« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Despite what the polls say, Mitt Romney will win by double digits… here’s why

2012 will not be a reprise of 2000. Although Barack Obama is building an army / phalanx of lawyers to try and redirect the election to the courts with the hope that the justices will lean against throwing out a sitting president, it won’t happen. 2000 only happened because the election was so close, with a mere half percent difference between the candidates. In 2012 that will not be a problem. Of course that was all about electoral votes, not popular, but the two usually go hand in hand. Michael Barone does a good job of looking at the electoral landscape. I’m looking at the popular vote.

Mitt Romney will not only beat Barack Obama, he will do it by double digits. Why, when the polls are so close will the election itself be so lopsided? Here are four reasons.

1. Race: I won’t suggest that it doesn’t have anything to do with race. It does, but not in the way you might think. In 2008, 95% of blacks voted for Barack Obama while 4% voted for John McCain. At the same time, 43% of white voters cast their ballot for Obama, a higher percentage than voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. So it’s obviously not that white people won’t vote for a black man. No, race won’t matter in the election, but it does in the misdirection provided by the polls. It’s called the Wilder effect or the Bradley effect. Named after former Virginia governor Doug Wilder and the late Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, both of whom won election with a lower proportion of the white vote than had been predicted.(UPDATE: Richard pointed out Bradley actually lost in 1982)

This year that effect will be dramatic. Not because whites won’t vote for a black man, but rather because after spending the last four years watching every disagreement with the President labeled as racist, many whites will not tell pollsters they are voting against Barack Obama for fear of being labeled a racist. The result will be that the white vote against the President will likely be 5-8% higher than is reflected in the polls. Good for 3% in the general election.

2. Enthusiasm: The overwhelming majority of polls that have been run over this election cycle have greatly oversampled Democrats while simultaneously undersampling Republicans. This is particularly important in polls in electoral swing states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Pollsters have continuously utilized a 2008 voter turnout model to suggest what the 2012 turnout will look like. That makes no sense whatsoever. In 2008 Democrats were frothing with their hate for George Bush and were excited about the possibility of electing the first black president. They desperately wanted a change from the status quo (i.e. McCain = Bush) and were highly enthusiastic about voting for Barack Obama. You could have put 10 ft barbed wire fences around the polling stations and Democrats would have found a way to vote. Today, after four years of abject failure on virtually every level, Democrats still want to vote for Obama, but the passion is gone. They may still support him, but the willingness to climb a mountain or wrestle a bear just to vote for him is gone.

Contrast that with the Republicans. In 2008 many of them were very unhappy with the GOP’s decidedly un-conservative, milquetoast candidate. As a result, while most wanted nothing to do with Barack Obama, many simply decided to sit the election out altogether. Today, after four years of failure and a steady march towards socialism, Republicans in general and conservatives in particular are the ones frothing, this time to depose a socialist king. They feel as if the country is on the line. Many, if not most, feel that the Republic can simply not survive another four years of Barack Obama. When people’s backs are against the wall, they fight far more passionately than they might otherwise. The result will be a GOP turnout that far exceeds what most pollsters are suggesting. This will be good for 4% at the polling place.

3. Hurricane Sandy: The aftermath of hurricane Sandy will not be good for Barack Obama. Even if the press were successful in painting him as the un-Bush it wouldn’t really matter. The scenes on TV are heartbreaking and there’s no way for Obama to benefit from such a tragedy. He will still win New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland, the states most deeply affected by the storm. His popular vote however will suffer. Whatever the number of people who don’t vote in those states, be it a million or two, 65% of them would have been Obama voters. As a result, in terms of the popular vote Obama will lose proportionally far more votes as a result of hurricane Sandy than Mitt Romney will. The impact will be about 1% of the popular vote.

