout based on enthusiasm.

Also, Romney is polling so much better with I's right now that could have a huge say in it.

[SoCalBronco]

Yes, Romney's advantage among Independents is high.....Battleground poll had it at like 15. I dont think its quite that high, that might be a post-debate sugar high, but I do think its probably around 8 points or so, which means Obama would need D+4 or D+5 turnout to offset it, D+3 which is the average would not get it done, especially where Romney will get a slightly higher share of GOP votes than Obama does for Dems (there is not much of a difference there, maybe like 90-92 to 88 or so). If there is really more than a 10 point edge in independents, there is no concievable way Obama can win. I dont think its 10+ though, but its in prolly in striking distance of 10.

[24champ]

I've seen several indicators of Romney picking up some serious steam. We haven't gotten the full effects of last weeks debate, even though we are starting to see some of the evidence of it now.

[Rigs11]

We don't like polls we prefer to use our own data.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Yes, Romney's advantage among Independents is high.....Battleground poll had it at like 15. I dont think its quite that high, that might be a post-debate sugar high, but I do think its probably around 8 points or so, which means Obama would need D+4 or D+5 turnout to offset it, D+3 which is the average would not get it done, especially where Romney will get a slightly higher share of GOP votes than Obama does for Dems (there is not much of a difference there, maybe like 90-92 to 88 or so). If there is really more than a 10 point edge in independents, there is no concievable way Obama can win. I dont think its 10+ though, but its in prolly in striking distance of 10.

Romney was up 8 points among indies over the summer. So him being over 10 points ahead among the independents now, isn't really surprising to me.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by 24champ

Romney was up 8 points among indies over the summer. So him being over 10 points ahead among the independents now, isn't really surprising to me.

Was just about to say, it's steadily risen, and recently seemed to skyrocket, if that batteground poll is correct.

[Rohirrim]

It's inspiring to watch the rubes coaxed into the tent by an accomplished flim flam man. Like WC Fields said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

To be fair, I think in PEW's turnout model, they had it something like R+2, which is not realistic

Yeah, a couple of things to note:

The shift in Pew's poll — which showed an eight point advantage for Obama in mid-September — seems attributable mostly to a heavy Republican sample. Surging party identification can be an indicator of enthusiasm, which certainly spiked among Republicans in the aftermath of last week's debate.

and:

Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary to George W. Bush, tweeted that while the poll shows obvious movement toward Romney, the results expressed Monday by Pew are "tempting" but unlikely.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...-of-obama?lite

Still, definitely good news for Romney. The race is probably a dead heat at this point, though it will be interesting to see if this boost for Romney has staying power. Typically, bumps after conventions and debates are only superficial and the numbers normalize after a couple of weeks. So, we'll see.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

We don't like polls we prefer to use our own data.

It is pretty funny. Last week, the polls were liberally biased towards Obama and not to be believed. Now that they are more favorable for Romney, they're trustworthy.

[Rohirrim]

As far as the OP goes, I have to agree with Sullivan. Obama has grasped defeat from the jaws of victory. Why? Maybe it's as simple as he doesn't want to be president anymore? They say that Taft never really wanted to be president. As TR's VP he kind of got railroaded into it when TR made the blunder of his life and failed to run for a second term. Taft always wanted to be on the SCOTUS, which he was finally able to do under Harding.

Obama is running as if he wants to lose. It's a combination of Obama being lackluster and Romney telling any lie and taking any position he believes is necessary to win. Romney wants it bad. Obama? Not so much, obviously.

But Sullivan is right. The country is in for it. The Republicans have become a party of extremists, more extreme than any major party has ever been in this country. Reality based government is going out the window to be replaced by ideologues and their dogma. And history shows us that ideology is a dangerous master. History also shows that disparities in wealth tear countries apart. The wealth chasm in America is now the worst in our history. Worse than it was during the Gilded Age when the Robber Barons ruled the country. Under a Romney presidency, it will only get worse.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Someone might want to check on TonyR. As Sullivan goes, so does TonyR.

