Voter Freud

    The news that voters in the city of Philadelphia went for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by 85% to 15% was not that surprising.  Further news that in 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes was more startling, but not unprecedented.  John McCain received zero votes in 2008, and even George Bush, when reelected in 2004, racked up zero votes in five districts.  Charges and suspicions of voter fraud were quick and plentiful, but is that the likeliest explanation?

    Even those of us who live relatively politically insulated lives have trouble imagining that extreme lack of diversity.  Many of my friends and acquaintances share my political leanings, but my neighborhood (based on yard signs and some conversations) is at least somewhat of a mixed bag. The consistency of the exclusive voting preference in these districts in Philly does nothing to diminish how remarkable this level of uniformity is.  Actually, when viewed along side the consistent poor quality of life in some of these neighborhoods over decades of virtual one-party rule in the city, the loyalty of those voters is stunning.

    Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors since 1952, and Democratic City Council Presidents have presided since the current form of city government was established in 1951.  A look at the current make-up of the City Council shows only 3 of 17 members are Republicans.  The following excerpt from a Philadelphia Inquirer article at Philly.com from November 13, 2012, reads like a search for the Loch Ness Monster (or perhaps the local legend from across the Delaware River, the Jersey Devil):

In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920.
Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's third division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.
Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him. Cathy Santos, 56, founder of the National Alliance of Women Veterans, had one theory: "We ran him out of town!" she said and laughed.
James Norris, 19, who lives down the street, is listed as a Republican in city data. But he said he's a Democrat and voted for Obama because he thinks the president will help the middle class.
A few blocks away, Eric Sapp, a 42-year-old chef, looked skeptical when told that city data had him listed as a registered Republican. "I got to check on that," said Sapp, who voted for Obama.
Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division, according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of pitching two straight Republican shutouts - zero votes for McCain in 2008, zero for Romney on Tuesday. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did the same thing in 2008 and 2012.
Three of the 15th's registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.
On West Albert Street, Duke Dunston says he knows he's a registered Republican, but he's never voted for one.

    One suspects a survey of hepatitis carriers might come up with more respondents willing to own up.  So what kind of return do these loyal voters earn on their electoral investments?  According to a recent State of the City report on Philadelphia by the Pew Trusts, not much:

Philadelphia’s economic recovery has not been particularly strong, although the number of jobs in the city did grow in 2011 by 2,100. Overall employment in the city is still below what it was in 2008, before the global financial crisis. That is also true for the nation as a whole.
Unemployment among residents fell one percentage point to 10.5 percent at year’s end, mirroring a drop in the state jobless rate. The decline was slightly less than the drop in unemployment nationally. At the same time, the percentage of individuals over age 16 not in the labor force, 42.1 percent, is one of the highest of any major city, a long-term drag on
economic growth.

* * * * * * * 

 Crime is much on the minds of Philadelphians these days; our poll found that 75 percent of them view it as a “serious” or “very serious” problem in their neighborhoods, up from 64 percent a year ago. It is not hard to see why—the number of murders in the city rose in2011 from 306 to 324. While violent crime as a whole was down 2 percent, major crime,which includes burglary and theft, was up a little more than 1 percent. All of these numbers had been dropping between 2006 and 2009.

The systems that provide K-12 education in the city face a time of continued uncertainty. The School District of Philadelphia is grappling with huge budget problems and a dwindling enrollment, now down to 146,090, as it seeks to close some schools and take other steps to downsize its operations. Also faced with fewer students, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is shuttering 11 of its 65 schools in the city, after initially proposing to close many more.

* * * * * * * 

And there is poverty, which has plagued the city for decades. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the severity of the recent economic downturn, the share of Philadelphians classified as poor grew from 25 percent to 26.7 percent in the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures, again making Philadelphia one of the poorest big cities in the country. 

The local poverty rate is 31 percent for families with children and 47 percent for families
headed by a woman. It is 31 percent for African Americans and 41 percent for Hispanics.

    So what is going on?  In a mirror image of the infamous sentiment of Marie Antoinette, it is almost as though the residents of Philadelphia were crying out "Let us eat cake!"  Do they really believe this is as good as it gets?  Are the Democrats just giving out enough "gifts" as Mitt Romney recently postulated to keep the voters coming back for more?

    Instead of jumping to the voter fraud conclusions, perhaps the GOP needs to engage in some Monday morning psychoanalysis and probe the deeper reasons that its message isn't getting through to vast segments of the population.  Even if future elections could be won by a better ground game and turning out a higher percentage of the GOP base, is that the best answer?  Can the future of America be as secure when the big cities of America are impervious to conservative and Republican political ideas and ideals?

