This is why you shouldn’t pay attention to pundits. Ann Coulter predicted that Romney would win 273-265: she was off by 67EV. If she really believed in the awesome power of incumbency, she would have predicted an Obama win. She’s a bullshit peddler.
Pay attention to the numbers guys. On average incumbency is good for 2.9 percentage points in the popular vote. Against that the election year economy was weak but not recessionary. So the fundamentals, taken together, predicted that Obama would get 49% of the popular vote. He won 51.3%. Maybe that was due to Obama’s superior get out the vote technology. Romney’s was god-awful. Or maybe Romney was a crappy candidate. Who knows? But the effects of incumbancy and the economy can be quantified, accounted for. Coulter was simply blowing smoke.
I don’t really think telling OMG that his premises are wrong or that he’s in an echo chamber is going to help. It didn’t help before, and I don’t see any reason it will help now. The best posts in this thread use his polls to show how Obama can still win in the case provided.
This held even amongst the social conservatives. The values being promoted by Romney didn’t line up with theirs–they thought he was a horrible person they couldn’t trust. There was a big push near the election by all their friends to vote for Gary Johnson instead.
What absolutely blows my mind is that this is exactly what happened with Kerry in 2004. “Anybody but Bush!”, anyone? I thought that election clearly demonstrated that you can’t expect to win an election by relying on people voting against your opponent; you absolutely need people voting for your nominee. I was surprised at how little this was brought up (news, op/eds, blogs, etc) during the campaigning.
And even when it’s the same person, I don’t think that there’s automatically a contradiction between “the economy is the most important issue and I like Romney better on the economy” and “I’m voting for Obama.” That’s Thudlow’s person C
And there’s even less a contradiction between “the economy is the most important issue and I’m not happy with how Obama handled the economy” and “I’m voting for Obama.”
One thing that can be attributed to Sandy is that it clearly demonstrated the power of incumbancy: Romney was limited in what he could do to even try to “look presidential,” because when you’re not actually President, it just comes off as arrogant – and furthermore, FEMA doesn’t answer to you.
I suspect something that may have been a factor is that there was a belief that people voted for him in 2008 for the novelty factor, but after four years of his actual being President, the 2012 election would be about Obama the man, and on that, they thought, there was a clear Republican advantage. In other words, the people (whose numbers I suspect Republicans overestimated) who voted for Obama in 2008 largely so they could tell themselves they weren’t racists were presumed to be unlikely to vote for him in 2012 after the point had been made.
Exactly. I say this to Coulter and every other pundit who’s offering their post-election expertise: If you weren’t smart enough to predict the outcome of the election a week ago, why should I place any value on your opinion?
There were clear warning signs throughout the primary that even Republicans weren’t comfortable with Romney. He had no charisma or mass appeal at all. It bothered me that he only served a few years as governor and then started running in the 2008 race.
I do think Romney has a incredible knowledge of business and capital investments. His success at Bain and startups like Staples proves that. Did he have the leadership to get his plans through Congress? I’m not sure that he did.
Romney also hurt himself by shifting from moderate to far right in the primary. It put nearly all his previous positions into question. He never recovered from the perception that his positions on issues were weak.
It might have put Obama at an advantage, but Romney still could have done a much better job than transparently turn a campaign rally into fake storm relief where they bought $5000 in goods to give to attendees to donate, even though the Red Cross prefers to not receive donations in that manner.
In 2008 there was no incumbent but a parallel of a game changing event could have been the Wall Street meltdown. Most people seemed to think that Obama handled things better while McCain famously and quizzically suspended his campaign (kinda).
We should face facts here: When it comes to looking Presidential in a crisis that takes place at the end of an election cycle, Obama did this better than his opponent twice and it wasn’t even close both times.
Yes, what Romney did was clearly the wrong thing. But what would have been the right thing? How would it have compared to what Obama did, to what he was able to do simply because he had the resources of the Federal government at his disposal and Romney did not?
Obama looked presidential because he was President. It’s not sufficient – ask people in New Orleans – but it is necessary.