4. Undecided voters: Finally there is the undecided voter. Although I have no idea how someone could be undecided in this election, most polls put the undecided vote at somewhere in the ballpark of 3% – 4% of the electorate. Mitt Romney is likely going to get 75% of that vote. One might think that the undecided would play out at 50 – 50 or maybe 55 – 45 one way or another. Probably not. Dick Morris was spot on when he compared it to asking the question “Do you plan to be married to your wife next year? If you’re undecided, you’re already halfway out the door.” When undecided voters step into the voting booth they will basically be choosing between “More of the same” and “Something else”. When they are standing there I would posit there are four things that will be on their minds – the economy, Libya, Fast and Furious and Mitt Romney’s debate performance. First and foremost the economy will take up about 85% of their mindshare. That’s not good for Barack Obama in any way shape or form. To the degree that undecided voters venture beyond the economy, my guess is that Benghazi and F&F will pop into their minds. Why? Because in an ambiguous universe where a leviathan government is involved in everything but no one is responsible for anything, these two events provide a crystal clear and deadly example of the incompetence and mendacity of Barack Obama and his administration. And despite the mainstream media’s attempts to shield the administration, the story has gotten out. Lastly, undecided voters will remember their surprise when they discovered during the debates that Mitt Romney was not the Gordon Gekko caricature the Democrats had said he was. If nothing else, he seemed competent, earnest and well prepared, something Obama clearly was not. Suddenly they could see him as president. They will come down squarely in Mitt Romney’s corner and that will translate into 3% of the vote.

There are of course other significant aspects of this race such as ground game and commercials, but at the end of the day it matters who is willing to take the time to actually get to the polling place and what they do when they get there. The privacy of the voting booth is the one place where voters can make their choice without having to worry about what anyone else thinks or says, and where they can cast their vote for the kind of future they want.

On Tuesday a beleaguered nation will take to the voting booths. They may not know exactly what they future holds, but they know they’ve had enough of what we have. When the dust settles they will have given Mitt Romney a resounding mandate for change.

COMMENTS

  • The Server X-Angel

    I surely hope you ae right

  • paulc

    I desperately want Mitt to win, but wow – I just don’t see it unfolding as you suggest. Let’s deal with your arguments one by one. Firstly, the race issue. You say a lot of people don’t want to appear racist to the pollsters so they will claim they are voting for Obama when they are not. However, a lot of polls are done by automatic computerized voices, not an actual live pollster talking on the phone. I know this is how Rasmussen does his polling. It just doesn’t seem plausible to think that people will be afraid the computer on the other end is going to think they are racists. Also, in 2008 the racist charges were also flying, but that didn’t seem to lead to any Wilder effect, at least with the Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen hit it right on the nose last time. And this time, Rasmussen is telling us it’s tied at 48%.

    Second issue – oversampling of Democrats. This is more complex than meets the eye. It’s not like ordinary citizens have “Republican” or “Democrat” stamped on their foreheads. Party ID is fluid and no one knows what it will be ahead of time. People can and often do change their party identification. A more legitimate question is, are some of these pollsters oversampling certain demographics that may tend to be more on the Democrat side? Perhaps some are, but again I tend to trust Rasmussen here. Though his state by state polls are a lot more friendly than some, he still shows a desperately close race in Ohio and Wisconsin.

    Third issue – Sandy. So far it seems that it has helped Obama. All of the polls have moved in his direction since last weekend. Using Rasmussen again, Rasmussen had him up 50-46% last weekend and now it is tied at 48-48% in the national popular vote. To the extent that people are suffering, I think the mainstream media will downplay this while emphasizing all of the steps that FEMA is taking, however inadequate that they may be.

    Fourth issue – the undecided voter. Unfortunately given the movement all in Obama’s favor in virtually all of the polls this past week, I have to think that the undecideds are breaking towards Obama. Perhaps this has to do with the lovefest with Chris Christie, or the press slamming Romney over his jeep ad, or perhaps something else. Maybe people are just thinking they’d rather go with the devil that they know rather than the one that they don’t know. Also, with regards to Fast and Furious, the treatment of this in the mainstream press has been very sparse, and none of it has focused on Obama’s role. The only people who know the details of it are people who listen to talk radio or watch Fox News, and people like that were going to vote against Obama anyway. It is similar with Benghazi. The Benghazi story has gotten out a bit more than Fast and Furious, but I still don’t think the average citizen, never mind the average undecided voter, knows the true ramifications of it. To the extent that there are still undecided voters, I would bet that these are low-information voters who probably don’t even have any idea what happened with Benghazi.

