The In Box prediction: Obama will win
So all year I’ve been talking about what looks to me like a systemic Barack Obama advantage in the electoral college. In the interest of good old fashioned hanging it all out there, I’m going to offer my analysis of what will happen on election day, one week from now.
Let me say first that I wouldn’t do this if I thought my views were even remotely important enough to matter. I wouldn’t dream of predicting the outcome of local races, for example. But I take comfort in this discussion about national politics in my own big-picture irrelevance.
Let me say also that this analysis does not reflect my own opinion about who should win. NCPR does not endorse candidates, nor does the In Box, nor do I. This is my read of the facts on the ground, not my personal wish list.
Those footnotes out of the way, here’s my prediction: On election day, the ground game advantage that Barack Obama’s campaign has been bragging about will turn out to be real.
I’ve looked closely at the reporting and the facts surrounding their argument and I find it to be credible and significant. Obama’s campaign built a revolutionary level of voter data in 2008 and those contacts have been enhanced and developed over the four years since.
Republican efforts at voter suppression will have served, ironically, to mobilize black and Hispanic communities that might otherwise have remained fairly complacent in this dreary, uninspiring election year.
Romney’s team, meanwhile, has done a credible, aggressive job of playing catch-up, but his campaign was plagued until very recently by dissatisfaction among party faithful, by a more balkanized political machine (relying more on state party organizations), and by the pressure of the calendar.
During the primaries and for many weeks after, Team Romney simply lacked the resources, the discipline and the focus to match the kind of ground work that Obama’s campaign has done.
If I’m correct in this assessment, liberal and younger voters in urban areas, along with African American and Hispanic voters, will turn out in numbers that will be slightly ahead of the “likely voter” models that most pollsters are using. Team Obama will also capitalize on small but significantly superior early voting efforts in battleground states.
This effort will give Obama a razor-thin margin in the popular vote, and will give him a significant victory in the electoral college. To hit this mark, Obama will win the states that are now essentially tied, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia.
Obama’s margin will be extremely narrow in a surprising number of places — Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin — but he will eke out wins.
Romney’s campaign will have accomplished essentially what John Kerry managed in 2004: He will have pushed close to parity with a sitting president in many, many battleground states, without closing the deal — through argument or ground-game organization — in enough places to win.
One caveat: I’ll stick with my prediction, and take lumps or praise on election day accordingly, but I want to toss out one significant possibility. It remains plausible that the polls just have it wrong.
Currently, Obama leads or is tied with Romney in every battleground state except Florida and North Carolina. (In Florida, the difference is well within the margin of error.)
But it may be that across much of the nation, weary, frustrated and nervous white voters will simply turn away from Obama when they reach the privacy of the booth.
I’m not suggesting that this rejection of the incumbent would be based solely on his race, though I think for many Americans race remains a significant and poorly understood factor in political decisions.
What I mean is that soft Democrats, many independents and late undecideds who are uncomfortable telling pollsters that they won’t vote for Obama may, at the moment of truth, just be more at ease in this stressful time with Mitt Romney — a guy who looks the part of a traditional president.
If this happens, we could certainly see a complete reversal of what I’ve predicted here. We could see a lot of states in the Great Lakes Region, the Rust Belt, and the border South (Florida, Virginia) tipping to the Republican.
Again, that’s not a hedge, just another plausible scenario. Come election day, score my prognostication skills against this mark: Obama wins the popular vote 49%-48% and he captures the electoral college by a 332-206 margin.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.png)
Many say that Republicans are in favor of voter suppression and that Democrats are in favor of letting non-citizens vote. I think both charges are ridiculous.
Larry – few republicans are in favor of voter suppression. They are in favor of policies that lead to voter suppression.
Back in the old days laws were made to require voter literacy. They were based on “justifiable” rationales, but resulted in voter suppression. Many people believed that these laws were reasonable, but deep down they were probably designed to suppress votes – in this case votes of illiterates – mainly African Americans who werent provided an education.
Earlier laws required ownership of property (and being a male).
JDM-
Half of all American women do not have a birth certificate or social security card with their current last name.
I understand your pronouncements reflect your experience and little else. Do you?
