It's quite depressing. Obama's massively ahead, the election is over, Romney and Ryan stand no chance.
Of course, that is, until you realize that is untrue. In fact, Obama should be even more worried now than before the convention.
At this point he has practically no chance of losing unless some unforeseeable calamity arises. He is ahead in every state that he won in 2008 except perhaps Indiana, in which he did practically no campaigning this year. (The Gravis poll in Virginia is unreliable)
It is Mitt Romney who is in the bad spot with few chances to win, all of them depending on several longshots going well for him. He gambles on those longshots at the risk of losing states that might now seem safe for him. That's an even worse position than John McCain was in last time.
The reduced bounces indicate that people were not watching the Party conventions as they did in 2008. After all, 2008 involved to candidates, one trying to distance himself from a failed President and one who could have hardly been a more complete rejection of the failed President of the time. If people wanted a dramatic change from what they perceived as a failed President, then they would have tuned intently to speeches by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney as they did to Ronald Reagan in 1980. They probably watched baseball games instead. Ratings were higher for the Democratic Convention than for the Republican Convention.
This ain't 1980. People want more of the same -- at least from the President.
Mitt Romney has shown what he is, and he has not captivated the American public. He has had plenty of opportunity to offer himself as a viable alternative to President Obama. At that he has failed.
PPP and Quinnipiac have gone to likely-voter polling. Such is less generous to President Obama... but he still wins. Note well that the Obama campaign will seek to bring out new voters and turn not-so-likely voters who lean toward him to the polls. "Likely voters" is his floor. The most recent credible polls (Gravis is not credible) show President Obama ahead in every state that he won in 2008 except Indiana.
Note well that such a lead hides the fact that President Obama is likely ahead by smaller margins in the many states that he is wining than he is behind in the states that he is sure to lose. The States elect the President; the people do not. People in Oklahoma are unlikely to convince people in Minnesota to vote for Romney.
Except in late-season collapses, the undecided usually go ineffectively toward the loser. The key point is that no incumbent President wins more than about 60% of the vote. A incumbent winning 55% or more of the vote is usually poaching voters on the opposite side of the political spectrum (FDR '36 or '40, Eisenhower '56, Johnson '64, Nixon '72, and Reagan '84) approaches the limit. Undecided voters tend to vote as their partisan inclinations have them vote. Eisenhower was obviously picking up many liberal votes in 1952 and 1956.
Enthusiasm for Romney seems to have collapsed. Turnout this year will be much more than that of 2010. The student vote aligns itself after the fall semester is underway. Ratings for Romney -- which would have been higher if people were enthusiastic toward him or at least desirous of defeating Obama -- bode ill for him.
1936 could be more relevant. What matters more is a recent memory of the collapse of the American economy attributed to an earlier Administration.
In your mind. You can't understand how many see President Obama as the best President that they could now have. I knew lots of people back in 1984 who couldn't imagine anyone voting to re-elect Ronald Reagan because he was so awful. That is what one calls an 'unrepresentative sample'.
They will probably seal this election.