    So, to sum up, I don’t think all is lost. If you go based on Rasmussen’s polling, he shows a tied race nationally. If you factor in for the margin of error, it is certainly possible that Mitt could be up a few points. Also in his state by state polling, he has Mitt leading in enough states to give him 267 electoral votes, albeit some of those leads are very narrow. He has the race tied in Ohio and Wisconsin. But given this data, I just don’t see a landslide for Mitt in the cards. If he does win, it may be in a desperately close race. And if this last minute momentum for Obama continues at all these last few days, unfortunately I think Obama will win this one.

    • Bill S

      You’re so…..concerned.

    • APA Guy

      Sheesh…engage in hand-wringing elsewhere, please. If we trust polling, are we to believe ABC/WAPO…which has Romney +1…even with Dem over-sampling?. I have written multiple diaries explaining why most of the polling is crap. Levin has it right on this…polling means SQUAT. Getting our people to the voting booth will ensure Obama’s doom, not BS polls. Remember, EXIT POLLING had Kerry winning in 2004. How’d that work out for Dems and their precious polls?

      • paulc

        Well, you can call it handwringing, but I think I’m trying to be realistic. I listen to Levin, Hannity and Rush, and respect them a great deal. But I fear that they may be engaged in a lot of wishful thinking. This doesn’t apply as much to Levin, since he has explicitly not made predictions. But Rush has said things like “if the election was held today, it would be a landslide” and such, when there’s just no evidence of that. There is still no evidence of that. As for the polls, some of them are better than others. But if you look at the average of polls on sites like RealClearPolitics, and then compare them to actual election results, more often than not they are pretty close. They may be off by a few percentages points, but they are very rarely off by more than the margin for error. I think with the Scott Walker recall election, they pretty much hit that one right on the nose. As I said in my posting, I tend to trust Rasmussen and in 2008 he was extremely accurate. Though certain polls such as the network ones may be mostly crap, it’s simply an exaggeration to say that all polls are worthless and are totally missing things. People tend to say that and then site anecdotal evidence, such as the size of rallies and such – when this simply has no scientific bearing at all. Again, I hope you all are right – I’d love it if Mitt wins in a landslide. If he does I’ll be the first to come back here and say I was all wet, and thank goodness for it.

        • APA Guy

          How is disregarding inaccurate and biased LV sampling “wishful thinking”? The only pollster sampling anywhere near the 2010 model (which, by all early voting and enthusiasm accounts, is more likely what we get this year) is Gallup…and Gallup has shown Romney up 5-7 points. If you get discouraged based on biased sampling, you cease to be realistic and instead become fatalistic and delusional. Sorry, but it’s true.

          • paulc

            Gallup hasn’t had any results posted for almost a week now, due to the hurricane. And, sorry, but the 2010 race is totally irrelevant. For one thing, it was not a presidential race. Everyone knows that turnout in presidential races is much higher than in midterm races – this is simply a fact. And as we saw from 2008 to 2010, and from 2004 to 2006, the electorate can change on a dime in the space of two years. Rush keeps bringing up 2010 also, but it’s ancient history. If that is the best argument we have to support this landslide theory, then we are indeed in trouble. And again, as for this party ID stuff, it’s fairly fluid and may depend on how the pollster asks the question as much as anything else. We don’t know what the partisan makeup of 2012 will be. A reasonable guess is that it’s somewhere between 2008 and 2004, but no one knows where.

