Forget the media's slobbering infatuation with the so-called fiscal cliff. Ominous signs indicate the nation's economy may be skidding into another recession irregardless of how the political theatre plays out in Washington.
First, no one argues the fiscal cliff presents a clear challenge. Deep budget cuts and tax increases will kick-in next year unless Congress and the president strike a deal. But Congress and the president created the crisis because they were unable to reach a compromise months ago.
With most media eyes fixed on Washington, a financial caldron is simmering unnoticed.
Businesses throughout the country are losing steam. Corporate profits during the third quarter were surprisingly weak. Only 36 percent of the companies reported earnings that exceeded investor expectations for the months July through September.
Perhaps, they doesn't sound like such a big deal. However, Wall Street economists point out the norm is for 56 percent of the companies to perform better than estimates. Even more disturbing, business revenues have dipped one percent below year-ago levels after steadily rising throughout 2012.
It's true that profits inched upward at many blue chip firms, but improvements have been generated by reductions in both costs and people. Even with the austerity measures, profits rose a scant 1.1 percent from last year's third quarter. That is the lowest business growth in three years.
The laggard results portend a dramatic economic shift. In the third quarter of 2010, companies averaged earnings growth of 36.6 percent. In 2011, the increase was 17.3 percent for the same quarter. This quarter's 1.1 percent hike pales by comparison. Business momentum has stalled.
The list of companies reporting slowing sales and revenues read like a who's who of American business. Microsoft, General Electric, McDonald's, Google, Intel, IBM and Caterpillar all delivered disappointing financial numbers.
In an omen of things to come, many companies have begun shedding jobs. Since the year began, firms have laid off 352,185 workers. In October, job cuts spiked an alarming 41 percent, according to Challenger Gray and Christmas, the nation's oldest outplacement counseling company.
Don't expect the outlook to change in the fourth quarter. A Business Roundtable survey of corporate executives found their economic outlook had plummeted to its lowest level since 2009.
Some politicians and business people have blamed the fiscal cliff for the current business slump.
Their explanation is fallacious because most businesses already assume a compromise will be reached to avoid a catastrophe, according to surveys of corporate executives. The truth is a few businesses are blaming the "cliff " to shift the responsibility for their management's poor performance.
A more plausible explanation for declining results is the impending implementation of Obama Care. Businesses are reluctant to hire and expand because of costs associated with the plan. For instance, many service, hospitality and retail industry firms are trimming employee hours to avoid the threshold that requires mandatory insurance coverage, according to workforce strategy firm Mercer.
Despite the looming crisis, Washington bureaucrats keep cranking out cheery employment and economic figures. Declining business sales and revenues are reality, not some government report. The nation's economy is sinking into its second recession in less than a decade, no matter what Washington's flattering numbers say.
Unless the business climate improves soon, the fiscal "cliff" may seem more like a mere bluff.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Election 2012: The Last Word
Ever since President Obama galloped to a second term, the nation's media and political pundits have been draping black crepe paper over the GOP brand. These nattering nitwits have declared the Republican Party is officially dead or at the least no longer relevant.
Their conclusions are based on shifting demographics and Hispanic turnout for Obama. Their theories are rooted in research showing Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. Furthermore, the Hispanic voting bloc represented a sizable advantage for the president.
No one would argue either conclusion. However, most voters shared the GOP's positions on major issues, according to some eyeopening, post-election data from Pew Research. It wasn't the Republican label that fell out of favor. Voters mainly liked Obama better than challenger Mitt Romney.
Perhaps that sounds too simplistic. But the research confirms that most of the drivel about the "lessons to be learned" from the 2012 election is misleading. Facts often have a habit of getting in the way of strongly held opinions.
Let's start with the GOP standard-bearer's political positions. Nearly 50 percent of those who voted disapproved of Obama Care, according to Pew's exit polling. More than half were opposed to an activist government. Fully sixty percent thought the economy was sick. Voters even told pollsters the economy was their top issue.
Those numbers suggest Romney should have won in a cakewalk since most voters agreed with his positions on the election's defining issues.
Conventional wisdom also has made much of the Hispanic vote, which Obama carried 71-to-27 percent. While the margin was significant, it fell short of Bill Clinton's performance in 1996 when he racked up 72 percent. However, Hispanics represented only 10 percent of total voters in this year's election, nearly the same as recent presidential races. Forty-eight percent of Hispanics did not vote.