      GOP candidates need to begin engaging these Democratic enclaves personally and demonstrate that the party has not written them off.  Sure, it's likely to be a frustrating and lonely job, one that is certainly too big to complete in four years for the 2016 election.  But for the good of the Grand Old Party, and more importantly for the future of the United States, the time to begin is now.

Tolerance: Edina, Minnesota Style

    A story on the website of Minnesota Public Radio asks the question: "What did the election mean? Look at Edina."  The story begins with a focus on a man and his 22 year old son who are described as follows:

Edina resident Dan Atkins, left, and his son Nick Atkins, 22, consider themselves right-leaning independents who voted for Democrats in the last election because they don't like the Republican Party's focus on social issues and the marriage amendment. 

    The son speaks first:

Edina resident Nick Atkins, 22, was among those dissatisfied with the status quo.
"There's literally no sense of compromise," he said. "The greatness of the independents is you can go to either side. You can be like, 'Hey, let's work, let's find some middle ground.' The problem is, there is no middle ground. There are just heads bashing. Nothing productive is being accomplished."

    The father then sharpens the focus on the real issue, which as the rest of the article lays out, is the Republicans, and especially the social issues:

He describes himself a fierce independent, as does his 53-year-old father, Dan Atkins, who for most of his life thought of himself as a Republican. In recent years, the elder Atkins said, he had no choice but to claim a new political identity.
"The Republicans did that, actually," he said. "The social conservatives' insistence on hammering through what they think is right basically made me not a Republican.

    But it was the elder Atkins's comment on the "progressive" shift in Edina that caught my eye, though it passes unremarked upon in the article.

Atkins' shift is representative of Edina's growing unpredictability at the polls. He and many of his neighbors are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Edina is now considered a swing district, even though Atkins recalls not too long ago, it was a reliably Republican area.
"I remember walking around the Creek Valley Elementary School when I was in 4th grade," Dan Atkins said. "It was 1968. And kids were chanting, 'Nixon, Nixon, he's our man! Humphrey belongs in the garbage can!' Seriously, you would never see that now. It's very progressive socially. If you bullied somebody at Edina High School because they were gay, you'd get beat up. That's how progressive it is. What's not tolerated is ignoramuses."

    So now it is "progressive" to be intolerant  of "ignoramuses"?  How much of a stretch it would be for religious people, people who believe in low taxes, and people who believe abortion is wrong to be labeled “ignoramuses”?  If so, tolerance isn’t necessary.  Maybe even a good beating would be in order.  On one hand, "tolerance" isn't what it used to be.  But apparently in Edina, Minnesota, quite literally this is your father's tolerance.

A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

    On Sunday, Jim Geraghty of National Review posted the following painful numbers on just how close the United States came to "President Romney." (Yes, I know, the milk is spilled, but we can cry a little, can't we?)

On Wednesday, I added up Obama’s margin in a few key states, to get a sense of just how agonizingly short the Romney campaign finished from 270 electoral votes. 

Some of those straggling precincts have reported, and so here is an updated set of numbers, according to the results this morning on the New York Times’ results map: 

Florida: 73,858
Ohio: 103,481
Virginia: 115,910
Colorado: 113,099 

Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

    As regular readers of this blog know, I had been considerably overly optimistic about Romney’s chances in the election.  I wrote a blog post called “One in Fourteen” which was the number of Obama voters from 2008 who would have had to switch sides in the 2012 election for Romney to win (national popular vote.)  In that piece, I noted:

On at least a few occasions, the Obama campaign has expressed concern about this very thing.   In Florida in September, Michelle Obama said this at a campaign rally:

“Think back to what happened in this state in 2008. Back then Barack won Florida by 236,000 votes. Now, that might sound like a lot, but here’s what it looks like when you break it down—that’s just 36 votes per precinct … So get that number in your head, because that could mean just one vote in your neighborhood, in your dorm. Just one vote in your apartment building could make the difference.”

    While I did not include this next one in my post, Michelle Obama also said a similar thing about Virginia:

“We won Virginia by 235,000 votes [in 2008]. Now, that’s wonderful. And while that might sound like a lot, think about this: When you break that number down, that’s just 100 votes per precinct. Now think about that—100 votes. That could mean just a couple of votes in your neighborhood, just a single vote in your apartment building.

