Replies

Back in 2008 Obama got 69,456,897 votes, and McCain got 59,934,814 votes. That's a 10,000,000 vote difference.

That's 15% more votes than McCain got ~ which is really, really, really, really tough to overlook.

The definition you want to apply to "landslide" would require Obama to get 72 million votes and McCain to have just 58 million votes. That would be a difference of just shy of 14 million votes ~ or insurmountable ~ and in fact, 40% more than Obama got.

I'm not as picky, and based on the best political theory, any landslide in an American election starts when one candidate gets as much as 53%. That's because the transition of factions from one political affiliation to the other is much faster these days.

Now this presents a problem for pollsters that may be insurmountable ~ particularly if both premier candidates are actually undergoing a relaxation of popularity ~ Romney inside Republican circles and Obama inside Democrat circles.

Let me use Obama's recent ploy with the illegal alien chillun' as an example. He took them hostage ~ if illegals want their children born abroad to be made legal their legal relatives have to vote for Obama. The polls didn't budge with Hispanics. Or, alternatively, the legal Hispanics with illegal relatives are wildly enthusiastic about the idea but the legal Hispanics witout illegal relatives thinks he's crude beyond belief ~ imagine, taking children hostage in modern America? Who'd do that eh!

So, a wash ~ maybe.

But does that do anything to that 10 million voter advantage Obama had? It may not. Most of these polls imagine that if people drop the Democrat they'll vote for the Republican, but what if all that happens is they just don't vote for the Democrat? Then a loss on one side doesn't translate to a gain on the other side ~ except in the polls. The pollsters tend to throw outliers out ~ people who don't intend to vote for President just don't count ~ but if all you do is replace them with somebody who says he's going to vote for President you end up raising the Republican's percentage while dropping the Democrat's percentage.

That's not happening here. The difference is 15% and it consists of people who'd rather not vote at all than vote for a Republican (whereas last time they voted for Obama). Add to that the number who'd rather not vote for President than vote for a Leftwinger and you have a doggone good possibility that Obama can win even while losing upwards of 10 million votes from the last election.

It would have been far worse had Sarah not been on the ticket. There was no enthusiasm at all for McCain.

There is no enthusiasm for Romney. That would change if Mitt started going after Obama like he went after Santorum, Gingrich, etc. He's shown no sign of that.

No, that’s simply not true. I encounter plenty of people who voted for Obama and who now will vote for Romney. In addition, in 2008 you had high turnout among blacks and youth. I can say with great confidence as a college teacher that there will be a huge drop off in the second group, and we have good evidence that the black vote will revert to 2004 levels. Finally, despite the concerns about Romney, I don’t think GOPers will stay home or switch as they did in 2008. Example: in 2008, we examined a precinct in suburban Dayton that should have been close to 100% GOP-—about 1/6 voted for Obama. One GOP officeholder learned that 4 of 5 of her kids voted for Zero. That stuff will not happen in 2012. And, yes, that stuff adds up to a crapload of votes.

I looked at some of the numbers. First, in 2008, Obama got as you say 69m votes, McCain just under 60m. The interesting thing is that McCain got 900,000 MORE votes than Kerry did in 2004 in losing. So, what that says to me is that Obama turned out a lot of people who did not vote in 2004. Will they vote again? I say no, and certainly nowhere near in those same numbers.

Second, of Obama's 9 million vote advantage, how many were Republicans or R-leaning Indies who voted D? Well, a heckuva lot. I gave you the example of the precinct we studied in a totally R neighborhood that had turned out close to 100% for Bush twice, but was only at about 80%. We knew after that one "flush" that Obama had won OH, and certainly the election.

But those are easy switches. Do you think that precinct won't be 100% Romney this time around? Indeed, in many places the more moderate Romney may turn out more people than a conservative would---not all, of course, and it may be a wash. But I personally know a family, two of whom voted for ZERO (white, middle class) and neither of whom is voting for him this time around.

So, if Romney just gains 4.5m GOP/Indie voters who are coming home, he wins. But if he also gets 1-2% of disaffected Dems, that can translate on a state level to, yes, a blowout if you go state by state.

I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’ve said however elections, as you are aware, are not held in a vacuum. To put the last election in context, think only of two things: the dramatic stock market plunges in Sept-Oct 2008, and John McCain saying “I am suspending my campaign...”

That explains that 10 MM vote gap better than anything else.