          • APA Guy

            OK so let’s review: You are saying that: 1) The 2010 race is totally irrelevant, even though it was a nationwide referendum on the Obama presidency and Obamacare and Republicans and Independents are, by all accounts, even more inspired to defeat Obama just two years later 2) Biased pollsters presenting skewed LV samples aren’t whittling those samples down intentionally to benefit Obama (FWI, their own cross-tabs admit they are selectively deciding to follow a 2008 turnout model) 3) That turnout will resemble something between 2004 (when foreign policy was the top issue) and 2008 (when the economy fell off the cliff and voters blamed Bush).

            I say this with all due respect, but you are a classic concern troll parroting all the trolling points of the left. There is nothing “complex” about biased pollsters choosing to sample in a manner that benefits their candidate…NOTHING. Even an optimistic Dem cross of 2008 and 2010 would mean a +3.5% Dem advantage in sampling. These unethical partisan hacks are polling Dems +9. 2008 wasn’t even +9 Dem, no matter how “fluid” you believe Party ID may be.

            Again, take your “concern” somewhere else. You are here to deflate and disrupt…nothing more….and your lack of comment history sans the whopping FIVE you have posted showing concern for Romney’s chances lead me to no other viable conclusion.

          • paulc

            Wow – firstly about my comment history. I created a Redstate account a while ago but haven’t logged into it until recently. Not sure what that proves. Secondly, about 2010 – ask President Dole if a strong performance in the midterms translates into Republican victory two years later. 1994 proved nothing about what would happen in 1996. They are apples and oranges. And, about likely voters – fine, throw out the media pollsters. Look at Rasmussen. He’s not a liberal, he has nothing to gain from skewing results for Obama. And he’s showing a very close race. People have said he’s “hedging his bets” but if he says its a tie and Mitt wins by a landslide, then that won’t look good for his polling organization and he’d lose credibility and business. He has everything to gain from reflecting the data as accurately as possible. You say I’m here to “deflate and disrupt” – wow. I’m not saying it’s hopeless. I’m not saying stay home. If anything, it’s the exact opposite!! I see a very close race in which turnout is going to be of the utlimate importance. By all means, vote, and get everyone you can to go out and vote. I’m just trying to inject a little bit of realism into what I see as a lot of wishful thinking. Because, guess what – the lefties are as convinced they are going to win as we are. Intrade has it as 66% for Obama, and Nate Silver gives Obama an 80% chance of victory and bet Scarborough $2000 to that effect. My only point in saying that is that a lot of people on both sides can’t distinguish between reality and what they desperately hope will happen. It does us no good to put on rose colored glasses and act as though 60% of the country agrees with us when that’s obviously not the case. Burying our heads in the sand won’t help. And when I see arguments referring to 2010, and the Bradley effect – those are huge red flags. Those are completely spurious arguments. The oversampling of Democrats argument is stronger, I think, but has some flaws that I’ve discussed as well.

          • APA Guy

            HA! So now concern troll is tossing NYT hack Nate Silver and InTrade into the discussion…just as all Daily Kos kids do. Even an elementary glance of that left-wing website reveals that Silver is the darling of the left. They will be losing on Election Day and he’ll STILL be saying Obama has an 80% chance to win…that or he’ll “magically” swing his prediction model on Election Day to magically reflect a Romney win.

            You aren’t fooling anyone here, troll. Go bury your own head in the sand along with the rest of the left. No one here is buying your brand.

          • paulc

            I’m not saying I believe Silver either. I tend to throw in with that other Leftist, Charles Krauthammer, and that Marxist SOB Scott Rasmussen, both of whom say it will be very close.

            Here’s Krauthammer: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/krauthammer-predicts-romney-will-win-but-its-going-to-be-very-close/

            Here’s Rasmussen: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/an_unpredictable_end_to_a_very_predictable_election

            Are they DailyKos kooks too? I understand others on our side are predicting a Romney landslide – Dick Morris, Michael Barone (who admitted he’s “going out on a limb.”) I respect those guys too, just happen to differ. If you recall, in 2010 Dick Morris was sure we were going to win the Senate and was mad at anyone who suggested otherwise.