    Based on Michelle Obama’s numbers and the margins Geraghty listed above, Virginia actually came down to 49 votes per precinct.  Florida came down to eleven votes per precinct.  While I did not calculate the numbers for Ohio and Colorado, they must be distressingly similar.

Source: http://nbcsports.com/

    In any case, the numbers back up my contention in "On Second Thought" that this election was much closer than the Obama campaign or the media in general are saying.  The electoral vote tally ended with 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney, but that 126 vote difference is a mile wide and an inch deep (or 407,000 votes, one-third of one percent, deep.)  Sure, it's enough for the win and even an electoral college shellacking.  But this win for the Obama team seems more like a buzzer beater than a blow out. Perhaps the GOP can learn some lessons from the President's wife.  Every vote really does count.

Axelrod: Maybe Super PACs Aren't So Bad After All

    Late on election night, after the race was called for Barack Obama, I tweeted:

    Now The Hill reports that the still-mustachioed David Axelrod concurs:

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod said Thursday that if he were a Republican billionaire who donated to a conservative super-PACs during this election, he would want his money back.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call two days after Obama won reelection, Axelrod said one key takeaway of the presidential race and other congressional races, is the ineffectiveness of the super-PACs.
“If I were one of these billionaires, I'd be wanting to talk to someone and asking where my refund is, because they didn't get much for their money,” Axelrod said. “Just looking at the heartening news is that you can't buy the White House. You can't overwhelm the Congress with these super-PAC dollars.”

    This is quite a change from the tune Axelrod was singing back in June. Politico reported at the time:

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod said Thursday that free-spending super PACs are hurting the fabric of democracy — and that President Barack Obama's administration would move to reform the campaign finance system in a possible second term.
"It's a great concern," Axelrod said in an interview with WJLA ABC 7, a station owned by POLITICO's corporate parent. "People are writing $10 million checks in one fell swoop to these super PACs — in many cases, they're undisclosed."

     Since it now appears the "fabric of democracy" was in no more danger than Axelrod's mustache, it will be interesting to see if the Obama administration follows through on the promised "reforms":

Axelrod said a second term Obama administration would bring about reforms in the campaign finance system.
"I hope that when we win this election, one thing we can do is bring some common sense back to our system," Axelrod said.

    I am more than a little skeptical that these reforms will be pursued with much vigor, especially given what Axelrod left out of his super PAC comments in June:

Left unsaid is the fact that Obama also has a super PAC — Priorities USA Action — run by two former White House staffers. The group has struggled to keep pace with efforts on the GOP side — with many wealthy Obama donors recoiling at what the super PAC represents.

    The ultimate irony would be Axelrod himself jumping into the super PAC arena as his time with the Obama administration and campaign winds down over the next several years.  With Axelrod's background and with a fairly secure future as a political guru for years to come, this scenario seems to me to be almost a certainty.  I am tempted to grow a mustache myself just so I can promise to shave it off if I am wrong.

On Second Thought...

    Wednesday, I posed the following rhetorical question on Twitter:

For all of us who wrote extensively about why Romney would win: why should anyone take seriously our thoughts on why Romney lost?

     In my spectacularly wrong prognosticative postings, I based my Pollyanna predication on the following premise:

Given the popular vote margin of victory for Obama in 2008,  only one in fourteen Obama voters needs to change his/her vote, all other things being equal, to give Romney the presidency.  As I put it in January, I ask you: Is there anything that has happened in the last four years that could lead anyone to credibly argue that less than one in fourteen voters will have changed their minds?

     As it turns out, I was right.  As the numbers currently stand, President Obama received 60,899,400 votes in 2012 (likely to increase some as remaining ballots are tallied, especially in the hurricane ravaged Northeast.)  In 2008, he racked up 69,456,897 votes.  That difference of 8,557,497 means that about one in eight voters didn't pull Obama's lever the second time around.  For simplicity, I am assuming 2008 Obama voters who died would have been offset by newly qualified voters either by reaching age 18 or achieving citizenship, although I'd imagine the latter group outnumbers the former.

     Where my thesis went wrong was assuming those Obama voters would switch to Romney.  But that is where the eggs I was counting never hatched.  In fact, John McCain received 59,934,814 votes in 2008 compared to Romney's 57,960,985, a loss of about 1,973,829.   (Frankly, any drop in GOP voters in this election is enough to make most conservatives consider strapping on a tinfoil hat and shouting "conspiracy!", but we'll just have to wait for the analyses of the final data to see who sat out.  And then those folks will be hunted down and horsewhipped.  But I digress.)  Now as others have pointed out today, votes will continue to be tallied over the coming days and weeks from absentees voters and probably also some delayed returns from the hard-hit areas in the Northeast.  Depending on how many votes, it could substantially affect this analysis.

