THIS IS WHAT THE TALKING (and writing) HEADS OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA WOULDN’T TELL YOU ABOUT THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.
I start this column with exactly two weeks to go until the election. The debates ended tonight (thank God, or who, or whatever). Pollsters are now destroying their fingers and credibilities. Canvassers are becoming Jehovah-witness- like nuisances, with their incessant door-knocking and bell-ringing. Fundraisers are begging credit-card holders for as little as three dollars a clip. E-mails from Obama and his minions are flooding my inbox. E-mails from republicans are few and far and in-between. And the whole world is watching us here in the good old USA (United States of Amnesia). It’s ShowTime baby.
This is what the talking (and writing) heads of mainstream media (MSM) wouldn’t tell you about the upcoming elections: the election is over. You can stick a fork in Mitt Romney’s campaign. It is finished. It is cooked. Mitt Romney will lose this election and it wouldn’t even be close. Mitt Romney hardly ever had a chance of winning this election: from day one.
Look; I know I am being redundant but the more I see talking heads spinning this as some competitive race the more I am disgusted. Sure, MSM has to sell tickets to the fight (since that’s how they pay their bills); but they do have a responsibility to level with the public, or at least put things in proper perspective all the time. This was never a race. Romney has always been a horrible candidate. Watch what key republicans say after his defeat. Don’t forget now!
I have been bombarded with calls from anxious democrats admonishing me to at least tone down my predictions/writings on this race: I am sorry but I cannot. It is as easy a prediction as I have ever made in my umpteen years of political analysis. Some are saying that I am being too cocky; fine. I have stated plainly that if I am incorrect in my analysis here I will stop writing on politics and stick to fiction and poetry. In this column I am going to finger the Electoral College map a bit deeper than before. There are 538 electors and the magic number for victory is 270.
Repugnicans can try to suppress as many votes as they can -via their legislative attempts at chicanery- but it will be to no avail: the numbers just don’t add up. The truth is: they know it. That’s why you are seeing all these crazy new voting rules all over the country; especially in states where they hold legislative power; but it still wouldn’t be close.
First off, let me define what I mean by a “close” election. The Al Gore v. George Bush2 contest in 2000 was a close election. Gore won the majority of the overall votes cast but lost the Electoral College (271 to 267). If Gore had secured his home state (Tennessee) he would have become our 43rd president.
Bush2 v. John Kerrey in 2004 was another close election. The Electoral College numbers were 286 to 252. If Kerrey had won Ohio, he too would have become the president; and I doubt the USA would have gone to war in Iraq: over invisible “weapons of mass destruction”. Elections do have historical consequences. Voting is a civic responsibility.
John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon (1960) was another close election. Lore has it that once you subtract the dead registrants who voted from Chicago graveyards, from the total of all who voted in Illinois, then Kennedy loses. I am told that the margin of victory was one vote per precinct in all of the land. Here are the numbers so you can see for yourself how close it really was. JFK totaled 34,227,096 (49.7%). Nixon totaled 34,107,646 (49.5%). A little more than half a million votes (0.8%) went to lesser candidates.
Anyway, by now you should have caught my drift relative to what I think a close presidential election looks like. So do judge me on the morning after the election.
This year I have been taking bets that Barack Obama will get over 299 Electoral College votes. I know that Howard Gatemouth (a political analyst on”Room Eight New York Politics”-whose opinions I genuinely respect) has repeatedly said it’s a close race: but he is wrong; so too are all those talking heads (and writing fingers) out there; who continue to make serious mistakes within their analysis.
In the overview, this race is close only if Romney does something exceedingly rare and probably unprecedented: get anywhere between three of five (60%), two of three (66 %+) white voters to select him at the polls. That can only happen if there is election fraud. Democrats outnumber Republicans by too wide a margin for a phenomenon like this to go national.
Don’t forget that voters who register themselves as “Independent” make up the majority of registrants. The “Gallup” polling organization suggests that Democrats make up about 32 per cent of the registrants. They also say Republicans make up around 30 per cent. This shows that the remaining 38 per cent are those who register as “Independents”, or use some other (small party) designation on their registration form. Given these numbers, can we truly say that there has been some seismic shift toward Republicans, that hasn’t been picked up by lamestream media, social media, “nigger-gram”, the grapevine(s), the “hush-hush”, the “shoo-shoo”, gossip, and other communicative devices? Gimme a friggin break.
Is there such an undercurrent of voters- moving to the republican column- able to deliver the kind of numbers Mutt Romney needs to win? I say no. Not with all the mistakes republican- electeds all over the country have made since their 2010 midterm successes.
For all the anxious democrats who have been calling me lately, let me state (again) that the statistical models being used by near all pollsters during this cycle, is skewed against measuring the true extent of Obama’s support. The sampling of non-white voters has been structurally low.
