To steal a line from The American President: If Obama was white, he would be the most popular history professor at the University of Chicago.
I’m not exactly sure what your question is, but the current polling is right in line with what you would expect from the fundamentals independent of the candidates.
Incumbent presidents are almost always re-elected. However, the one time they aren’t is with bad economic conditions. The current US (and world) economy is bad enough (as measured by unemployment and GDP growth) to put any incumbent president in the “danger zone”. And that’s exactly where we find ourselves.
We briefly had a moment after the conventions where a majority of the undecided voters seemed to conclude that Obama deserved another shot (or, conversely, that Romney was too right-wing for them to replace him with). Romney managed to convince them this was not the case in the first debate. So we’re back to the status quo ante the conventions.
It’s not really hard to figure out, and you certainly don’t need to bring in brainwashing or a complicit media.
And normally that would be fair but in this case it was presented more of “If I feel this way about Obama, then why the Hell wouldn’t I vote for Romney. And if someone like me doesn’t want to vote for Romney how in the world is this election so close both PV and EV-wise.” That is why I put it into Elections rather than GD.
Ah, the “He’s only the president because he’s black” strategy…that was Deadbeat Dad candidate Joe Walsh (who, incidentally, is getting whomped by Tammy Duckworth), IIRC.
Kind of like Prolapsed Pig Anus John Sununu’s “Colin Powell only endorsed Obama because he’s black” quip.
This would be the point when you’d expect someone to note that their party maybe, just maybe, might be somewhere on the south end of the rational/irrational/batshit crazy scale…
And the same on the other side.
It used to be 40%/40%. Now it’s about 47%/47%.
Every election is going to be close because there are so few non-partisans.
Ah, in that case I think you’re making the “undecided voters are as informed as I am” mistake.
For many undecided voters the first debate was literally the first time they’d seen Romney talk at length about his policies. They don’t watch the news. They don’t read newspapers. They only know that the economy sucks and they might want to vote for somebody other than the president. They probably heard some jokes about how rich and machine-like Romney was, and some others about how charismatic the President is. Then they saw the debate and saw an eager, moderate Republican with great hair and a tired, bedraggled, "umm"ing President.
There are many voters (almost certainly enough to decide a close state) that will literally decide whom to vote for when they walk in the booth. There was a report somewhere yesterday that a big win for the local sports team can boost the incumbent by 1-2% just on positive feelings alone.
Sticking just to the question “Why is this election so close?”
-
A sizable portion of the electorate will vote GOP no matter what and not very differently sized portion will vote Democratic no matter what. Elections get decided by turn-out on those sides and by a very few who potentially swing their votes (not the same as “independents”) and those in only a few states that are potential tipping point states. You need something pretty damn decisive going on to make a not close election in that context. Like the following G.W. Bush in the midst of economic free fall and a disastrous foreign policy and against a completely inept campaign.
-
The economy is improved, improving, but still weak, still fragile, still at risk to outside events like the Euro Zone crisis. If it was weaker (unemployment 8.5 or higher) it would be a slam dunk for virtually any GOP candidate. Even for one like this Etch-A-Sketch. (In fact Romnesia could even help as it would allow each voter to see in him whatever position they want to see, since he’s taken just about all of them, to believe that his real beliefs align with their own, and thereby to rationalize their vote. As many on the Right are doing now as Romney now moves away from saying the things they want to hear.) If the economy was stronger the election would not be close even with a charismatic intelligent and principaled GOP candidate.
-
And because Obama blew his chance to finish it at debate one with a weak performance when Romney’s campaign was in stench mode with the SuperPacs all about to give up and move dollars down ticket.
To say nothing of his claim that Obama is “hopelessly over his head” in the role of President… which could only be true if Debaser defines “over his head” as “keeps making decisions I disagree with”.
That’s a silly thing to say unless he’s become blacker since '08.
The election is close because Romney has much more credibility (according to the polling) on economic issues and the economy is the #1 concern for most people. Personally, I think we’re slowly climbing out of it and will continue to do so regardless of who wins the election. Obama’s problem is that he promised a much quicker recovery.
So, why isn’t Romney blowing him out of the water? Well, for starters everyone still remembers our last republican prez and doesn’t exactly want to relive that experience. Furthermore, Romney’s nature is not to drum up excitement. It’s easy to paint him as out-of-touch.
Basically, there are a ton of voters like the OP. I think there are relatively few people who are genuinely enthusiastic about one guy or the other.
Hey, you’ve posted threads where you blame Obama for teachers getting laid off in a multitude of states when it is a certifiable fact that Obama provided funds in the stimulus and other bills to defray state budget shortfalls for public employees to limit these layoffs. It’s a totally irrational opinion to blame Obama for you losing your state job when he has added billions in spending to subsidize state budgets to avoid these layoffs.
If we can’t explain to your satisfaction why your reasoning on teacher layoffs is totally backwards, how the hell are we supposed to explain your reasoning of why you haven’t decided to vote for Romney?
All I can tell you is that I doubt most undecided voters share your reasoning process on electoral matters. The whole reason this election is close is because the economy isn’t all that great leading to dissatisfaction with Obama; but Romney is not as good a candidate as Obama is, leading to greater dissatisfaction with Romney. That’s it. Full stop.
Jesus christ! At some point, you all are simply going to have to step back and evaluate why your facts continue to not fit with reality. How can so many people choose willful ignorance for so long?
Seriously, if I push on a door at a restaurant and it doesn’t open, I reevaluate my premise and pull on the fucking door. Conservatives seem prone to keep pushing as hard as they can, blaming everyone else for the door remaining closed and seething with jealousy at the people they see inside eating.