    But in the meantime, despite a billion dollars, incessant pandering to voter groups, obsessive fund raising, ubiquitous social media, and the fabled "ground game", the Democrats' voter loss from 2008 to 2012 was 434% higher than the GOP's loss.  This does not sound like a nation that is becoming bluer.  Indeed, below are some interesting maps.  The first is from the New York Times and shows the change in voting patterns across the country from 2008 to 2012.

    Here is a similar presentation from the Wall Street Journal.  The first showing where the Republican ticket gained in the percentage of the vote from 2008 to 2012.

    Now here are the gains by the Democrats, the party with the much ballyhooed "ascending demographics":

    One final map.  That 3,000,000 popular vote margin?  See the really big blue circles?  Those are popular vote margins of victory by Obama over Romney by county.

    Just five of those big blue circles, five counties out of more than 3,000 counties in the United States, can account for more than the 3,000,000 vote difference:

    But what about the 100+ electoral vote difference, give or take, depending on which way Florida goes?  That margin is a mile wide and an inch deep (OK, maybe two or three inches.)  A good number of those swing states ended up with 100,000 vote margins or so.  If 50,001 voters had switched from blue to red in several of those states, we'd be talking about how Obama's team blew a race they'd been leading for the entire election cycle and what a brilliant job Romney's team had done.

     Soul-searching after a loss is always appropriate for the side that came up short.  But it will be vital to learn the right lessons if 2016 is to be different.  When the numbers have all been crunched and analyzed, understanding who voted will be interesting, but understanding who didn't vote and why may turn out to be the key to regaining the White House in four years.

Whatever the Outcome, I Was Wrong

    At the time I am writing this, Fox has the electoral college tied at 153.  This race is much closer than I thought it would be, which means this country has drifted further than I thought.  President Obama and the Democrats have run explicitly on what government can do for the people.  Don't borrow money from your parents for college, like Romney suggested... borrow it from your neighbors' parents, courtesy of the federal government.  Healthcare?  Federal government.  Contraceptives?  Free from the federal government.  Jobs?  Today the NAACP released a poll of 1,600 African American voters (via Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner) that contains an astounding finding.  In the words of the NAACP:

95% of all respondents believe the federal government should be engaging in job creation opportunities for all Americans.

    I do not believe for a moment that this attitude is somehow unique to blacks.  Far too many in this country have turned JFK's most famous pronouncement on its head, and liberals have encouraged, promoted, and even campaigned on it.  It's a sad situation.

    I am currently reading Witness by Whittaker Chambers.  It is a fascinating book, and remarkably timely. The fight against communism abroad was tied to the fight against liberalism/socialism at home.  That fight is not over, and is actually getting more intense.  Whittaker Chambers was instrumental in exposing the extent to which Communists had infiltrated the federal government, and while they were largely purged, the liberals never left.  What America needs is a Whittaker Chambers of liberalism, or more than one.  Those who will expose the philosophy for what it is and what it is doing to the country and what it does to the human soul.  Those who used to be on the inside, who were true believers, but are willing to admit they had committed their lives to a ruinous political system.  Are there any such men or women out there?

    Chambers was concerned in the 1940s and 1950s about the United States drifting towards the socialist tendencies of Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries.  Even at the time of his death, Chambers continued to believe communism would eventually triumph.  The fall of the Soviet Union eventually proved him wrong.  But the larger battle rages on.  And on a night like tonight, it's hard not to share Chambers's pessimism.

    Therefore, I must recall what I wrote last night.  God "called" this election long ago.  Even as his life was literally in danger, Chambers himself took comfort in Divine Providence.  How can those of us who are believers do anything less?

Nobody Here But Us Chickens [Updated once again]

    One, two, three, four...

Photo source: http://www.theredheadriter.com/2010/10/equals-30-pounds/

 
    Yes, in case you were wondering: 271 of them.  Hatching today.

UPDATE:  Sixty-three, sixty-four, sixty-five...

UPDATE 2: One-hundred and seventy-six, one-hundred and seventy-seven, one-hundred and seventy-eight...

UPDATE 3: OK, officially scrapping the chicken count.

