One person’s feeling about the election
face with the plastic, kindly, accommodating smile permanently pasted onto it the face of a man who will defeat a relentless leftist juggernaut? Is it the face of a winner? Not to me. To me, it is the face of a loser. It is the face of a man who has already lost the election.
This is not a prediction. Unlike so many people today, I do not claim to know the future, particularly the outcome of future elections. But I have feelings (or, more accurately, sensations) and intuitions. And in my mind’s eye, I do not see Romney taking the oath of office next January, with the defeated, humiliated Obama sitting behind him looking on respectfully. I do not see America turning out of the White House its first nonwhite president.
When I shared this thought with a friend on the phone, she said, “Did you see in your mind’s eye the Newsweek cover saying, “Hit the Road, Barack?” No, I did not. That was astonishing. And if the leftist rag Newsweek could turn against Obama like that, then it’s also possible he could lose the election. But I do not expect that to happen.
This is not a point I am going to keep making during the campaign, especially as it’s only a subjective feeling and not something based on objective facts. I don’t want to seem to be invoking an Obama victory or empowering thoughts of an Obama victory. But, for the record, it’s what I see and feel. I feel and see it so strongly that if, two days before the election, Romney is up by seven points in national polls and up by 70 votes in electoral vote polls, I will still expect Obama to win. I will not believe that Obama will lose, until he has lost.
I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. If I turn out to be wrong I will be the happiest person in America, because the outcome will have been so much better than my expectations. - end of initial entry -
Stephen J. writes:
You’re wrong about the election. Obama will lose. The long slow decline of America and the West will only be slowed, not reversed, but you’re dead wrong about the election result.
The Republicans will take the Senate and keep the House, giving President Romney the ability to put off The Inevitable for four or maybe eight years.
“Obama will lose.”
This is what I don’t understand, the way people issue these assured pronouncements about future events. You are claiming to know the future. But no one knows the future.
Stephen J. replies:
You can understand a reasonable prediction made on the basis of current knowledge and studying elections in America since 1964.
I’ll rephrase: I am very confident that Obama will lose, and the Republicans will gain the Senate and keep the House. That’s the “lesser of two weevils,” but the alternative is very difficult to imagine.
James P. writes:
It is obvious that the Romney strategy is to portray him as a nice, non-threatening, huggable teddy bear who will not drive away independents and women by looking or acting like a big old meanie. I’d like to see him show that he has claws, but I can certainly understand why he chose the strategy he did.
As for the photo, I don’t see a kindly and accommodating loser, I see the cocky smirk of a winner.
Like you, I expect Obama to win, and will not believe he has lost until he concedes.
Dave T. writes:
I fully expect Obama to be reelected so long as the election remains close, because in that case Obama’s campaign will most likely engage in the requisite level of election fraud needed to secure the result, with everyone who matters looking the other way. The only scenario I can imagine in which Romney wins is if the vast majority of the Undecideds break his way in the closing stretch of the campaign so that his national lead over Obama is greater than two points, in which case I think the gap would be too great for Obama’s campaign to put their guy over the top with fraud. However, I don’t expect that last scenario to take place given that the national media and entertainment industry will do everything in their power to manufacture as much guilt or shame in the Undecideds as possible over the prospect of not voting to reelect America’s first nonwhite president. Given their efforts, it’s hard to imagine the weak-minded Undecideds breaking for Romney to the extent that he needs them to.
Steve D. writes:
What you say about the impossibility of knowing the future is of course true, but we can have reasonable beliefs about the probability of outcomes. There is plentiful evidence that Obama’s campaign is in serious trouble, and might be headed for a 1980-style defeat at the hands of Romney.
The only reason Obama is leading in the polls touted by mainstream media outlets is that those polls are deliberately skewed to give Democrats the advantage. Jack Risko’s blog is one of the best sites I’ve found for dissecting the actual meaning of polls. For instance, MSNBC’s poll of July 24 had Obama up by six points; however, as Risko points out, the sample was registered voters, not likely voters, and was biased in favor of Democrats by eleven percentage points. Considering that Obama was only six points ahead even with the advantages of a skewed poll, and considering that the next election is likely to have a breakdown more resembling 2010 than 2008, and considering that even a recent poll by James Carville’s Democracy Corps had Romney leading among independents by 16 points, I think a landslide victory for Romney is more likely than any other scenario.
And that’s not because I like or trust either Romney or the Republicans, but I have to admit it will be emotionally satisfying to see Obama packed off to exile in Chicago. I only wish it could be Kenya.
His post-presidential destiny will be neither Chicago nor Kenya, but a lifetime position as Messiah Emeritus.
Laura G. writes:
I share your anxiety about the outcome, but maybe for another reason. In my opinion, it would be nice if Romney were to win, but will make little difference to the calamitous trajectory that we are on and that Obama has rapidly accelerated.
That is because an essential component of how all this will play out has been largely neglected. Whatever the outcome in 2012, Obama and ALL of his various Czars, appointees, and hangers-on will have their own appointees and progeny nicely ensconced in positions of power before he leaves, either now or in 2016. They will carry on with the trashing of the nation into the endless future. The only (as in single, solitary, unique) means we have of preventing that is if he is completely and publicly recognized as a fraud, usurper, and criminal. Usurper, document fraud and falsification, and identity fraud, for starters. To ensure that the American public is enabled to see the reality of who he is (whomever that may be) it is essential that there be a loud public demand through all venues in support of the “birther” movement. We prefer that we be called “Constitutionalists,” but are happy to be known as birthers. It is a fact that not a single U.S. citizen has any idea what his identity is, what his background is, who has been helping him, what he owes to whom, or how he is expected to pay off that massive debt. Only the successful demand that all his life documentation be opened for complete forensic evaluation and the results be made public will enable an effective assessment of the legality of his actions. The offshoot of that can be confidently expected to set the stage for the expunging of his minions from governmental power, and enable the ablation of some of his toxic legislation and Directives.