As usual, Sullivan is mostly right and you're mostly clueless.

[Kid A]

Sullivan is a great read, and the debate swing has been huge, but he has been a little hysteric about it, bemoaning the election lost mid-debate. Just like the people who called it game-set-match with the 47% tape, overselling a significant bump as "decisive" is an overreaction.

FiveThirtyEight today noted that Pew poll is a big positive for Mitt, but it's tempered by more tepid polling for Romney across the board. Obama certainly let Mitt back in, but the Sullivan article reminded me of a lot of fatalistic sports fans who give up all hope when their team allows one bad scoring drive. It will be tight to the end, and Obama would be best served by not over-correcting and getting too aggressive or panicked like many of his supporters.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Kid A

Sullivan is a great read, and the debate swing has been huge, but he has been a little hysteric about it...

Yep, he's often hysterical. But sometimes he catches himself as in the below:

Of course, I'm excitable. This is a bounce for Romney and will presumably subside a bit. Perhaps by the next debate, the president will have a clue what he wants to do for the country and the world - and be able to communicate it. But I'm also angry. If Axelrod couldn't see the Etch-A-Sketch coming, when Romney's campaign all but told us they were cynical enough to do and say anything to win, then he truly is incompetent.

The only solace is that Obama is best when up against it. I remember how he just threw away the primary race in New Hampshire, rather than fighting. I recall how he allowed Obamacare to languish in the Congress for months, almost lost it with Scott Brown's election, and finally brought it home. I remember how he let DADT drift for months, only to pull it from the fire in the nick of time in a lame-duck Congress. He does this. He works your last nerves. But I have never seen him phone it in as weakly as he did last week, and I can see no strategy behind it.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....implosion.html

[SoCalBronco]

Hey Tony who do you like more...Sullivan or Bill Simmons?

[houghtam]

I said it when the good news came out, and I'll say it with the bad. National polls are pointless this close to the election. The only thing that matters at this point are FL OH PA VA.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Kid A

Sullivan is a great read, and the debate swing has been huge, but he has been a little hysteric about it, bemoaning the election lost mid-debate.

Frankly, I think there is a bit of self-fullfilling prophecy going here with the hand-wringing coming from the left. It's not unprecendent for an incumbant to come out flat in a first debate, as Sullivan himself points out. Bush lost the first debate to Kerry in emphatic fashion, Reagan embarassed himself in the first debate with Mondale. Then, Sullivan goes all emo on his readers by decalring that Obama performed even worse in this instance, which is absurd. Was he flat? Yes. Did he miss a couple of opportunities? Sure. Was it some sort of bumbling disaster of epic proportion? Of course not. But the apopletic reaction from the media and the left has done nothing to help that perception with the public. The right is better at playing these games. When Bush got his clock cleaned by Kerry, the right dutifully pretended otherwise, minimizing and rationalizing any flubbs or missteps. And, ultimately, Kerry got only a moderate boost that lasted maybe a week. If your an indy and you witness the self-flagellation of Obama's supporters, that very well could make an impression. And it also rallies the faithful to see their opponents beating each other up.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Hey Tony who do you like more...Sullivan or Bill Simmons?

Good question! Slight lean towards Simmons.

[Kid A]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Frankly, I think there is a bit of self-fullfilling prophecy going here with the hand-wringing coming from the left. It's not unprecendent for an incumbant to come out flat in a first debate, as Sullivan himself points out. Bush lost the first debate to Kerry in emphatic fashion, Reagan embarassed himself in the first debate with Mondale. Then, Sullivan goes all emo on his readers by decalring that Obama performed even worse in this instance, which is absurd. Was he flat? Yes. Did he miss a couple of opportunities? Sure. Was it some sort of bumbling disaster of epic proportion? Of course not. But the apopletic reaction from the media and the left has done nothing to help that perception with the public. The right is better at playing these games. When Bush got his clock cleaned by Kerry, the right dutifully pretended otherwise, minimizing and rationalizing any flubbs or missteps. And, ultimately, Kerry got only a moderate boost that lasted maybe a week. If your an indy and you witness the self-flagellation of Obama's supporters, that very well could make an impression. And it also rallies the faithful to see their opponents beating each other up.