The Votes are Already Counted

    In my About Me, I have written:

I hope to bring a unique perspective on conservative politics and culture grounded in Biblical truth.  My religious beliefs may not often be overtly expressed in my postings, but hopefully my opinions can be strong and honor Jesus Christ at the same time.  I know I will fail in that attempt as I "speak with authority."  But I recognize all true authority and truth itself has but one source, God, and He will be the ultimate judge of whether I succeed or fail.

    Lest my Counting Our Chickens and One in Fourteen posts come across as completely arrogant and presumptuous (or is it too late already?), I believe this election (and everything else for that matter,) is firmly under God's control.  The outcome is not a surprise to Him (present tense used intentionally, for He already knows.)  Proverbs 16:33 says:

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.

    Now an election is not quite the same as "casting lots", but when 122,000,000 people or more are casting votes in fifty states with a variety of electoral vote numbers and rules, it may as well be a roll of the dice when it comes to confidently predicting the results.  But in any case, Romans 13:1 reminds us:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

    Politicians like to tell voters, "It's in your hands now" as they head to the polls.  In a sense, in a well functioning democratic republic, that is true.  But in a larger sense, it's in His hands.  Believers across the political spectrum should find comfort in that, whatever tomorrow holds.

The REAL New Susquehanna Poll for Pennsylvania - Tied at 47

    The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported tonight that its new (yes, really new this time) poll shows Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 47-47 going into the final days of the campaign:

President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney entered the final days of the presidential race tied in a state that the campaigns only recently began contesting, a Tribune-Review poll shows.
The poll showed the race for Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes locked up at 47 percent in its final week.

    This is obviously not as good news as the four-point lead previously reported for Romney in the Keystone State, but it's still got to be making the Obama team nervous.

OLD POLL: Susquehanna Polling and Research: Romney's Four Point Lead in Pennsylvania is Holding [Updated again; and again]

NOTE: Actual new PA Poll released.  Reported here.

UPDATE:  I emailed Jim Lee of Susquehanna and he replied this morning.  THE POLL IS OLD.  Somehow the Erie GOP posted it yesterday as if it was new.  A new poll will be released tomorrow showing a "tighter race."

The Erie GOP website continues to list their October 18th post and the "new" November 2nd post.  I should have been more suspicious, however, since all the results were exactly the same.  I'm thinking of changing my blog name to Speak With Diminished Authority...

FURTHER UPDATE:  I emailed the Erie GOP for clarification.  They replied as follows:

Dear Mr. Bier:
Thank you for your comments. They have been duly noted and corrections made.
Sincerely.

    After the email, this statement was added to the November 2nd post.

*NB: This poll was completed during mid-October and has been posted here on October 18, 2012.  Our presentation,  may have caused some confusion, which is not intentional.


    The bottom line is that it is still unclear to me why the Erie GOP posted the same results from the prior poll four days before the presidential election with the words "released today" when the poll had been released on October 18th.  Nevertheless, I erred in not being more skeptical of reputedly "new" poll results that were upon closer inspection identical to the "old" results.  I apologize for the confusion that I helped to spread.

----------------------

    On October 18th, Susquehanna Polling and Research made a splash with a poll showing Mitt Romney leading Barack Obama by four points, the first major poll to show Romney over Obama.  A new poll released today (according to the Erie County Pennsylvania Republican Party, who published the last poll results before anyone else) shows that Romney's four point lead has held up two weeks later:

Susquehanna Polling and Research results for Pennsylvania released today shows Mitt Romney leading President Obama 49% to 45% among 1376 likely voters. Two percent are undecided and 3% are for other candidates.

    Going into the last four days of the campaign, this will surely give the Obama campaign reason to worry, and may explain why Mitt Romney has planned a trip to Pennsylvania on Sunday.  If Pennsylvania tips toward the GOP, it is difficult to see how Barack Obama gets to a second term.


UPDATE: There is a NEWSFLASH on Susquehanna Polling's website that says "New Statewide Poll by Media Client To be Released," but there is no link for the poll results or details yet.  The Erie GOP was the client for the 10/18/12 poll, so it seems likely they were the client again this time and have released the results on their own website ahead of Susquehanna's release.

The Coming Storm - Both of Them

    Yesterday, I posted a number of panicked emails from the Obama campaign under the heading "Obama Campaign Fears the Coming Storm (Oh, and It's Worried About Hurricane Sandy, Too". Bill Clinton has now made the comparison explicit:

"We're coming down to the 11th hour. We're facing a violent storm," Clinton said. He waited a beat, then added, "It's nothing compared to the storm we'll face if you don't make the right decision in this election."