Come on Peter, let’s not start splitting hairs again. My point was this: Democrats accuse Republicans of voter suppression and Republicans accuse Democrats of allowing anyone to vote and I think both charges are ridiculous. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, it’s a big noise about nothing.
brian is right. romney is losing. why else are they telling crazy lies in their ads in ohio? why else are they making hail mary media buys in michigan and pennsylvania? why else would a florida gop operative be writing:
(sorry, should have specified that the last bit is about numbers from palm beach county, florida.)
I can’t drop off garbage at the landfill without proving my residence.
I can’t buy a beer in the price chopper without showing my license, which is then entered into the register’s transaction.
I do not think its wrong to ask for id when voting. if we are gonna ask for id for anything, it might just should be asked for when voting, considering the importance.
What if you never buy alcohol, and you have garbage service?
The Founding Fathers were never asked for picture ID, they considered their word of honor to be sufficient but they allowed penalties for those who cheated. It has seemed to work pretty well until now.
As an American citizen, I do not relish the thought of having to produce identification to prove it. I also do not like the idea of any sort of national ID card. It is bad enough already, as many have noted. If that means that some non-citizens manage to vote, so be it. This is the USA, not Nazi Germany.
Well Will, ,your inability to distinguish sarcasm from satire and lack of familiarity with common forms of identification used by govt agencies along with your elitist tone suggest that liberal journalists are the big boobs they’ve always seemed to be. There is absolutely no reason a form of ID could not be developed for voter ID. What’s more, there is no good reason not to do it. The reason against it mentioned here are ludicrous. It all comes down to the left not wanting legal voters ID’d. That simply begs the question- why not? There can be only one answer, because they don’t want the illegal voters exposed. That brings anyone with any common sense to the conclusion that they are up to no good.
I am so tired of the unfounded conspiracy theories about voter fraud. Think about it for a moment: if you really wanted to organize an effective voting fraud don’t you think someone would notice the busloads of illegals on their way to the polls or the vast numbers of citizens being denied access to the polls? It would be far more effective to suborn a member or members of the Board of Elections and have them falsify the totals. Even at that, could you influence a key state, or even a key county without being found out? Doubtful.
..Knuck-
Ben Franklin had not yet laid claim to have discovered photograhy, so…. :)
If you are who you say you are,then there need be no worry.
Larry is right. If you are trying to get a particular candidate elected wouldn’t it be easier to just go to the voter lists and get voters registered to your party to vote than to try to find people to vote illegally?
It would make a good Saturday Night Live episode though, Illegal Voting Night School: Where you learn the Right Way to do Wrong.
Well, everyone knew Franklin. His picture was on the 50.
Will one of you voter ID supporters please show us an example of people who have voted illegally? What is happening in your heads? Do you think the Democrats have buses full of Latinos that they take from polling place to polling place on Election Day, voting under the names of other people who they somehow know are registered in that polling place? Do you know what kind of organization and operation that would take? Do you think that could be happening and nobody would’ve talked about it by now? It’s ridiculous. People voting under other people’s names — i.e., the kind of fraud voter ID laws would prevent — is a NON-EXISTENT PROBLEM!!
What can be demonstrated, and has been demonstrated multiple times, including by some of the commenters here, is that voter ID laws place a burden on hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of 100 percent legal voters, and that the voters who would be affected are disproportionately poor, minority and vote Democratic.
If there was a real problem you were trying to address, it might be different. But you’re not. You’re buying into vague propaganda and fears about voter fraud and using it to pass laws that will strip away the rights of your fellow citizens.
Well put Larry. I saw some of the other comments, got annoyed and scrolled down to write something without seeing you’d said the same thing just as well.
Well what we have is a rickety bad voting system, we CAN’T count votes with accuracy. Thus we never really know the outcomes of elections down to an individual vote. Given that, its not crazy to worry a little about the system in general.
What this really is bringing up is that unlike most other western industrialized countries, we have no idea how many people are citizens of this country with any finite accuracy in that we don’t have any sort of registry of citizens and any one document that proves citizenship. Which is fine as long as people are willing then to accept that we have no real way of enforcing immigration law with any accuracy or fairness.
But whenever you have a crappy underfunded voting system like we do, yeah it IS open to abuses. I don’t think it is happening on a broad scale, I do think it has happened however, the case that comes to mind is probably the Minnesota election of Senator Franken which had an impact on national political outcomes.