Amen to this. Nixon was more of a socialist than Obama is … he enacted wage and price controls, for Lenin’s sake! And the right is bitching about Obama being the socialist? Kee-rist …
As to the question about why are things so close: I think it has everything to do with the economy. If things had turned around on a dime after the Great Recession, and people felt better about their jobs and their income, Romney would be polling around 35%. Since people aren’t feeling that great about things, it pulls Obama’s numbers down.
Now, I’m explicitly not blaming Obama for this. Most people have no idea how close we came to financial ruination in 2008-09. A depression was very, very likely, and I do believe the stimulus and some other government actions helped to prevent that. With the financial situation that dire, of course it’s going to take a number of years to turn things around (it took a world war to bring us out of the 1930s Depression, after all). And things are starting to improve, it’s just slow.
Romney is not a good nominee for the Republicans. For whatever reasons, most of the GOP’s top echelon decided to sit this one out. I mean, look at the circus we had during the primaries … Bachmann? Gingrich? Perry? Santorum? Cain? These are the Not Ready for the Oval Office players here. Romney was all that was left.
Considering the economy, as a liberal-leaning Democrat, I’m glad things worked out this way. A better candidate than Romney would likely have a substantial lead over Obama right now. But them’s my answers as to why it’s close - the perception of the economy is dragging Obama’s numbers down, but Romney isn’t a good enough candidate to take much advantage of that.
I live in Nevada - one of the swing states - and everyone who lives in a swing state can tell you that the constant, non-stop barrage of advertising is taking its toll. Hate and bile heaped upon you by the bucket full - nothing but one ad followed by another ad ripping candidates to shreds and making you feel like you have a choice between Charlie Manson and Osama bin Laden.
It is no wonder early voting is going crazy here in Nevada - people are voting now just to be done with it and cannot wait until this election is over. (So far, early voting is helping Obama here in Nevada…)
That said, I also think the media (liberal and FOX) is enjoying this narrowing of the gap immensely - keeps those ratings up and perhaps motivates people to get out and vote (although getting more people to vote is not a bad thing.)
I am somewhat dubious about the women’s vote gap narrowing…I just cannot imagine a woman in her right mind voting for a Republican Party that obviously has no respect for women’s rights. If there is a singe Republican woman on this board, I would love for her to tell me why she intends to vote for the Republicans in this election.
Look at it this way Saint Cad. It’s not who people will vote for, it’s who they won’t vote for. You won’t vote Obama. Period. Now you are deciding if Romney is also someone who you won’t vote for. You want to vote against Obama but the concept of voting for Romney makes you just about as sick.
Large numbers of people agree with you about Obama and unlike you will vote for Romney without hesitation, even if they have to hold their nose to do it. Large numbers agree with you about Obama but feel so blah or worse about Romney that they won’t vote for him either. Perhaps also like you, perhaps not. You still have to decide.
Large numbers feel that same negative way about Romney and/or the GOP as a whole and will vote for Obama. Large numbers feel that way about Romney but won’t bother to vote for or don’t want to vote for Obama. Heck some who like Obama won’t bother to vote.
IOW it may be easier to understand why it is close we don’t analyze why people vote for one or the other but why people vote against one or the other or don’t vote at all. Because honestly I think those are the blocks that make an election close or not and decide it.
Amen to this, too. I saw something a few days ago (I think it was Yahoo News, so yeah, whatever) where they had a poll or they were asking for comments about “If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, should we change how we elect the President?”
I mean, WTF? That DID happen, only 12 years ago, and I don’t remember a lot of polls about throwing out the Electoral College then. Yes, there was hand-wringing and tut-tutting and all that, but instead of a massive national discussion over the situation, we got W and Cheney and Rove declaring they had a huge mandate and got to do pretty much whatever the hell they wanted. All because of 537 people in Florida (and five people on the Supreme Court).
So, yeah, I *almost *hope it does happen that Romney takes the popular but Obama gets to 270 EVs. This would be especially sweet if the Democrats manage to hold the Senate and make big inroads in the House (I would be stunned to see them actually take the House, but that would be even better). Turnabout IS fair play, bitches. Here’s your mandate. 
(I do say “almost hope it happens” because today’s Democrats typically don’t operate like the GOP, and are too willing to make nice with the other side. They’d probably spend the next two years apologizing for winning the Electoral College. LBJ, or Truman, on the other hand …)
That’s tough. Manson wants to kill everyone, but he never was able to create a massive, international organization. It was really pretty small scale.
bin Laden could do that. He made big things happen. Of course, his goal was the very death of the United States itself, so that’s gotta count against him.
Who are their running mates?
Ryan wants to forbid abortions to rape victims, idolizes Ayn Rand, and has budget ideas that must have come from a comic book.
Among thinking Americans, 40% thought Obamacare went too far, 40% not far enough. During the rational era, that would have been called “ideal compromise.” Now it’s “80% disapprove.” :dubious:
Et cetera.
Many Americans, even some who are otherwise quite intelligent, are no longer capable of rational thought about politics. Need examples?
A woman is more than just a uterus with legs. Obama doesn’t have respect for women’s rights either: rights like the right to a speedy and public trial.
This.
I am still amazed we didn’t fall off into the abyss back then.
I give Obama credit (at least some) for being a force that stopped us from falling into the abyss.
What has driven me completely away from the Republican party (even though I have voted more Repub in my life then Deomcrat) is that the Republicans seemed to be ACTIVELY TRYING to push us into the abyss. Not “ignorant” of what they were doing but ACTIVELY TRYING TO DO SO AND KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. Even today I am still mad as hell at the Republican party because of this and will never vote for a Republican candidate again until I see real heart felt change AND an apology/handwringing over their treasonous* behavior over the last 5 years of financial crisis.
It’s one thing to try to smear a Democratic President with infidelity charges and the like but to actively try to throw us into the abyss in order to hurt the other party…no…no…no. That’s just wrong.