    Meanwhile, Mitt Romney suspends fundraising emails and campaign events in states in the path of Hurricane Sandy and continues to use his campaign bus for relief efforts.

Obama Campaign Fears the Coming Storm (Oh, and It's Worried About Hurricane Sandy, Too)

    In the last twenty-hour hours, I've received four emails from the Obama campaign.  The subject lines read like dispatches from the Weather Channel.  Here they are, in order, with excerpts from the emails:

Some Bad News - From Jim Messina, Campaign Manager

I'm asking you to dig deep, Jerry:
We just found out that Mitt Romney and the Republicans outraised us in the first half of this month, putting us $45 million behind during these crucial final days.

This is Bad - Julianna Smoot, Deputy Campaign Manager

We just found out how much more money Mitt Romney and the Republicans have in the bank: $45 million... A $45 million disadvantage means we could have to fight back against an estimated 780 30-second ads in a battleground state like Colorado. With only 11 days left, that's a devastating prospect.

This is Dangerous - Joe Biden

Look -- Barack and I need you.
We recently found out that, as we head into the final push, Mitt Romney and the Republicans have $45 million more in the bank than we do.

We Risk Losing Everything - Ann Marie Habershaw, Chief Operating Officer

We're being seriously outraised, Jerry...
We need to fight this now, Jerry -- and, for that to happen, I need you to do your part, or we risk losing everything we've built and invested in[.]

    Any minute now I expect to find an email in my inbox with the subject: We're All Gonna Die!  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!  -bo

    Maybe they read "One in Fourteen."

This Election's Magic Number: One in Fourteen

    "Counting Our Chickens" was my first post after taking this blog public in January 2012.  Although the tone of the piece was rather lighthearted, my point was completely serious:

 I believe we can safely count our unhatched chickens. The chances of President Obama's reelection are so remote as to be virtually non-existent. 

    Nothing in the last 10 months has given me pause to reconsider my conclusion.  The polls of the last few weeks are finally reflecting what I believed all along.  Support for President Obama is no where near what it was in 2008, and without the looming financial disaster that tarnished the Republican ticket in 2008 and the simultaneous euphoria of overcoming our country's racially checkered past by electing our first black president, the country is looking for yet another change.

    My argument eschewed polls, swing states, and electoral vote counting and went straight to common sense.  Given the popular vote margin of victory for Obama in 2008,  only one in fourteen Obama voters needs to change his/her vote, all other things being equal, to give Romney the presidency.  As I put it in January, I ask you: Is there anything that has happened in the last four years that could lead anyone to credibly argue that less than one in fourteen voters will have changed their minds?

    On at least a few occasions, the Obama campaign has expressed concern about this very thing.   In Florida in September, Michelle Obama said this at a campaign rally:

“Think back to what happened in this state in 2008. Back then Barack won Florida by 236,000 votes. Now, that might sound like a lot, but here’s what it looks like when you break it down—that’s just 36 votes per precinct … So get that number in your head, because that could mean just one vote in your neighborhood, in your dorm. Just one vote in your apartment building could make the difference.”

    In other words, only about one in thirty-three Floridians who voted for Obama would have to pull Romney's lever to send the state's 27 electoral votes to the GOP candidate.  In Colorado, the magic number is one in twenty-three.  In Ohio, one in twenty-six.  And in North Carolina, one in three-hundred-and-ten.  Given that more than half of the margin of victory in the popular vote of 8,542,597 came from two states, New York and California, the magic number for most states exceeds the one-in-fourteen national number, making Romney's path to victory even more doable.

    To illustrate the power of these magic numbers, I've prepared the following graphics.  In a crowd of Obama voters, the red figure represents who needs to switch to Mitt Romney:

First, the national magic number.

How about Florida?

And what about North Carolina?

    If these visuals cannot spark some serious optimism, nothing will.  Still, I'll try to get the most cautious pessimists on board with this.  Above, in spelling out my theory, I included the caveat, "all other things being equal."  But all others things are demonstrably not equal.  The president has managed to alienate all kinds of voters with ObamaCare, support for same-sex marriage, infringing on religious liberty, and perhaps most important, his failure to help the economy to anywhere near the extent he promised in 2008.  The winning Hope and Change coalition of 2008 has fizzled, and his 2012 campaign has failed to reignite it.

    If that's not enough, many Republicans who could not get fired up about John McCain have surely recognized the importance of this election after four years of Barack Obama.  GOP voter registration and enthusiasm is up significantly over 2008.  And as Dan McLaughlin at Red State pointed out on Friday, Independents are deserting Obama in droves.