Daniel W. writes:
James P. wrote, re Romney’s face:
“I see the cocky smile of a winner.”
Not me. I see a smiling fool watching the electoral votes roll in on election night and thinking to himself, as he loses, “Well, the people have spoken and the better man won, I suppose. That’s democracy at work, which is more important in the long run than the man in the Oval Office. After all, it isn’t about good or bad, or right or wrong, it’s about democracy and the economy, and if people want to keep Obama around for another four years, that’s their right. I don’t agree with it myself, but isn’t that what’s great about America?”
Michael D. writes:
Here is the face of a leader. Sulla, Roman general, late Republic.
He would have our presidents for breakfast, including all of our senators and congressmen.
Actually Sulla did eat many of his political opponents for breakfast, meaning he had them killed.
America has never believed in such rulers. The imagery used on statues and paintings of George Washington showed him as a Cincinnatus, a man who led his country in war and then returned to his farm and other domestic and civic pursuits, not as a Sulla.
Houdon’s statue of George Washington
in the Virginia State House
Though as the Republic of which Washington is the father distintegrates and is taken over by revolutionary Jacobins, the time may come, as terrible as that would be, for another Sulla.
The photograph of the Washington statue, in which Washington’s face is seen from below, is not the best angle. The statue, set on a base, is too high for proper viewing. When I visited the Virginia State House in Richmond, I stood on a chair in order to look at Washington from the same level. That’s the way the statue needs to be seen.
John G. writes:
In my opinion, most indicators point to a Romney victory.
Let’s start with the polls. Rasmussen and Gallup are the only two reliable polling companies. Gallup is still polling registered voters, and has Obama up 47/46. When they switch to likely voters, you can expect a four or five point jump for Romney, something like Romney 49, Obama 45. Rasmussen is polling likely voters and has Romney up 48 to 45. Obama’s approval rarely moves above 48 percent, and again, with Gallup this is registered voters rather than likely voters. Other polls, which tend to oversample Dems, show Obama’s personal favorability/likeability fading while Romney’s is improving, especially among women.
Democratic turnout is expected to be poor. Obama can’t fill venues at speaking events, Dems are polling as being much less excited. Romney speaks to standing room only crowds, and Republicans are giddy about the chance to vote the Marxist out. Romney has out-raised Obama by a couple hundred million, while spending significantly less. He’ll be outspending Obama 2-1 in October.
Back to the polling numbers: Undecideds typically break about 3-1 against an incumbent (at least 2-1). So consider a poll with Obama up 46 to 44. That’s actually a Romney victory at around 51 to 48. Most swings states are currently polling close enough, with enough undecided voters, that Romney should be expected to win.
These gaps of just a few points, close to the margin of error, two months before the election, are very far from definitive.
I disagree with your feeling that Obama is going to win the election. I too have a feeling about the election. I feel that Romney will win. I think the swing states will continue to trend towards Republicans. A recent Rasmussen poll shows there are more Republicans now than in 2004.
I do share your concern. I’m not a slave to polls. Polls are inaccurate. But, there seems to be a trend. I’ve nearly given up on my country, but I have not given up on our people.
We are not the same people from four decades ago, two decades ago, one ecade ago. We have become worse, and we have to question whether our diligent efforts to save this country is sustainable or even desirable. There is little in this culture that is worth conserving. As conservatives, we are conserving nothing now except restrictions on late term abortions and stopping gay marriage. Our efforts seem to have little effect, as the state courts and federal government deny our traditions and heritage. We have sold our people, our soul, our God, and our country for an undefined idea of “freedom.” We have redefined “freedom” to mean anything goes, instead of submission to natural and religious truths. We, as a people and nation, have rejected God for the intelligence and policy making of politicians—kingmakers.
James N. writes:
I’m sure I’ve got it right, because on even numbered days I’m convinced Romney will win in a landslide, and on odd numbered days I fear Obama can’t lose.
The case for Romney is simple: This cannot go on, so it won’t.
The case for Obama is that a true believer and an ideologically monolithic party should beat a flip-flopper and a confused sticky mess of a party. Or, to put it another way, we’ve gone so far down the Obama road already (Obama is an effect, not a cause) that people will accept the idea that he must be allowed to “finish the job.”
Joe S. writes:
As an experienced pollster, I am seeing many indications that the Democrats are going to lose, if historical experience is any guide. I believe the Democrats and the MSM also recognize them. You must not pay any attention to nationwide polls either of Obama’s popularity or the Romney-Obama popular vote. They are both unsound and misreported. Polls of likely voters in battleground states are the only ones that provide useful information. Romney is more ruthless than he appears, and he is campaigning with a well thought out plan which by normal political criteria is quite likely to work.
The Democrats are going to have to change the game somehow, and I predict that they will do something drastic but I cannot say what. The election will either be very close, or a Romney landslide, since anything in between will lead to desperate Democratic measures which will either succeed impressively or fail miserably.
By the way, when looking at the electoral map, don’t forget that a tie goes to Romney and that he can pick up an extra electoral vote in Maine’s 2nd Congressional district (Maine and Nebraska aren’t winner-take-all). Obama needs states adding to 271 to be safe from this, while Romney can win with states totalling 268 plus Maine’s second district.
Ok, I think you’ve given this advice once before. So, starting soon, VFR will look at the electoral vote and at the polls of likely voters in the battleground states.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 05, 2012 01:01 PM | Send