Obama’s Numbers No president in recent decades, and perhaps no president ever, has been in such a miserable position a year before the election

Obama’s Numbers

By J. R.
Dunn

I’ve run into a rather strange and obnoxious trope in
various comment threads over the past few weeks.  A usually anonymous poster
wails that there’s no point in campaigning against Obama due to the fact that he
has a certain percentage of the vote “locked up.”  This is generally stated as
around 40%, sometimes the lone figure, sometimes “35 to 40%.”  Whatever the
case, the poster announces that all Obama needs is to pick up 11% and he’s got
in it the bag.  And, you know, Rahm and George will take care of that for him,
so why bother?

Never is the number explicitly broken down into
discrete groups.  No details are offered, no references given.  At the most, a
vague reference is made to ACORN or Chicago graveyards as the source of such
votes.  (I suppose they could be thinking of O’s favorability rating, which is
around 40%, [Whoops! It’s been heading down], but they don’t say so, and no
direct correlation exists between “favorability” and actual
votes.)

There being no point in arguing over assumptions, we
will instead examine actual numbers derived from the real world.  Out here,
liberals constitute about 20% of the voting population.  This is a solid number,
confirmed by several polling organizations including Gallup, Pew, and
Rasmussen.  While the exact figure has varied from 18% to 21%, it always within
one or two points of the one-fifth total.  The liberal vote is slowly sliding
toward extinction.  (In case you were wondering, the conservative vote is around
40%.)

But not even this represents a guaranteed vote for
Obama, since the more radical liberal-leftists are annoyed with him for
not being liberal enough — Bush and Cheney were not hanged, and that awful
Palin woman is still gadding about on television.  But we’ll put this aside,
since, as liberal pundits have taken to saying over the past few weeks, they’ll
vote for Obama because they have no place else to go.

Other blocs awarded to Obama include blacks, Jews,
Hispanics, and the youth vote.  (We’ll ignore all claims of a “welfare vote,”
there being no such thing.)  Many of these voters would be included under the
“liberal” fifth and should not be counted separately.  But we’ll overlook that
factor since, as results will show, it’s scarcely relevant.

Dick
Morris
has kindly done the spadework for us here, analyzing
several recent Fox polls dealing with Obama’s favorability ratings.  According
to Fox, Obama’s popularity among young voters and Hispanics has dropped to 44%.
That is, just above the general level of 39%-40%.  It is clear that O has lost a
large proportion of whatever manna he possessed with these groups.  That will
inevitably be reflected in the vote.

As for the Jewish vote, Bob Turner’s epochal victory
in NY-9 reveals it to be in play, in large part due to Obama’s disdain for
Israeli security.

But of course he can depend on the black vote…can’t
he?  Incredibly, even that most monolithic of American voting blocs has begun to
crack in recent weeks.  A September 20 Washington Post story
reports
that Obama’s “strongly favorable” rating among blacks has fallen from 83% to
58%.  This is astonishing — most blacks have shown a devoted loyalty to
Democratic candidates of whatever background since the New Deal era.  That this
bond should begin to fray under the tenure of the first black president is a
topic that should get more attention than it is likely to
receive.

But what of Obama’s most critical bloc — the
independents?  It was independent voters who put him over the top in 2008,
breaking for him in a big way during the last weeks of the election.  Could the
same happen in 2012?  Not according to a recent McClatchy/Marist poll,
which found that independents intend to vote against Obama by a margin of 53% to
28%.  These numbers can only get worse for Obama.  In 2008, he pulled them in
due to the excitement of the moment, all the media-bred “messiah” nonsense.
There is no excitement surrounding Obama in this race.

So we can put aside all notions of O commanding a
winning or even near-winning percentage of the vote.  In fact, we can put aside
more than that.  The same McClatchy/Marist poll quoted above also found that 49
percent to 36 percent definitely plan to vote against him, and 52 to 38 percent
expect him to lose, no matter whom he’s running against.

The point is this: Obama at the beginning of the
election cycle explicitly controls no single voting bloc.  Not one of the blocs
that went his way so avidly in 2008 remains unquestionably in his corner.  Far
from it — a near-majority fully intends to vote against him.  This is
unprecedented in American presidential politics.  No president in recent
decades, and perhaps no president ever, has been in such a miserable position a
year before the election.

Can he pull out of it?  Anything’s possible, but it
seems unlikely.  It’s hard to see exactly what accomplishment would turn things
around for him.  Though lucky enough to have Osama bin Laden killed on his
watch, he derived no more than a flea-sized bounce from that victory.  Short of
his defeating the King of the Morlocks in single combat, it’s not at clear what
actions would benefit him.

Another widely-discussed scenario involves Obama
taking the LBJ route — that is, stepping aside for the good of the country and
allowing someone else to take up the party standard.  There are two problems
with this: Obama’s narcissism and the simple fact that the white establishment
cannot ask the first black president to do any such thing.  Even if he agreed,
public perception would be that the black man had once again been given the
short end, with both black and true-believer leftist voters sitting out the
election in protest.  No, this particular albatross could not be more firmly
attached.  There is no simple way for the Democrats to avoid taking the
hit.

Lastly, as I have mentioned before, and it deserves
repeating, paid left-wing trolls do not appear on our comments pages simply to
insult and argue, though they do plenty of both.  They also log on to insert
disinformation intended to create confusion and sow despair.  This appears to be
such a case.  Do not hesitate to call such people out, even if only to demand
the source of their numbers.  Since there is no source, what you will get in
return is the customary bile, which will hurt no one and, if nasty enough, will
be intercepted by our sterling moderator staff.  We face the prospect of a very
dirty campaign, one that will be fought out as much on our sites as anywhere
else.  We must not let them utilize AT — or any other conservative site — as a
transmission belt for left-liberal disinformation.

J.R. Dunn is consulting
editor of
American
Thinker.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: