All posts in Polls

Phillip Phillips received more votes last night than Obama did in 2008

I was really into Dave Matthews’ music in the 90s.  Last night my wife stayed up and crushed on Matthews’ youthful alter ego Phillip Phillips and his music on YouTube.  (Ever read a dead white male–Churchill–while someone sang Superstition, a cappella, in your ear?  We don’t watch American Idol live but we both watch it on YouTube.)

She finally got my attention when she turned on our mutual all-time favorite Carrie Underwood–we’re all crushing on her, including our two-year-old.  Watch and tell me you if you don’t find her irresistible:

American Idol is a fascinating cultural phenomenon.  The concept is both simple and sheer genius.  Say what you will about Phillip Phillips but that boy can perform.  And to think before this he was just some kid who worked in his dad’s pawn shop in Georgia.  Carrie Underwood herself is a marvel.  How could that voice be tucked away in some small town in Oklahoma.  Then there’s this guy:

I would encourage you to watch the whole interview.  It’s breathtaking.  But I digress.

The fact is we live in a great country full of remarkable inspiring people.

Our president is one of those people.  It is inspiring what he has accomplished.  The fact that I want him to lose in a big way in November doesn’t take anything away from his achievement.

On this note of inspiration, I started thinking about Phillip Phillips and the 132 million votes that were cast in the Idol competition and decided to look up how many votes were cast in various presidential elections.  Did you know that 129 million votes were cast in 2008?  In 2004, Americans cast 121 million votes for George W. Bush and John Kerry.  And in 1980–a year which is drawing lots of (highly debatable in my opinion) comparisons to 2012–only 85 million votes were cast for Reagan and Carter (and remember John B. Anderson?).

The turnout in 2012 will be a closely watched bit of data.  Obama managed to energize a huge chunk of his base in 2008, while also drawing independents, who in my opinion were naively drawn to some vaporous hope for change and betterment of their lives, as if it were ever in the power of a mortal, much less a product of the Chicago political machine, to bring about such change.

Meanwhile McCain probably ran the single worst presidential campaign that I have ever witnessed.  The moment he invigorated his base he would follow by cutting his own knees out with one of his capriciously incoherent proclamations or actions.  (The fact that his handlers have spent the last three years trying to hide their own ineptitude by trying to focus people’s sights on the easy game from Alaska is evidence itself.)  To be clear I, along with a host of others, admire and respect John McCain the man.  My father was a Navy vet too and I grew up with a steady diet of the honor that should be accorded such men.  But he was an abysmal candidate and, while I voted for him and would do so again, had he been elected I have no doubt that we would be looking at a landslide this year for Hilary (which, by the way, when contrasted with the possibility of Obama winning in November, would have been a much preferred series of events).

2012 should be a very different election.  Neither candidate inspires much emotion on either side, except that the driving animus on both sides of the aisle this year seems to be “well I just can’t vote for that guy.”  The professional political strategists can tell you which candidate this favors, but from my layman’s point of view I think an anti-leviathan-government-incumbent bias prevails over the anti-perfectly-parted-elitist-milquetoast-dude sentiment.

The bottom line is that whichever candidate can secure anywhere close to the number of votes that the pawnbroker’s son from Georgia got last night will win.

Long live American Idol.

Team Obama takes comfort that polls look a lot like 2004. Mr. President, this ain’t 2004

Eight years have passed since the election season of 2004.  Most significantly and off the cuff, in the early days of 2004 we were still closer to the initial Iraq invasion than we were to the surge.  We hadn’t yet sunk deeply into the mire of IEDs, suicide bombs, mass casualties or the full ripening of the anti-American vitriol that spewed from all those entertainment and media cowards who just the year before had been as jingoistic as any Colonel Blimp.  In short, 2012 is not 2004, and if Team Obama is taking solace in the recent polls based on the events of 2004, they are in for a rude awakening.