If you don’t want a standardized citizenship identification card that is fine, but that means you cannot enforce most immigration law with consistency or without blatent racial or ethnic prejudice. So no one can really prove or disprove they are a citizen, that is what not having a registry of citizens means. If this is true and I think it is is, on what basis are we enforcing our immigration laws, beyond the fact that someone “looks” Mexican? Certainly without this system you cannot tell anyone they can’t vote.
Mervel, do you think it is impossible that the state that would elect Jesse “the Body” Ventura (I wonder what name is on his birth certificate?) as governor would elect Al Franken too?
“1. At a moment when most political advertising is reduced to clutter, Obama is receiving priceless optics time due to Sandy. I know, I know, this shouldn’t be about politics, but it is. Chris Christie is one of Mitt Romney’s chief campaign surrogates and he’s calling Obama “outstanding.””
I totally agree. To think that an election would hinge on this is ridiculous.
I disagree. This is exactly the sort of thing people should think about when making a decision on who to elect; who do you trust to make good judgements about the size and scope of government and their style and leadership?
Lots of the other stuff that has been talked about and advertised for the last year or so is the wrong stuff for an election to hinge on. Why should elections only be about decisive social issues?
Stupid auto-correct… Divisive.
I’m reposting this comment since it’s still stuck awaiting moderation due to a list of links I provided-
As far as voter suppression, I’m sure we all recall the Black Panthers standing at polling places with clubs in hand. If that’s not voter suppression, what is? I’m sure no of you people would support the idea of KKK goons with clubs and sheets standing at polling places. Do you all really believe that Chicago style politics didn’t come to the WH? Vote early, and vote often!
I do remember that. It was two guys standing in front of one polling station in Philly saying racist stuff. Not right, but nothing you could even compare to the voter suppression that takes place with voter ID laws. If someone walking up to that polling station felt truly threatened, they could’ve called the cops. They didn’t. Trying to draw some sort of equivalence between two jerks hanging out outside one polling station and a governmental effort to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who mostly vote one way is ridiculous.
FYI, Pew’s excellent research team has released a report that questions my assumption that Obama’s ground game in key states will prove superior to that of Romney’s team.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/31/in-deadlocked-race-neither-side-has-ground-game-advantage/
–Brian, NCPR
Marlo, they did call the cops and it was a lot more than one polling station. The Obama/Holder Justice Dept refused to prosecute at all!
Requiring ID is no more disenfranchisement than requiring ID to cash a check or buy beer is. It’s a ridiculous argument that reeks of corruption and malfeasance.
I don’t know it seems like kind of a minor issue, most people have ID. Frankly its not crazy to ask someone for some sort of proof of who they are before they vote, its a very hard case to make to not want that to happen and its not “voter suppression” it is a normal thing in western industrialized countries and a logical thing. How do you know someone is not voting in your place? It’s very basic and frankly no big deal.
Wikipedia only says there was one polling station, Crabtree. Where were the others?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
While it is true that the Obama administration decided not to proceed with the civil case, the Bush administration investigated first and decided not to press criminal charges.
That was the case that went to court. At the time there reports of other polling places with the same thugs. And, they returned in 2010 if you’ll bother to look.
The case never came to DOJ review until 2009 when Holder dropped it. And the courts ruled that Obama political appointees obstructed int he case- http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-court-finds-obama-appointees-interfered-with-new-black-panther-prosecution/article/2503500
So are there really places in the US you can just show up never having voted before and having NO id at all and say I am mervel rancid crabtree and I want to vote????
Or better yet if I had someone I didn’t like I would just go vote and say I was them and of course vote how I know they would NOT want to vote. Come on allowing people to vote with no ID is insane.
In order to misrepresent yourself as someone else at the polls you need to know their name, address, if they are registered to vote, where they vote (in larger communities) and whether or not they have already voted. Then, if the election workers don’t know you or the person you claim to be and decide not to challenge you (as it is their right to do), you might succeed. I find it difficult to believe this could happen on a large scale.
I’ve never voted anywhere that I had to show ID. I have always been a registered voter, and identification consisted of signing my name, and the signature being compared to the one that was on file from my registration.
I really don’t recall how I identified myself when I registered. But we’re talking about laws that require voter ID at the time of voting. Why doesn’t the signature suffice? There have been stories about people who have voted at the same place for decades, who are suddenly being required to provide ID. And this is a “solution” to virtually non-existent fraudulent voting.