    I am not just counting my election-day chickens.  I've gathered every chicken recipe I can find and laid out the other ingredients.  I do not see this as overconfidence, but just a plain common sense reading of the mood of the country.  Whatever delusions Republicans hung on to in the fall of 2008, we all knew in our heart of hearts John McCain was toast.  This year, die hard Obama supporters know that feeling.  The rest of us?  Get the table set, because Thanksgiving is coming two weeks early in 2012.  And forget the turkey - this year we're having chicken.

President Obama's Great Pumpkin Moment Revisited

    In the second Presidential debate on October 16th, President Obama made what some might call a Freudian slip, others might hope is foreshadowing, but most charitably would be called a simple slip of the tongue.  Real Clear Politics reports [emphasis mine]:

President Obama spoke of being president in the past tense during last night's second presidential debate with Mitt Romney: "The way we're going to create jobs here is not just changing our tax code, but also to double our exports. And we are on pace to double our exports, one of the commitments I made when I was president. That's creating tens of thousands of jobs all across the country."

    This slip took me back to June and my most popular post ever, thanks to James Taranto's Best of the Web and Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt newsletter (link not available.)  With not only the election drawing near, but Hallowe'en as well, this seemed as good a time as any to reanimate the following without it appearing completely gratuitous.

 * * * * * * * * * * * *

Originally posted June 2, 2012

    In recent remarks at a Minneapolis fundraiser, Buzzfeed reports that President Obama said the following when talking about trying to work with the Republicans after the November elections [emphasis added]:

I believe that if we're successful in this election, when we're successful in this election...

 One can almost hear the heads of his listeners snapping up on hearing the "if."  This is the first thing that came to my mind:

I particularly like the "I'm doomed."  It's got a nice ring to it.

Veterans, Stones and Glass Houses

    Today, ABC News reports that Barack Obama painted Mitt Romney as unfit to be commander-in-chief, in part due to Romney's failure to mention veterans in the Presidential debate last night.  The president's Twitter account echoed the harsh words:

    However, also today, President Obama's campaign released a glossy 20-page booklet outlining the much-anticipated second term agenda that the president has been under increasing fire for not spelling out more clearly.  Although the booklet includes remarks touting the president's efforts to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and what the administration will do with the money saved, and there is a reference to "we can keep our young men and women working here at home, not fighting wars on foreign soil," the troops and the veterans themselves didn't make the cut.  As a matter of fact, "military" doesn't appear in the document, either.

    Romney may deserve a hit for his slight of the military in the 90-minute debate.  But a 20-page booklet from the current commander-in-chief spelling out his agenda for the next four years that doesn't mention the tens of thousands of returning veterans is inexcusable.  President Obama constructed himself a pretty elaborate glass house with his glossy campaign booklet.  He should have taken that into account before he let loose at Romney with the stones.

More Blame-Shifting

    Last night after the debate, I received the following email from the Obama campaign that returns to a familiar theme.  Here's the entire text of the email:

Jerry --
This is in your hands now.Chip in $5 or more, and let's go win:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Tonight
Thanks,
Barack

    An email from before the debate from Michelle Obama touched on the same issue:

If you're with him now and you're ready to dig deep until the end, chip in $5 or more and let Barack know before tonight's debate:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Last-Debate
If we're going to win this, it'll be because of what you do right now. Barack and I can't thank you enough.
Michelle

    So now it's my fault if the president loses?  Fortunately, this is one thing for which I'd be happy to take responsibility.

President Obama's Economic Bright Spot: Republicans: Part 5 - Final

    When the September state unemployment figures were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, October 19th, media reports focused on how nine all-important "swing states" fared.  As it turns out, unemployment dropped in seven of the nine, and held steady in the remaining two.  Politico's take was a rather tepid nod at a possible benefit to President Obama from the positive economic signs.  However, applying a metric I have used in the context of the state unemployment numbers several times since April (here, here, here, and here), the September swing state results take on new meaning.

    In this series (of which this is the final installment since the election is just three weeks away), I have analyzed jobs data on the basis of what I call Republican-controlled states versus Democratic-controlled states.  As I have documented, those states I have defined as Republican-controlled have far outpaced Democratic-controlled states in improving their rates of unemployment since 2009.  (I define "control" as the party that holds at least two out of three of the following: the governorship and the two legislative houses.  So, for instance, even though New Jersey has a Republican governor, Chris Christie, both legislative houses are held by Democrat majorities, so New Jersey is considered Democratic-controlled.)