Let me repeat: non-whites make up roughly 37 per cent of the US population. They voted at roughly a 28 per cent clip in 2008. Mark my words here: that number will be higher in 20012. Today, there are millions more registered non-whites (mainly Hispanics) than in 2008. And despite some issues within the “black vote” (I may discuss this at another time); it is still potent and will deliver more than ninety percent for Obama. Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities will give Obama a huge lead before the white votes are counted. Romney will be playing “catch-up” all day long. The non-white share of the overall voter-registration figures has gone up: and this further complicates Mitt Romney’s monumental challenge. Add to this, the fact that many prominent Republicans have made some rather insipid comments about Blacks and Hispanics over recent years, and you better get ready for “the big payback”/ a la James Brown (deceased)/ as I have said before.
Here is the problem; pollsters are going as low as 20 per cent (non-whites) in their national samplings. Plus they are having problems finding the correct categories of people to (re)construct their flawed samplings/models. They are polling inordinate numbers of seniors and republicans. This is due to changes in people’s work habits; and also in the ways they peregrinate, socialize and generally behave politically. Plus, the way people use their cell phones and land lines nowadays, have been creating some unique difficulties for pollsters again. Don’t forget the crux of my thesis has to do with “demographics”, historical voting patterns and contemporary political behavior.
I went back to 1960 in researching these articles about the current presidential race. I base my predictions on knowledge, observation, political-science theory, solid analysis, trends, guts, experience, intuition and common-sense.
The national polls are off. The state by state polls are a slightly more reliable. Any national poll that shows Romney winning by less than 5 percentage points should be taken with a grain of salt. State polls showing Romney up by only two or three points should also be held suspect: especially in places with large non-white populations. The supposed bump that Romney got after the first debate can be traced to one region of the country: the south. Whoop-dee-damn-do! This has been republican territory for as long as I have been able to walk in a straight line, and take a piss at the same time.
Since the first debate between both candidates, Obama has delivered handy wins. The second debate was an easy score, and the last debate on foreign policy was a total disaster for Romney. In that debate Obama took Romney to task and whipped him like a runaway slave. He exposed Romney as being unprepared for the position of “Number One World Leader”. The whole world was watching. Most of the voters Obama lost after his tepid performance in the first debate were regained after the third and final debate.
I have said before that no matter if Romney won all three debates the race was still over. I meant that. Recently, lots of folk have been coming around to my theories about the “demographics”. The Boston Globe recently did an article stating that Romney must win 60-61 percent of the white vote to win; even while low-balling the non-white turnout. In a recent Sunday New York Daily News guest column, Toure (MSNBC) suggested that the respected “National Review” was speculating on a similar number/need for a Mutt Romney victory.
I have already posited scenarios whereby Obama can only garner one in three white voters and still prevail: once the non-white vote inches closer to its natural demographic-share (37%). And just as I predicted, recent polls (despite their shortfalls) have Obama winning the Hispanic vote by a very wide margin. Any third-grader can do the math. Republicans will have to really steal this election to win the presidency come Tuesday 6th November.
Frederick Douglas once asked of whites in the USA, that after black slaves were freed did they expect them “to look up to whites with eyes of adulation (adoration)”. So years after being ignored and/or treated with “benign neglect” by the Republican Party, do you really think this moving demographic tide of minorities will vote republican in any significant numbers? You have to nurture voters over time. You have to show them “a little love” (as they say on the streets). The republicans failed to do this with minorities. Right now, the non-white vote is at its zenith. Let me reiterate: “chickens are coming home to roost” in this presidential election.
As long as blacks see this mulatto (Obama) as one of their own, they will vote for him in record numbers. No matter how much he ignores the hard-core black issues of the day. Many whites wouldn’t understand this relative to economic conditions, and unemployment numbers, and economic indicators, and the stock market, and GDP figures, and charts and graphs, and sales, and profit margins, and win-loss columns, and other economic jargon. With minorities this election isn’t about pocket-book issues; it’s more about symbolism and history.
Obama’s support in this demographic will even overcome the ”black homophobia” his same-sex- marriage-support-remarks set off within the black-church-going demographic. There is so much emotional and historical capital heavily invested in this half-black half-white president, that the only way he would lose is if you find him buggering a young boy; or caught with the body of a dead young girl in his basement. And that’s never going to happen; so there.
If you look deeply into most polls being released you will find that even amongst white males (Romney’s best demographic) the lead is usually around 10 percentage points. How does Romney make up ground when we all know that white women are going to give Obama a plurality of their vote?
Way back when I first entered Columbia University (1980) to study political science, the accepted theory of that time, posited this (relative to a supposedly non-existent “female vote”): ‘women vote the way the significant male-figure in their lives voted’. In other words, they usually carried the opinion(s) of their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, husbands, lovers or brothers straight into to the voting booth. This was the prevailing norm back then. Nowadays, that has changed. The “female vote” needs no male-guidance anymore. It has grown up since the dawn of “feminism”.
