For the better part of this year, the president has enjoyed a sometimes small and sometimes significant lead in most surveys. And while most polls show him ahead of his Republican rival, only a handful have shown him at or near 50%, a danger sign for an incumbent.
I have long speculated that his support may be particularly soft. Four months ego, looking at the NJ/Allstate poll, Ed Morrissey found this tidbit in the NJ/Allstate poll, “Even with a skewed sample with an eight-point advantage for Democrats, only 27% of men and 32% of women say they will definitely vote for Obama in 2012, and only 31% overall.”
Could the Obama campaign’s internals show something similar, support not strong, but quite soft, with fewer than 40% of Americans certain to vote for the Democrat’s reelection? On Sunday, commenting on news about the significant sum the Obama team has spent on polling, I observed:
Even though the incumbent has generally enjoyed a slight edge in polling over his presumptive Republican rival in the race for the White House, he has not been campaigning as the frontrunner and does not seem confident on the campaign trail.
Earlier today, on Investor’s Business Daily, Andrew Malcolm offered something similar, questioning the “conventional wisdom”, i.e., the suggestion that “the real political battle these next 102 days is for a slim middle of self-defined, so-called independents“:
But is this perhaps a false deadlock? There’s a growing suspicion among conservatives — and a latent fear among Obamaphiles — that another significant bloc of voters is hidden like double agents within the Democrat’s camp.
These are voters who still say they support Obama with apparent conviction, much like those Wisconsin voters last month who so badly skewed the recall’s exit poll results by saying, you betcha, they voted the union way against Gov. Scott Walker. But, in truth and in secret, they did not.
. . . .
The remaining loyal Obama supporters are so invested in their guy they’re reluctant to turn on him publicly, to admit they were wrong or naively misled by a Chicago machine pol. But they are genuinely, if clandestinely, disappointed in his lack of performance and leadership, his stunningly harsh rhetoric for a professed uniter, and are susceptible to changing their secret vote. Or maybe simply staying home on Nov. 6.
Note sure if he’s right, but there are signs suggesting a significant softness among Obama’s supporters.
I’m not sure if *soft* is the word to describe it. You wouldn’t say his support is *hard* either. Have you seen some of these Obama supporters? They look like they’re at a Justin Bieber concert entranced and dumbfounded.
My take is that the secret to winning the election is to get the pro-growth Democrats.
Your comment that Obama’s support is soft and could be below 40% overall. That seems way off the mark as the low water mark of any election is 40%, and that is only in a very few cases. Goldwater and McGovern both received around 38% of the vote, and Carter got 41%. But recall that Anderson had 7%, and most of that would overwhelmingly gone for the Democrat. Most elections occur in the 45-55% margin, so the lowest I see His Majesty receiving is around 46% of the vote.
Start with the black vote. If Obama is losing any significant amount of the black vote it will be a bellwether for all other groups. I make this “potentially racist” observation based on how readily so many of the Obamanauts throw the race card. If the traditionally Democrat blacks are willing to walk away that is important. But they are not just walking away, they are deciding not to support the first black president. That throws the “race card” under the bus, because part of the “race card” theory claims that blacks can not be racists. Therefore, a black walking away is a non-racist who has had enough of Obama. That is seminal. It sends a lot of signals.
Naturally, the majority of “can’t-be-racist” blacks and their “we-aren’t-racists” allies will be evermore fervent in protecting Obama precisely because he is the first black president.
If Obama’s support among blacks drops below 90% and/or a significant amount of “energy” among them for Obama’s reelection is evident, that would be a major indication that Obama’s support is significantly softer than surveys suggest.
Furthermore, it is worth noting who Obama is targeting in his campaigning and who he has let slide. He is primarily after the young, the welfare crowd, the government worker and the disaffected who want more “guarantees” and “entitlements” from the state. With so many on food stamps and not paying income tax and depending on unemployment, Obama has decided to plow that fertile field for his votes.
This is the major “tipping point” election. It will decide whether we catch up with and pass Greece or we wake up and take on the hard work and pain of restoring order to our fiscal health. Nearly half the nation is living on a credit card on which they do not have to make payments. Obama promises to keep the card going and to raise the limits and provide more goodies. That is the “enthusiastic” core constituent he is energizing. There is even far more gold for him in farming the Hispanic underclass and getting them on the credit card merry-go-round.
His campaign is typical Marxist chicken in every pot demagoguery in which the grown-ups are painted as hard, cold villains.
Alan sees some Obama supporters as being entranced and dumbfounded. That is what taking hits with a bong will do to you.
I think the white guilt is gone. They voted for him once out of guilt hoping that he he could pull it off. I don’t think that is going to happen again. Up here in Maine, the number of Obama bumper stickers is way, way down. I live and travel in the southern (more liberal) part of the state.
If his support is not soft, what other explanation for all the negative Obama ad’s I’m seeing on network and cable TV here in bluest of blue San Francisco Bay Area? Should his campaign have to be spending heavy advertising bucks in an market that should be his without any effort? There is no explanation for this huge expenditure of funds other than very soft internals. I suspect his campaign knows that lots of former supporters plan to stay home this November.
Further to my above comment, it is now 8:30pm on Saturday, July 28, and I have just seen the Romney sings negative ad SEVENTEEN times since 3:00pm today. SEVENTEEN times!!!! WTF is going on?
John in Dublin:
I’ll SEE your SEVENTEEN times since 3:00pm and raise you a “not only have I seen the negative ads for President Downgrade, but I have YET TO SEE A SINGLE ROMNEY AD.” And I live in the Portland, OR metro area, ftw.
Somebody in the Urkel campaign has read the tea leaves, and they are WORRIED.
GOOD!
Bastiat Fan, the reason you haven’t seen any Romney ads yet is campaign finance laws. Until he becomes the official nominee at the convention, he can only spend those funds he raised for the primaries. Also, why would a smart candidate spend money in markets where he knows he has no chance?
Nate Silver just did a post about 2 polls in Ohio, one putting Obama 9 points up and another putting him 3 points up.
He failures to mention, however, that the poll putting Obama 3 points up has to oversample Democrats by +8 vs. Republicans and the one putting him 9 points up won’t even release it’s methodology or numbers.
100 days left. Despite being a registered libertarian I registered to make phone calls for Romney today. Time to jump on board with the lesser of two ass clowns, I suppose.