          • APA Guy

            You don’t believe Silver, yet you trot him out to tell us how badly you feel about Romney’s chances. Sell troll someplace else, Paul.

          • caseoftheblues

            Oh paulc is concerned alright that his dear leader obowman is going to get his butt kicked… Otherwise why bother with his nonsense. I for one as soon as I realized what he was just skip over his comments

        • APA Guy

          Here’s another reality to calm your “concern”: Mitt Romney, in every single poll, is winning Independents handily. Do you REALLY think if that trend carries into the voting booth that Romney could possibly lose this election?

        • Bill S

          Knock off the concern trolling.

          • paulc

            Wow – it’s considered “trolling” to be worried about this election, even when there is plenty of evidence for it? I don’t know if you saw Krauthammer on Hannity last night – he was pretty concerned too. He was hesitant even to make a prediction, ultimately saying that he thought Mitt might pull it out by a few electoral votes. Krauthammer may be a lot of things, but he’s not stupid or a troll or a left winger. Again, I will be overjoyed if you all are right – I’ll come back here and announce in all caps that I was wrong, I was foolish, my concerns were unfounded, etc. And I’m going to take no joy in Obama’s victory if indeed my concerns prove to be well-founded. I have just one question for you poll doubters. I just looked at the RealClearPolitics averages for 2004 and 2008 at this time in the cycle. They were within one point of being right – they had Obama up 7.3% this time in 2008 and Bush up 1.5% in 2004. If the polls are all crap and bear no resemblence to reality, how is it that they had it within 1% last time? Why was there no conspiracy then to fudge things or hedge bets? Note that in 2008, Obama won by 7.2% and in 2004 Bush won by 2.4%.

          • Bill S

            Six comments. Six “we’re gonna lose” comments.

            Unproductive and unneeded.

          • APA Guy

            It’s considered concern trolling to show up 3 days from the most important election of our lifetime and “worry” about all the reasons a troll thinks he isn’t going to win. You DK trolls are 100% transparent, so lose the phony righteous indignation about being called out on it.

          • APA Guy

            Honestly, I don’t know why we don’t boot these “RedState-come-lately” trolls from the outset. NOTHING this person has posted is aimed at anything but being a wet blanket on the horizon of this country dispatching Obama.

            Not meaning to tell you your job, Bill…just an observation :)

    • caseoftheblues

      Seriously paulc…. Is the Obama campaign STILL wasting money paying people to be “concerned republicans”….find a new job troll!

      • APA Guy

        They brag on Daily Kos about trolling our site with this garbage, as though it somehow helps their cause. You’d think they’d use their energy to get their stale supporters out of the basement of mom’s house and to the voting booth, but to each their own.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Thank you for a very well thought out diary.

    The only place where I question your accuracy is when you include Fast and Furious and Libya as two of the four things the undecideds will be thinking about when they go into the booth to vote. While I would like to believe that is true, I am afraid the propaganda press has managed to cover them both up so well that there are many who are not as alarmed about them as most of us are. Hope I’m wrong about that, but I am afraid not.

  • Viet71

    I believe the #1 issue for undecideds is, does the country need a fairly radical change of leadership? After all, ejecting a sitting president is fairly radical.

    Americans have leaned this way three times post-war: Carter, Reagan, Clinton. For Carter (1976) and Reagan (1980), the country was in an economic malaise. For Clinton (1992), it was a mixture of things, especially including unhappiness with then recent deficits and the rise of Ross Perot.

    I somewhat agree with those who argue 2012 is like 1980. Except Obama is tougher and nastier than Carter, and Romney lacks Reagan’s charm and communication skills.

    Obama says he needs four more years to finish the job. Undecideds need to ask themselves whether (a) they believe a word Obama says, (b) they want to waste their vote on a third party candidate, or (c) they’re ready for change.

    My take is some will waste their votes; but those votes otherwise would have gone to Obama. I suspect the remaining undecideds who vote will go heavily for Romney.

