'it looks like a landslide, folks...'

[mondale84]

A more likely landslide is this:

That wouldn't be a landslide...

[nhmagic]

There will be no landslides unless there's a Romney landslide (and that would be in case of polls drastically oversampling democrats, as they are).  Obama isn't getting over his 2008 victory, which was a comfortable one. 

There are only 4 possible scenarios in the election:

Obama wins a Bush 00-04 victory.  I say that because I think in this scenario, Obama actually loses states and his popular vote margin, but wins the EC.  Though under this scenario Obama loses states he won in 08 (NC, FL, IN, CO, WI)
Romney wins a Bush 00-04 style victory. Obama wins a higher popular vote share with massive urban turnout in Los Angeles, NYC, etc.  Or Romney wins by about 2.5% with all the Bush 04 states (less NM, but with Wisconsin & NH).
Romney wins a comfortable victory.  PA, MI, NJ, ME1, CT, OR
Romney wins in a landslide. (everything but CA, VT, NY, RI, IL, MD & DC)

[Donerail]

There will be no landslides unless there's a Romney landslide (and that would be in case of polls drastically oversampling democrats, as they are).  Obama isn't getting over his 2008 victory, which was a comfortable one. 

There are only 4 possible scenarios in the election:

Obama wins a Bush 00-04 victory.  I say that because I think in this scenario, Obama actually loses states and his popular vote margin, but wins the EC.  Though under this scenario Obama loses states he won in 08 (NC, FL, IN, CO, WI)
Romney wins a Bush 00-04 style victory. Obama wins a higher popular vote share with massive urban turnout in Los Angeles, NYC, etc.  Or Romney wins by about 2.5% with all the Bush 04 states (less NM, but with Wisconsin & NH).
Romney wins a comfortable victory.  PA, MI, NJ, ME1, CT, OR
Romney wins in a landslide. (everything but CA, VT, NY, RI, IL, MD & DC)

Wrong ME.

[7,052,770]

There will be no landslides unless there's a Romney landslide (and that would be in case of polls drastically oversampling democrats, as they are).  Obama isn't getting over his 2008 victory, which was a comfortable one. 

There are only 4 possible scenarios in the election:

Obama wins a Bush 00-04 victory.  I say that because I think in this scenario, Obama actually loses states and his popular vote margin, but wins the EC.  Though under this scenario Obama loses states he won in 08 (NC, FL, IN, CO, WI)
Romney wins a Bush 00-04 style victory. Obama wins a higher popular vote share with massive urban turnout in Los Angeles, NYC, etc.  Or Romney wins by about 2.5% with all the Bush 04 states (less NM, but with Wisconsin & NH).
Romney wins a comfortable victory.  PA, MI, NJ, ME1, CT, OR
Romney wins in a landslide. (everything but CA, VT, NY, RI, IL, MD & DC)

In my made-up fantasy, there only two possibilities:
-- Obama wins all 50 states
-- Obama wins all states except Utah

Isn't it more fun to ignore all polls and evidence and just pretend?

[Skill and Chance]

A more likely landslide is this:

Less EV than 2008 is not a landslide.  2008 wasn't a true landslide by 20th century standards, but there are probably 45-47% on each side that don't swing anymore, so you could say that Obama got every gettable vote in 2008.

[ajb]

For those who like to compare 2012 to 1980, don't forget that Reagan was in the lead in the polls from late May onwards, and was ahead by 20 points after the Republican convention. Carter narrowed the gap somewhat during the fall, but never closed it all the way, and Reagan's surge in the final week increased his already-existing lead, rather than moving him to the lead for the first time.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/

[LiberalJunkie]

A more likely landslide is this:

Less EV than 2008 is not a landslide.  2008 wasn't a true landslide by 20th century standards, but there are probably 45-47% on each side that don't swing anymore, so you could say that Obama got every gettable vote in 2008.

Its the closest thing u can get to a landslide with Obama.

[Badger]

Carter's people were saying the same thing this time thirty two years ago.

When Reagan ran an absolutely terrible campaign? No, not quite but revisionist history is always cute.

* * *
If your boy had simply stepped aside in January, we wouldn't be having problems right now because Romney could have ran with the type of rhetoric that would have him leading 54-44 right now.

Gee, revisionist history IS cute.

[5280]

Obama is not winning a landslide again, if he won, it would be barely above 270. Based on electoral-vote.com, tipping point state, this would be an Obama victory.

Obama - 279
Romney - 259

[AmericanNation]

yea I guess 291 could be considered a landslide, but I would probably need NH, NV, and a MI or PA to call it a "landslide". 

[Politico]

For those who like to compare 2012 to 1980, don't forget that Reagan was in the lead in the polls from late May onwards, and was ahead by 20 points after the Republican convention. Carter narrowed the gap somewhat during the fall, but never closed it all the way, and Reagan's surge in the final week increased his already-existing lead, rather than moving him to the lead for the first time.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/

Instead of using a source called "The Monkey Cage," I suggest utilizing sources such as Princeton and Gallup:


http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gallup80.jpg

Yes, at one point in 1980 Carter led Reagan by almost 30 points! The second last poll in late October, right before the debate, had Carter up 46-39. In contrast, Gallup has the race at 47-46 right now in Obama's favor although Romney is gaining traction due to the weakness on the foreign policy front and the growing disillusion with domestic Democratic rhetoric and their failure to produce the right results.

[DrScholl]

It seems the worse Romney does, the more higher right-wingers seem think his chances of winning are. Why would there be a 1980 landslide for Romney at this point? No polls are showing that happening.

[Politico]

It seems the worse Romney does, the more higher right-wingers seem think his chances of winning are. Why would there be a 1980 landslide for Romney at this point? No polls are showing that happening.

