Right now, somebody in the DNC’s HQ is likely sitting in a room somewhere getting morosely drunk, and it’s because of articles like Michael Barone‘s. You see, Michael sat down and looked at the various reactions to Barack Obama’s possibly ill-advised (and certainly ill-executed) Bain Capital-themed line of attack on Mitt Romney, and concluded: it’s likely to provoke a backlash among affluent voters (particularly those in suburbia). And the reason why people should care about that is because 2008 exit polling showed that voters from households making more than $100 grand a year made up a quarter of the electorate, and that they split their vote down the middle between Obama and McCain.
And how are they voting now? Michael sees some interesting trends:
The popular vote in House elections is a good proxy for presidential and party support, and voters with incomes over $100,000, evenly split in 2008, voted 58 to 40 percent for Republicans in 2010.
Northern Virginia, which Obama carried 59 to 40 percent and which provided 95 percent of his statewide popular vote margin, went 52 to 47 percent for House Republicans in 2010. Nine suburban Denver counties voted 53 to 46 percent for Obama but switched in 2010 to 54 to 42 percent Republican.
There’s more data – Michael Barone mentions similar shifts in Pennsylvanian and Michigan suburbs – but the concept that Virginia and Colorado are slipping out of the Democrats’ fingers would be sufficiently unnerving to operatives of that political party as it is. I truly believe that Team Obama expected to be fighting out 2012 in North Carolina and Florida, and possibly Iowa, with all the implications about the larger electoral picture that one might expect from that (i.e., a narrower but decent win for the Democrats). Fighting in Virginia, Colorado, and possibly Michigan instead implies something else. Something wonderful.
Unless you’re a Democratic operative. Hence, the entire ‘getting morosely drunk’ thing.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: This, of course, does not mean that Mitt Romney has a lock on the election. And the Republican party needs to keep the electoral pressure on until the moment that Barack Obama gets on television and congratulates Romney for his victory (no doubt through gritted teeth). But we do seem to have caught a break, for once; as Michael Barone notes. Romney did very well in precisely the suburban areas that Obama seems so determined to alienate. Provided that Republican activists can continue to keep fostering in the candidate a laudable wariness – not to mention healthy fear – of provoking us, we stand an excellent chance of shifting this election from a 50/50 squeaker to a full-throated repudiation of Obama’s Chicago Way…
“…until the moment that Barack Obama gets on television and congratulates Romney for his victory”
.
That sent a thrill up my leg.
I’ve been thinking for sometime now that this will not be a good election for the D’s. I think they are going to have their heads handed to them on a platter and so far O’bama has only acted to make it worse. Needless to say they aren’t going to make this year pleasant for the rest of us, this is going to hurt, Bad. Good Luck everyone and as the boy scouts say be prepared!
… voters from households making more than $100 grand a year made up a quarter of the electorate …
When inflation kicks in, that will be everyone with a minimum-wage job.
… until the moment that Barack Obama gets on television and congratulates Romney for his victory (no doubt through gritted teeth).
I fear that the scene will be less dignified than this … if it happens at all. A narcissist would be sure that this outcome is utterly impossible, so therefore the Rethuglikans must have stolen the election, and conceding defeat wouldn’t be the right thing to do.
I really wonder if it’ll happen, though, jetty. I have this odd Venezuela-before-Chavez-postponed-elections feeling every time I try to envision that concession speech.
There isn’t a chance in hell that Obama tries to cancel the 2012 elections, or refuses to ratify the results when he loses. The US military didn’t sign up to fire on American civilians and state National Guard units ordered out by infuriated state governors (not all of them Republican, either); they did, however, sign up to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I’d say that this one was pretty straightforward. In fact, his own party will balk: an unsuccessful coup would wreck the Democratic party once and for all. And give us the excuse to go through the government and do one hell of amount of housecleaning. Beside, come to think of it: most of those guys didn’t sign up to participate in an illegal coup against the legitimate government and institutions of the United States of America, either.
Plus, I don’t think that Obama wants to do it anyway. For a variety of reasons, ranging from noble to tawdry.
@Doug Stewart:
I agree with your comment; reading Hagman’s post in how they are contemplating a race war (which began w/Trayvon),
a class war etc…incl a false flag with an attempt on obamas life. Their lust for power has no limits; valerie jarrett is one evil woman.
As th insider stated to Hagman.North Intelligence Network, they are planning to create chaos to implement the EO signed regarding Marshal Law.
I wish I could chalk that up to nonsense, but Nepalitano is making plans for their created chaos.
In 2008 there were plenty of conspiracy theories coming from the left about W cancelling the election. I think this thinking is proof of why we need to tone the power of the president back to what the founders intended. Since TR we have had the president dominate the governement at the expense of Congress, again not the original intent.
Throughout history many a man has unleashed chaos in quest for power, most ended up 6-8 inches shorter for their troubles.
Moe:
I’m not saying he would succeed, I’m saying “I can’t see the serial narcissist actually giving a concession speech and I can see him doing everything possible to salt the earth behind him, up to and including finding some way to disrupt the swearing in of a new chief executive.”
Doug: Fair enough, although I suspect that even if you’re right then Obama would still be… persuaded… by his own minions to play ball. They would still have careers, after all.
I hope you’re right, Moe, but please remember that a lot of Obama’s supporters and courtiers have a lot to lose- up to an including actual jail time- if he fails of reelection.
I also can’t forget George Soros’ Secretary of State project: positioning “reform-minded progressive Secretary of State candidates who will protect our elections…”. I fear that there won’t be a calling-out of the Army, but just a whole bunch of really smelly recount, poll-closing, and voter eligibility calls, right where they will do the most harm.
I’m reminded of the Clinton people “salting the earth” behind them when they left the White House: they removed all the “W” keys from all the computers.
And the Clintons have guts. Unlike the pothead currently sitting in the Oval Office, who has never had to fight for anything he wanted.
re: Doug, cali, Spegen, above:
It is precisely because the D’s were all about W cancelling the elections that I consider it a possibility.
Projection is one of the foremost characteristics of the Progressive mindset …. whatever they are seriously contemplating doing is what they accuse others of.
Let’s tone down the rhetoric here. At the conclusion of every two termer in recent memory the other side spun tales of power grabs, coup de etats, secret armies, false flag operations etc as that president’s term came to a close. The Dems said it about Reagan in 88, the GOP about Clinton and the Dems about W four years ago. Can you imagine the paranoia on the left had Nixon finished his second term.