Aug
28
2012

#rsrh What hath Obama’s burn rate wrought?

While I give Mark Halperin points for at least not pretending he wrote this article in May about how Obama for America was (insanely) complacent about winning the election, this followup is still a little… Well.  It’s certainly something:

After I wrote my piece in May, some conservative writers suggested I was being hopelessly naive, bluffed by a blustering White House with little chance of victory and blind to the realities around it. Perhaps that is true, although I’ve known many of my sources, on both sides, for years. Their dueling hypotheses these past three months have not wavered: the Romney folks have made a solid case of why they will win, but the Obama people don’t seem to believe they can lose.

Being one of those conservative writers – I didn’t say “hopelessly naive,” but I’ll cop to it – I’ll agree that this is what both sides in the election think.  I just don’t understand why Mark Halperin isn’t laughing in Obama for America’s collective face.  And here’s why:

Below are screenshots for the RCP polling average for May 7, 2012 (when Halperin’s article is dated), and 11 AM, August 28, 2012 (today). May:

Obama +1.  Compare to today:

Obama… +1.

Coincidence?  Very possibly.  That certainly is one way to put it. Another is: Barack Obama has spent millions of dollars over the last three months to try to sink his opponent once and for all, and it has had no practical effect at all.  I cannot make myself believe that this was the plan, and I think that it may even do a disservice to the Democrats to take their spin at face value.

Not that I care about that; but I suspect that the Media in general might.

Moe Lane

8 Comments

  • Rob Crawford says:

    I know Romney can’t spend general campaign money until after the convention, but is Obama similarly limited? Has he been burning through his “primary” campaign money? Or is it the same fund for the incumbent?

  • Earlgrey says:

    It still bugs me how this race just doesn’t seem to be moving. I think Akin cost us a l ot of momentum.

  • acat says:

    @earlgrey – nice to see you here.

    Akin is only different from the other Obama distraction-chaff in that Akin gut-shot his own campaign, Obama didn’t blow him up. Akin’s a freebie .. but outside of MO, he won’t matter.

    Inside MO, if Perkins, Robertson, Huckabee, and Santorum can do some fundraisers for Akin, he could still win. (the price of sitting at the big table for Huckabee should be .. in this case .. made out to “Campaign to elect Akin”)

    Moe’s point is still valid – Obama wants this race to be about anything but the economy (jobs / taxes / obamacare) .. and has spent millions trying to distract from it … with no net effect.

    I don’t expect that to change because, let’s face it, when gas is over $4/gal and grocery prices are rising noticeably .. and the same people who didn’t get off their couches over abortion but did get off ’em over taxes will be casting their ballots for Romney…

    Not sure if you’re a “Futurama” fan, but at this point Obama For America is reminding me of Dr. Zoidberg… when in trouble, spray ink and run away.

    Mew

  • Aruges says:

    Earlgrey: Carter vs. Reagan broke late, so we may be seeing that dynamic. If not, it’s going to be a long hard slog to a squeeker. Akin certainly doesn’t help, but I don’t get the feeling it’s having much impact outside of MO, and even in MO the polling seems split as to what impact it’s had on the Presidential race. I suspect that Akin (if he stays in) will do better than his polling based on Romney’s performance. That still won’t be enough for Akin to win however…

  • Jbird says:

    Wonder how much of a Bradley Effect is showing up in polling. It doesn’t even have to be a racial thing. Voting for Obama in 2008 was “cool” and maybe people still want the guy or gal polling them to think they are still cool and not voting for that square Romney. But once in the privacy of the voting booth it’s really the square with the math on his side and hopefully some job growth tucked down in his pocket protector that they will vote for, if they vote at all.

  • Mikey NTH says:

    At Althouse she has a post up on a woman’s equality rally in Madison at which a whole 100 people showed up. The War on Women was the big thing, akin had fired it up again, and a rally in Madison gets only 100?

    That’s a sign, and not a good one for the Dems.

  • acat says:

    @Mikey .. as UW Madison has spun up for fall term, I’m very surprised that’s all they could manage…

    The WI Dems, though, are a special kind of defeated this year .. I wouldn’t count on it being a long-term thing just yet.

    Mew

  • Greg Benton says:

    After Ryan’s speech last night, I think Obama can kiss re-election good bye, even if his chances were slim before.

    America doesn’t suffer whiners, liars, and failures and Obama is all three. Obamacare, Solyndra and Fast and Furious form a nasty image of high handed Chicago bullying, corruption, and dark nasty evil Big Brother ops gone bad that just won’t fly.

    Last time the nation got to vote was the mid-terms, and I know turn out models vary with off years, but I think if Obama were on the ticket then he would have been tossed.

    Nothing has improved since then. Scott Brown and Scott Walker both offered nasty surprises for the Dems and the Red states are where economies are improving.

    I remember how Kerry seemed like he was going to win, the polls and the media told us so… until he lost.

    Call it Bradley Effect or the Silent Majority or whatever you want, but I believe the University of Colorado model that suggest Romney will win in a landslide.

    No way Obama is rewarded with re-election with nothing but failure on his record.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com