Sustained days of malaise like we are seeing today have not been seen since Jimmy Carter's heyday in 1980. Look at the above poll if you want to know why we are supremely confident. The best debater in the world would not be able to defend Obama's record and this environment. The Romney campaign has been putting unprecedented resources into preparing for the debates. The debates are going to break Obama once and for all, first on the domestic front and then on the foreign front. There will not be another left-wing president in the White House for another generation after all is said and done.

What part do you guys not get: Romney refuses to lose. The guy is Rambo. Romney and many members of his team have dedicated over half of a decade towards winning this election, and they will not lose.

[DrScholl]

These days of malaise have not been seen since Jimmy Carter's heyday in 1980. Look at the above poll if you want to know why we are supremely confident. The best debater in the world would not be able to defend Obama's record and this environment.

It isn't 1980 and Obama isn't Carter. Have you seen the polls for the current race? They don't support any landslide happening for Romney.

[Politico]

These days of malaise have not been seen since Jimmy Carter's heyday in 1980. Look at the above poll if you want to know why we are supremely confident. The best debater in the world would not be able to defend Obama's record and this environment.

It isn't 1980 and Obama isn't Carter. Have you seen the polls for the current race? They don't support any landslide happening for Romney.

What matters is where we are headed, not where we are (even though where we are is a better position than what Reagan had on September 18, 1980).

Jimmy Carter's grandson's videotape leak is only fueling the narrative Romney wants: What kind of America do we want: Obama's Big Government of American decline, or Romney's America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility?

BTW, do you guys really believe it's a coincidence that Jimmy Carter's unemployed grandson was the one involved with leaking the tape?

[Hoverbored123]

I still don't think Obama will carry more states than he did in 2008.  Does anyone think that Obama's supporters will be even more enthusiastic now than they were in 2008?  Indiana is already expected to flip Republican, and most states that went for McCain in '08 have Romney polling ahead.  

This isn't to say the Obama can't win.  It just doesn't look as favorable as 2008.  

[DrScholl]

What matters is where we are headed, not where we are (even though where we are is a better position than what Reagan had on September 18, 1980).

Jimmy Carter's grandson's videotape leak is only fueling the narrative Romney wants: What kind of America do we want: Obama's Big Government of American decline, or Romney's America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility?

I guess this is why Romney's campaign is in debt, he's paying people on the internet to push spin.

[stegosaurus]

thanks to mitt's insensitive remarks, he turned a respectable loss into a landslide.

Quick question: What percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes know that they do not pay federal income taxes?

Crazy as it may sound, Mitt may actually have a winning thread here - if only because no one will admit to being in the category that he speaks of and 'lazy non-tax payers' are an easy scapegoat.

Then again, I've been purged of all doubt as it pertains to Mitt Romney's ability to screw up an easy sell.

[Politico]

thanks to mitt's insensitive remarks, he turned a respectable loss into a landslide.

Quick question: What percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes know that they do not pay federal income taxes?

Crazy as it may sound, Mitt may actually have a winning thread here - if only because no one will admit to being in the category that he speaks of and 'lazy non-tax payers' are an easy scapegoat.

Then again, I've been purged of all doubt as it pertains to Mitt Romney's ability to screw up an easy sell.

It's probably not a coincidence that Jimmy Carter's unemployed grandson is the man behind the leaking of the tape. This may be a planned leak of the Karl Rove variety for the reasons you have outlined above. It's probably not a coincidence that Obama is at roughly 47% in the polls right now, right after the leaking of this tape (e.g., somebody asks somebody who they support, gets the answer Obama, and the snark response: "Oh, you're one of those 47%, huh?" Multiply scenarios like this a few thousand times over the next few weeks, and watch what happens nationally)

I've told you guys time and time again: There's no stopping Romney. There is a method to the madness. You didn't really think anybody could ever possibly beat "Obama The Master Politician" the traditional way, did you?

[Likely Voter]

^^^^^

Is there a hack olympics here at the Atlas. Can I nominate the above post for the gold?

[wan]

I've been keeping a watchful eye on Georgia. As of 9/17/12, it's 49%-44% for romney and this is BEFORE his "47%" blunder. Some other so-called red states have been tightening as well but Georgia is well within reach for the President.

[J. J.]

When do you think people will stop comparing every Republican candidate to Ronald Reagan and every Democratic incumbent to Jimmy Carter?

It's like they forgot about Bill Clinton and George Bush.

No, the economy was improving in 1992. 

Not in 2008.

George Bush wasn't running against Bill Clinton in 2008. 

[J. J.]

Carter's people were saying the same thing this time thirty two years ago.

When Reagan ran an absolutely terrible campaign? No, not quite but revisionist history is always cute.

* * *
If your boy had simply stepped aside in January, we wouldn't be having problems right now because Romney could have ran with the type of rhetoric that would have him leading 54-44 right now.

Gee, revisionist history IS cute.

Very much so.

Here are the real results, actually from Gallup:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/111451/late-upsets-rare-happened.aspx

What matters is where we are headed, not where we are (even though where we are is a better position than what Reagan had on September 18, 1980).

Jimmy Carter's grandson's videotape leak is only fueling the narrative Romney wants: What kind of America do we want: Obama's Big Government of American decline, or Romney's America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility?

I guess this is why Romney's campaign is in debt, he's paying people on the internet to push spin.

Ah, Romney actually has more money than Obama.  (And he got more of mine yesterday.)

[Lief 🗽]

Stop solely posting the Gallup 1980 polls. We know those exist. Those are included and averaged with other polls from 1980 here and the average shows that Reagan was in the lead from the summer until election day:

[Politico]

Gallup has always been the gold standard. 1980 was much different from today. Gallup is pretty much the only poll that mattered back then.