If Obama’s supporters are pinning their hopes for reelection on a replay of 2004, they are setting themselves up for some big disappointment. Here are just some of the big differences between ’04 and ’12:

’04 was a foreign policy election: According to Gallup, the war in Iraq was by far the most important issue to voters in the 2004 election. The exact opposite is true today. Switching out your Commander in Chief in the middle of a war is just a different question than replacing a president whose economic policies are failing.

’02 was not a mirror image of ’10: President Bush’s party gained ground in the ’02 election. Obama’s lost ’10 in a landslide. The defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., in the Democratic primary, the rise of the netroots and their preferred candidates, Sens., Jim Webb, D-Vir., Jon Tester, D-Mont., all happened in 2006, two years after Bush was reelected. The Tea Party rose and got organized much faster. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, lost his primary in 2010. The Tea Party has already sent Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., to Congress. The base of the Republican party is simply far more organized and united now than Democrats were in ’04.

Economic growth: At the core of almost every presidential election model is economic growth. In 2004, the U.S. economy grew by 3.5 percent. According to the CBO, the U.S. economy is projected to grow by just 2 percent this year.

Obama is simply in far, far worse shape today than Bush was in 2004.

“Never will so much money be spent to persuade so few.”

Obama up by a few but the race is tight: Obama by 4 but Romney closing

How likeable is Mitt Romney?

Hinderaker at Power Line offers some thoughts.

Everyone loves it when someone hits the bully in the nose

The victim fights back.  It’s a story that even those who profess to abhor violence love.  Only the awkward part in this tale is that Obama is the bully.

The Romney people apparently will not run a repeat of McCain’s 2008 campaign, in which the candidate put such petty retaliation off limits. There will be no sanctimonious putdowns from Romney about dredging up Obama’s dog-eating past, in the manner in which McCain lectured his supporters about the inappropriateness of emphasizing the tripartite name Barack Hussein Obama — although Obama himself did, and would go on to focus on his middle name as proof of his multicultural resonance abroad. Just as Bill Clinton’s war room swore not to do a rerun of Mike Dukakis’s punching-bag 1988 campaign, so Romney apparently has determined not to repeat the McCain one-hand-tied-behind-the-back model.

In other words, each time we hear of an irrelevant hit on Romney, we will probably hear of something equally irrelevant — and worse — about Obama, in a way we never would have in 2008. Petty? A distraction from the failing economy? Of course, but the Romney people apparently believe that they must and will achieve deterrence by replying in kind and to such a degree that Team Obama will soon cease playing such a childish game of taunts.

More from Victor Davis Hanson’s Obama-Romney Doggy Wars.

Is Obama a metrosexual and will his “post-modern machismo cool” be enough to win in November?

A recent report suggests that Democrats are alarmed that Obama might just lose his re-election bid.  I can’t imagine why.

David Brooks, a “conservative” opinion shaper for the New York Times has his own tingly feelings about the president.

David Brooks, a New York Times columnist who is quite taken with Obama, writes in today’s paper that while Americans think Obama is doing a bad job on the economy and that the country is off track, Obama stands a good chance of being re-elected because of his demeanor: an “ESPN” brand of post-modern machismo cool.

So it’s the post-modern machismo cool guy vs the family-oriented highly competent adult square.
I suppose we’ll get who we deserve.

Romney 50-42

This will be an interesting summer.

Obama mocks and shoves a little girl, then humiliates her in front of the whole class

Shocking!  Not sure how to handle this one but must be with kid gloves.  I’m not sure what this says about Barry but I’m sure it will be covered soon by the Washington Post and New York Times.

And to think he even admits it.  It’s really horrifying this kind of misogynistic hetero-rage that clearly still lurks in the heart of our president.  No woman is safe.

Does Eva know about this?


Shock poll: half of Americans are bigoted racist homophobes

Rasmussen says Romney up 50-43.  Still a long way to go.

Drudge reporting that Romney’s lead has widened to 7 points…

More to come.

Rasmussen: Romney up 49-44

It’s way too early to call but it bodes well for a strong showing for Anyone but Obama.

Monday morning poll: Romney competitive in swing states

It’s okay.  Julia lives in New York.