    Based on the figures released by the BLS on Friday, October 19, when the states under control of the respective parties are combined and considered as one, the rates of unemployment are as follows:

Republican-controlled states    7.6%
Democratic-control states        9.0%

    Although this gap has narrowed since August (1.4% vs. 1.5% in August,) the difference is still substantial.  And those nine swing states?  Seven of them are Republican-controlled and only two Democratic-controlled (and one of those two is Nevada which, despite the improvement, still has the highest rate in the nation at 11.8%.  The other is Colorado at 8%.)

    The doomsday scenario for the Obama campaign is that voters in these swing states will credit the local Republicans (all politics is local? is that still true?) rather than the president and his party for whatever gains are being made on the economic front.  If that happens, then the defeat of President Obama will be even more overwhelming than I have been predicting since January.  Landslide, anyone?

Under-employment: Then and Now

    As long as I am picking on CNN this week, here's a story on underemployment, the lesser known cousin of the more popular unemployment rate.  Here are some excerpts from "Under-employed and under the radar":

The economic crisis has taken a severe toll on the nation's workforce. But while much of the discussion centers around layoffs and unemployment, a growing number of Americans are becoming under-employed - struggling to pay their bills on a smaller salary, or completely giving up on finding any work. 

Unemployment claims have climbed to 7-year highs, but the number of people who have settled for part-time work or given up on finding a job altogether is the worst it's been in over 14 years, but isn't included in the official unemployment rate... 

The under-employment rate, which counts those without jobs who have become discouraged and stopped looking for work, as well as part-time workers who want full-time jobs, rose to 11% from 10.7%, the highest rate since April 1994, according to the Labor Department's monthly jobs report.

    Those paying careful attention to the numbers and dates in the preceding paragraphs will have figured out by now that this was not a recent article.  Rather, this tale of gloom and doom (justifiably so) was published on October 3, 2008, about five weeks before the 2008 Presidential election.  Fast-forward exactly four years to October 3, 2012, and CNN published another story on underemployment just five weeks before another Presidential election.  This time, it's titled "September jobs report probably won't sway election":

Only two monthly jobs reports remain before the presidential election, but don't expect either of them to swing undecided voters. 

That's because, in all likelihood, both reports will show more sluggish job growth... 

"If the report is close to my expectations then it should not have a meaningful impact on the election," [Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics] said.  

Following Friday's jobs report, President Obama will probably continue to say the private sector has been adding jobs for two-and-a-half years. Mitt Romney is likely to point out that more than 20 million Americans remain either unemployed or underemployed.

Both will be right.

The article never actually gets around to mentioning the underemployment rate which stood at 11% in September 2008.  Currently, that rate is 14.7%.  What a difference four years makes.  And who's challenging the incumbent.

Confirmed: Romney Leading Obama by 4 Points in... Pennsylvania?! [Updated again]

    According to a posting today at the website of the Erie County Pennsylvania Republican Party, Mitt Romney now leads Barack Obama by four percentage points in a recent poll done by a Pennsylvania Polling firm Susquehanna Polling and Research:

Good News! Romney leads in Pennsylvania 

Posted on October 18, 2012 by eriecogop 

Great news.  Our latest poll from Susquehanna Polling & Research, conducted October 11-13, shows Mitt Romney leading by 4-points in Pennsylvania, 49%-45% after his excellent debate performances.

    A tweet from polling firm sent out this afternoon was apparently quickly deleted, so this report cannot yet be confirmed, but if accurate, it is momentous.

Update:  About an hour after I posted the above, the Washington Examiner confirmed:

A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.

    I guess next time I should pick up the phone and just call...

Update: Poll details now on Susquehanna Polling & Research's website.

BREAKING: Obama Campaign Encourages Voter Fraud [Updated*]

   This just in: Perhaps in response to his dropping poll numbers, President Obama's campaign has begun openly and brazenly advocating voter fraud!  On Twitter today:

    Come to think of it, this is exactly what caused the Democratic candidate in my home district in Maryland to drop out of the race a few weeks ago.  You'd think they'd have learned their lesson.

*Update: Just so there is no misunderstanding... this is grammar-related satire based on the misplaced modifier.  No election laws were harmed in either the original tweet or this blog post.

Update 2: On second thought, maybe it wasn't a joke.  From Jim Geraghty at National Review today:

Hidden-camera reporters from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas visit a few Organizing for America offices and find staffers as willing to help folks register to vote in more than one state.