Larry, it’s pretty simple. You peruse the obits for a couple months and use the names and addresses. Signatures? Really, “I had a slight stroke 6 months ago, I don’t have the muscle control anymore.” Who would argue? And of course there are other ways of influencing voting. The NAACP just took over a Houston polling station with no argument from the poll workers. Those voicing concern were told they “had orders from downtown” to let the NAACP do as they wished. Meanwhile, threats of violent riots are growing from minority rabble rousers who promise social unrest if Obama loses. Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time Friday said- “If you’re thinking about voting for Mitt Romney black people know who you are and they will come after you”. So now it’s threats from HBO too. Painting all this as non-existent fear mongering is both inaccurate and dishonest. From the Black Panthers to SEIU thugs to leftist celebrities to the DOJ, you can’t close your eyes to this anymore than you can close your eyes to the racially motivated death of James Bird some years back. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Rancid,
I have to disagree with you on the issue of widespread voter fraud. I honestly believe that it does not exist. Certainly, any instance of voter fraud should be taken seriously, but I just don’t think there’s enough there on a national level for concern. At the local level there are enough concerned citizens of both major parties on duty to ensure compliance with the law. The sensational reporting about the “Black Panthers” seems to have stemmed from an incident in 2008 involving two individuals (one of whom was an accredited poll watcher) outside one polling place. As has been noted in other threads on this blog, “news” outlets will stop at nothing to get ratings.
Rancid, that “NAACP just took over a Houston polling station” story seems to exist nowhere except a single conservative website. Funny how no reliable news sources have reported on it.
And Bill Maher is a standup comic. Jeeze! It was a joke. You know, like comics tell for a living?
Painting all this as non-existent fear mongering is, in fact, quite accurate. It’s like the lefty sites that were reporting that Tagg Bush had bought all of Ohio’s voting machines.
There’s a lot of absurd stuff floating around the web. Don’t believe the hype unless you see it somewhere that deserves a modicum of respect.
Rancid, where are these reports of other polling places with the same thugs? Show us the reports. As for the case not being reviewed by the DOJ until 2009, you’re just wrong. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION reviewed it first and decided not to press criminal charges. Did you read the link?
Actually Walker, if you’ll do a little looking you’ll find the story is based on a sworn statement by a witness and is being reported at a number of sites including Drudge, Breitbart, The Blaze, The American Thinker, TownHall.com, etc. They all deserve respect IMO. Such sources as MSNBC, Democrat Underground, Daily Koz, etc, not so much. I’m sure there will be more investigation in the coming days. Bill Maher isn’t a comedian, he’s a pundit. Some people actually listen to him, just as there is a large number of people that get their “news” from Stephen Colbert and John Stewart.
I have a feeling if the charges were that a bunch of camouflage clad Tea Partiers had taken over the Houston polling station you’d buy it 100%.
Rancid, Drudge, Breitbart, The Blaze, The American Thinker and TownHall.com are all repeating the story from the same single source, they’re not doing any reporting. Five websites repeating the same information they got from the same source doesn’t make it more plausible. In this case, the only source is Ms. Rockford, who, if she even exists, is a volunteer with an organization that makes outlandish claims about the extent of voter fraud and spends much of its time challenging voting registrations of students and minorities that turn out to be valid. I’m going to need a bit more than her word on this.
Really Marlo? So if, say, The Daily Koz reported that a poll watcher from Media Matters, MoveOn.org or the NAACP reported a white guy wearing a Gadsen Flag shirt (Don’t Tread on Me) was doing the same thing, and then it got reported on The Daily Show, Democrat Underground, etc. you wouldn’t give it any credence? I don’t think so. And FWIW, the poll workers themselves are now responding to the story and it’s getting investigated along with several other stories about voter irregularities.
I’m absolutely certain that should Obama lose this race there will be charges of voter fraud surfacing that will be supported by some here, the same ones that say it’s all a farce now.
Mrs R
Well, Mrs. R., all I can say is that when Addicting Info reported that Tagg Romney had bought all of Ohio’s voting machines, I searched for corroboration from more reliable sites; I never found any, and dismissed it.
As for what will happen the day after the election, it seems absolutely certain that there will be allegations of voter fraud no matter who wins, and some of it will have a grain of truth to it. Whether any of it will prove to be of any real significance will take some time to sort out.
Um, no. Five websites repeating the same thing derived from a single source doesn’t make me give it any more credence than if it was on one or wo websites. That a half dozen conservative websites have repeated the same suspect story means nothing.