Agreed. No bones about it, ****ty performance by the President. But the media, particularly the liberal media, were more than willing to categorize it as a historic disaster. I mean, a ton of people watched the debates, but how many watched the whole thing? Or watched closely and came away with a really clear concept of who won?

It's in the days and days of constant media stories about how Obama got beat that the perception really filters in to the general electorate. And that's the media's job, to educate on an event many people couldn't follow live. The ash and sackcloth routine of the liberal opinion columnists, though, seems an odd approach if they feel it is so dire that he be re-elected. CNN afterward had most their panel calling it a decisive win for Romney, but nobody was running around with their head chopped off ala Chris Matthews.

[TonyR]

Wow.

There’s no doubt that he did envision himself as transformational.... He also believed, I think really genuinely believed, that he was and could be a post-partisan figure. He thought this because he wasn’t a product of the ’60s, and he said so explicitly on occasion, noting at one point in 2008 that we didn’t need to “relitigate the ’60s” anymore.

Well, maybe he didn’t. But someone did. Conservatives did, because they believe that’s when it all went sour, and for them, it’s good for business besides. I doubt Obama had ever been hated by anybody in his life. Now, 40 or so million Americans hate him. Must be stunning to him, still.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-election.html

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Kid A

Agreed. No bones about it, ****ty performance by the President. But the media, particularly the liberal media, were more than willing to categorize it as a historic disaster. I mean, a ton of people watched the debates, but how many watched the whole thing? Or watched closely and came away with a really clear concept of who won?

It's in the days and days of constant media stories about how Obama got beat that the perception really filters in to the general electorate. And that's the media's job, to educate on an event many people couldn't follow live. The ash and sackcloth routine of the liberal opinion columnists, though, seems an odd approach if they feel it is so dire that he be re-elected. CNN afterward had most their panel calling it a decisive win for Romney, but nobody was running around with their head chopped off ala Chris Matthews.

Yep. Basically, liberals wanted Obama to call Romney a lying son of a b****, and when he didn't, it was a disaster as far as they were concerned (I admit, this was my inital reaction as well). And so that became the narrative in the days that followed. Like you said, how many folks actually watched the debates in their entirety, or came away with a strong opinion on who won? If liberals had been more cagey in their reaction, more willing to stoop to intellectual dishonestly like the right, I suspect the narrative would have been different and thus the public perception less damaging.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by TonyR

As usual, Sullivan is mostly right and you're mostly clueless.

Mostly right Obama that sucked? That he is a made up caricature of a bunch of peoples imaginations? That he can't talk intellectually without his teleprompter? He was challenged, something that rarely happens, and he failed. It won't be the last time.

The reason Obama did so poorly, and why when you pit a leftist liberal up against a conservative, the conservative will always look more reasonable and knowledgeable, is because liberals believe their way of thinking is the only way, and rarely engage in debate about their world view. When they are challenged they come away looking like Obama last Wednesday night. Romney has been so underrated this entire election, he's been defined up until last week by Obama as this dumb, heartless, nitwitted, rich guy. And in one night Romney destroyed that narrative and as Krauthammer said, essentially turned hundreds of millions in negative ads into dust.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Yep. Basically, liberals wanted Obama to call Romney a lying son of a b****, and when he didn't, it was a disaster as far as they were concerned (I admit, this was my inital reaction as well). And so that became the narrative in the days that followed. Like you said, how many folks actually watched the debates in their entirety, or came away with a strong opinion on who won? If liberals had been more cagey in their reaction, more willing to stoop to intellectual dishonestly like the right, I suspect the narrative would have been different and the perception of the public less damaging.

some 70M people watched the debate, and it was overwhelmingly a Romney win...big time according to polls.