Obama did what he did for the country. Romney did what he did for the campaign. A simple phone call to the Red Cross might have made all the difference-imagine the good PR that might of sprung up if he and his aides had organized a blood drive, where he and all his followers were seen donating blood.
At the risk of a threadjack, if you’re talking about the US Congress, here’s my experience:
If it is handwritten or difficult to read it may not be read at all.
If it looks like a form letter you will get a form response. It’s unlikely the representative has read either your or his letter.
If it’s clearly an original letter, you are very likely to get an original response. Some representatives have their staff give them the original letters to read. Out of this pile a smaller portion of representatives actually draft their own responses.
In the office I worked in we had no way of knowing if you were a campaign donor when we got your mail, and in fact, such a system is probably illegal under ethics rules. I’m sure the people who work with the rep for a very long time get a handle on who the big donors are, but the firewall between campaign and office has gotten thicker in recent years.
If the representative is in town and you visit the office, you have okay odds of getting to meet them if it’s not a busy day. You’ll get to have a few sentences and take a picture with them. It’s a good idea to call ahead and say something like “my family is tourist-ing around DC, can we tour the Capitol and meet Rep X?”
If you can’t go to the capitol, in order of response probability:
mail gets responded to as I outlined above
e-mail gets more form letters in response
phone calls get polled for “support / oppose” but that’s it
If you convey that you’re an Important Person, like a local official, advocate, academic, activist, or executive, you’re more likely to get a better response.
Summary: Your communications do matter, since a flood of letters on any issue means the staff at least tells the representative about the issue, but there’s steps you can take to help your odds of getting a personal response.
Oh, I’m kinder than that. If admit you were wrong earlier and explain why you were wrong in an honest manner, I might listen. You would have to explain why you disagreed with the polling averages. But Coulter’s current claims directly conflict with her previous forecast. And she feels no inclination to reconcile the two. She is not serious, nor are Michael Barone or George Will.
And those who predicted a Romney landslide in the face of massive polling evidence to the contrary are substantively discredited. Yet Jim Cramer still pulls in a pseudo-financial audience at MSNBC (those poor gulls).
Heh. Anderson Cooper was on Letterman the other night: ANDERSON COOPER: How does Dick Morris still have a job? That’s what I don’t understand.
LETTERMAN: I don’t get that at all. I thought he was President Clinton’s guy.
COOPER: He at one point had been. Yeah. And then he, you know, made a turn I guess. But, yeah, and he doesn’t have a great track record on predicting stuff. I mean, he’s gotten it wrong…
LETTERMAN: Well he was shooting his mouth off there.
COOPER: Right, I mean, right, you played the tape. I mean, everything he predicted was pretty much the opposite.
Romney should have taken it as an opportunity to look presidential. Announce that Hurricane Sandy was a major natural disaster that rose above partisan politics and President Obama had his full support and he felt President Obama was doing a good job in his response.
It wouldn’t have just been the right thing to do, it would have also been the smart thing to do. As you point out, Obama had all the resources - Romney couldn’t compete with him in actually doing anything. His attempt to do it with his charity drive blew up in his face - even without the set-up it invited comparisons between how little he could do with how much Obama was able to do. He made Obama look presidential.
If he had praised Obama, he would have by association been putting himself alongside Obama. He would have implied that he would do the same things Obama was doing if he were President and created a sense that he and Obama were equals. And if he praised Obama, Obama would have been forced to say something nice about him or look petty.
minor nitpick: Jim Cramer’s show, Mad Money, is on CNBC. He’s been with the network for at least 12 years as I remember him having Kudlow & Cramer on there before that.
Cramer making the crazy Obama landslide prediction on pro-investor CNBC is all the more bizarre but he explained it as just him taking a long position. I don’t think he was making a serious political commentary.
If a GOP candidate praises anything a Democrat did, it causes a discontinuity in the Fox News cognitive dissonance field, and the wingnuts all collapse , and stare at the wall twitching.