  • Pingback: Despite what the polls say, Mitt Romney will win by double digits… here’s why | American Political Blogs Watch

  • Pingback: » Despite what the polls say, Mitt Romney will win by … – RedState

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    If you substitute “independents” for “undecideds,” things make more sense.

    Let’s look at some poll numbers that almost all agree on.

    Men: Romney wins handily.

    Women: Obama wins, but the preference advantage seems to be shrinking. I understand that more women than men tend to vote.

    The sum of the two is 100% of the electorate, thus the effort by Democrats to get the women energized enough to vote.

    Republicans: Romney.

    Democrats: Obama.

    The sum of the two is NOT 100%. There is a substantial number of “independents,” about 30% in Arizona, for example. Independents are polled to be heavily in Romney’s favor.

    If two out of the three groups go for Romney, what is so hard to predict?

    But there is of course the intangible factor, and that isn’t in the polls. Let’s call it the “Chick-fil-A” factor. People who aren’t identified in the polls and who don’t always vote. They will go 90% for Romney.

    And is it realistic to think that less than 4% of 2008 Obama voters will NOT switch to Romney? Or that much more than 0% of 2008 McCain voters will switch to Obama this time? Neither idea makes much sense.

    I am expecting a landslide, unless everything the “experts” have told us is wrong, including the set-in-concrete maxim that independents control the election. Do they? If they do, the election is already over.

  • http://www.imperfectamerica.com imperfectamerica

    Actually, James over at flopping aces caught my oversight… Bradley actually lost in 1982

  • lakeshore

    Update: Krauthammer (on O’Reilly last night) is now more confident of Romney’s victory–as are all the others who analyze the polls, and trends, objectively. Case closed.

  • jackm

    In 2010, a lot of voters disappeared from the “Republican” column and, simultaneously, appeared in the “Independent” column as far as the polls are concerned. We know that these voters did not move to the left. Not in that year.

    I think it likely that instead, some Republican voters reclassified themselves as belonging to the Tea Party and started telling pollsters they were “Independent”.

    If this is true, party identification may not tell one as much as you might think about the outcome of the election.

    And that would mean that the top line poll numbers may really tell us how this election will turn out. Still, who knows? It pains me to say but a lot of people vote in response to imagined grievances.

    • treeofliberty

      Rasmussen and Gallup predict a 2012 electorate with a R+ sample…If they are correct, heck if they are even CLOSE to being right Romney wins and possibly wins big

  • Pingback: Amal Noth

  • Pingback: Maida Holmberg

  • Pingback: Kiesha Marze

  • Pingback: Alaina Woolery

  • Pingback: Carmen Shefte

  • Pingback: Arthur Commander

  • Pingback: Nilda Zeman

  • Pingback: Dexter Whan

  • Pingback: Mario Hurdle

  • Pingback: Thora Hirko

  • Pingback: Clint Endecott

  • Pingback: Carina Allmond

  • Pingback: Florencio Melchin

  • Pingback: Sherrie Hemmelgarn

  • Pingback: Linnie Cundy

  • Pingback: Man Davda

  • Pingback: Francisco Kiefer

  • Pingback: Tanisha Rowbotham

  • Pingback: Laquanda Demchak

  • Pingback: Don Jaggers

  • Pingback: Katherina Ebbesen

  • Pingback: Jim Dannatt

  • Pingback: Patrina Locklier

  • Pingback: Shayne Sargetakis

  • Pingback: Jude Cheuvront

  • Pingback: Bobby Gaiter

  • Pingback: Narcisa Clayburn

  • Pingback: Allegra Schoenfelder

  • Pingback: Cruz Mestanza

  • Pingback: Kasey Mushtaq

  • Pingback: Grant Mckenty

  • Pingback: Christene Martensen

  • Pingback: Mason Oberhausen

  • Pingback: Bryce Paz

  • Pingback: Eugena Janower

  • Pingback: Jacquelin Tamplin

  • Pingback: Olin Thomassen

  • Pingback: Lloyd Biehn

  • Pingback: Data journalism strikes gold in US election | ROB GRANT