I know that recent polls are suggesting Mitt Romney is closing the gap in terms of females; but I am confident that when the election is over, President Obama will enjoy a double-digit edge in this demographic. Those polls just don’t make much sense.
Look; polls are useful tools for predicting political outcomes and such; but they are at best a snapshot that moves with time and dependent on many variables. Polls are best dealt with when analyzed in combinations and stockpiles over time. It is also important to deal with polls in context with what is happening in the polity at large.
Republicans have been on the wrong sides of “women’s issues” since who knows when. Even now, Romney refuses to say whether or not he would sign (as president) the Lily Ledbetter Act: which tries to secure equal pay for women who do comparably equal work with men in the workplace. Plus, he insists on defunding “Planned Parenthood”: an organization which provides yeoman service on women’s health and reproductive issues/needs. Plus he is ready to cut funding for PBS programs like “Sesame Street”. Do you folks really believe that women haven’t been paying attention?
Don’t even ask about tall that ‘rape’ talk coming from republican Neanderthals. If anyone reading this article truly believes that the majority of women are going to vote for Romney over Obama, then I have a bridge to sell you: it connects Brooklyn to the island of Manhattan.
Listen to Paul Ryan -the republican’s vice-presidential nominee- prior to joining the ticket: “I have always thought that the ‘method of conception’ has no bearing on when life actually begins”. He was referring to rape (method of conception); thus he would disallow an abortion even in the instance of a pregnancy occurring because of a rape. He even sponsored legislation in this regard. This is the man Mitt Romney chose to serve as his veep.
To go a step further: do you remember Sandra Fluke? A young woman testifies about the female need for “contraception-coverage” in health plans (before a congressional committee) and is savaged by Rush Limbaugh. Did Mutt Romney defend Ms. Fluke from Limblow’s obscene attack? The answer is: emphatically “no”. It appears that Neanderthal republican-males don’t understand the fact that contraception is on the mind of at least seven of every ten females once they get to teenage; likewise the issues around “abortions” and “choice”.
You can bet the rent on this: the majority of female voters this year will vote for Obama over Romney. Last time around women gave Obama a double-digit edge over John McCain; do you really think the Republican Party has changed for the better, relative to women’s issues?
Let me close out this column by talking a little more about the Electoral College. This election can be best understood by studying the electoral map. When you do this, even my “demographics” theories look good for Romney. The electoral map is worse. It is brutal for republican-chances of regaining the White House.
Let’s give Romney all of McCain’s 22 electoral victories (with one exception that I will later expound on). Let’s start with the 28 states Obama won last time out (plus DC). Remember he got 365 electoral votes as compared to 173 (McCain). There are roughly a dozen states in play now. Many others - like New York (29) and California (55) - are going to re-vote Obama. These are not in play in this election. In fact, pollsters hardly work most of them anymore; and Romney’s campaign won’t even try to compete in these and other states.
Let me list these states in play: Florida* (29), Ohio* (20), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), North Carolina* (15), Virginia* (13), Indiana (11), Wisconsin* (10), Colorado (9), Iowa* (6), Nevada* (6), and New Hampshire* (4). Some of these are in flux more so than others. The states next to which I placed an asterisk (*) are highly volatile. The others seem to be returning to Obama’s electoral column (bar Indiana/which will probably return to the republican fold as it has traditionally done).
If you recall a column I wrote after Obama/Biden came out for “same-sex marriage”, I told you that the two men had taken a relatively safe re-election victory, and risked it. This happened because they put into play, a few states they would have easily retained without the “complications”. I felt it was a tactical mistake to come our prior to the elections. These were the states to which I was referring: Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. I don’t think I was off in my analysis then. These states have lots of “evangelicals” who are registered and who often vote.
Recently the Log-Cabin Republicans (gays) rewarded Obama’s risqué gambit with an endorsement for Mitt Romney. This act only solidified what I have always felt: that gays are the most narcissistic of any demographic group in US society. It must have been an “E tu Brute” moment for Obama.
If you total the numbers I just laid out, you will see (after a few minor subtractions) that Obama simply needs to win Florida and/or Ohio to pull this thing off. Romney has to damn near run the table.
And then there is a state which McCain won that could spring an Obama surprise. That state is Arizona (11). I once stated that anywhere you find large non-white populations those states are problematic for Romney. Arizona’s Hispanic population has grown leaps and bounds over the past two decades. That’s why states like Nevada and New Mexico have become problematic for Repugnicans. Barry Goldwater must be turning in his grave.
Stay tuned-in folks. I have two more columns to do before the election. One will be aimed directly at the Fox News Network; the other will be on the state of New York’s politics. Let me say it again: Mitt Romney is “dead politician walking”.