Observers have underscored the president's gains among minorities. Little has been said about Romney's strong showing compared with John McCain's performance in 2008. Romney posted gains with men (+4 percentage points), whites (+4 points), younger voters (+6 points), Catholics (+6 points) and Jews (+9 points). That means all those groups were less supportive of Obama.
Astonishingly, Romney also carried the independent vote by a 50-to-45 percent margin. In 2008, independents were credited by many with the Obama victory. The president captured 52 percent of the independent vote while McCain managed only 44 percent four years ago.
Obama also tallied 4.2 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. On the other hand, Romney was able to pick up only 782,967 more votes than McCain, indicating Republican voters were not wildly enthusiastic about the former governor. Total voter turnout was down by 3.4 million from 2008.
All those contradictions to conventional wisdom beg the question: "Then how do you explain the Obama win?"
The election boiled down to likability. Pew found that 53 percent of voters viewed Obama favorably versus 47 percent for Romney. Throughout the campaign, Romney's favorable ratings were at historic lows for a presidential candidate, Pew Research reported.
To underscore the conclusion, consider that voters gave Obama high marks for being "in touch" with ordinary people by a 53-to-43 percent margin over Romney. That 10 percentage point gap was even more pronounced among women.
Based on that finding, it comes as no surprise that Obama won the women's vote by a decisive margin of 56-to-44 percent, according to exit interviews conducted by Gallup. Romney had an eight-percentage point edge with men, winning 54-to-46 percent. That means the gender gap was 20 percentage points, the largest ever in a presidential election claimed Gallup.
In his analysis of the data, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut commented: "...Most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP's problem. In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was..."
The chief lesson from the election can best be summed up this way: voters say issues are important, but in many cases, they cast their ballot for the person they like best.
That may be hard to swallow for political junkies. Unfortunately it is a sign of the times. People are either too busy or too lazy to study the issues and candidates in depth. Their votes too often are swayed by candidates' personality, style and charisma.
In spite of the research, political elitists will continue to sound the death knell for the Republican Party. But reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated.
The GOP is not a political dinosaur. But the party must quit nominating presidential candidates who look and act like one.
Their conclusions are based on shifting demographics and Hispanic turnout for Obama. Their theories are rooted in research showing Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. Furthermore, the Hispanic voting bloc represented a sizable advantage for the president.
No one would argue either conclusion. However, most voters shared the GOP's positions on major issues, according to some eyeopening, post-election data from Pew Research. It wasn't the Republican label that fell out of favor. Voters mainly liked Obama better than challenger Mitt Romney.
Perhaps that sounds too simplistic. But the research confirms that most of the drivel about the "lessons to be learned" from the 2012 election is misleading. Facts often have a habit of getting in the way of strongly held opinions.
Let's start with the GOP standard-bearer's political positions. Nearly 50 percent of those who voted disapproved of Obama Care, according to Pew's exit polling. More than half were opposed to an activist government. Fully sixty percent thought the economy was sick. Voters even told pollsters the economy was their top issue.
Those numbers suggest Romney should have won in a cakewalk since most voters agreed with his positions on the election's defining issues.
Conventional wisdom also has made much of the Hispanic vote, which Obama carried 71-to-27 percent. While the margin was significant, it fell short of Bill Clinton's performance in 1996 when he racked up 72 percent. However, Hispanics represented only 10 percent of total voters in this year's election, nearly the same as recent presidential races. Forty-eight percent of Hispanics did not vote.
Observers have underscored the president's gains among minorities. Little has been said about Romney's strong showing compared with John McCain's performance in 2008. Romney posted gains with men (+4 percentage points), whites (+4 points), younger voters (+6 points), Catholics (+6 points) and Jews (+9 points). That means all those groups were less supportive of Obama.
Astonishingly, Romney also carried the independent vote by a 50-to-45 percent margin. In 2008, independents were credited by many with the Obama victory. The president captured 52 percent of the independent vote while McCain managed only 44 percent four years ago.
Obama also tallied 4.2 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. On the other hand, Romney was able to pick up only 782,967 more votes than McCain, indicating Republican voters were not wildly enthusiastic about the former governor. Total voter turnout was down by 3.4 million from 2008.
All those contradictions to conventional wisdom beg the question: "Then how do you explain the Obama win?"
The election boiled down to likability. Pew found that 53 percent of voters viewed Obama favorably versus 47 percent for Romney. Throughout the campaign, Romney's favorable ratings were at historic lows for a presidential candidate, Pew Research reported.
To underscore the conclusion, consider that voters gave Obama high marks for being "in touch" with ordinary people by a 53-to-43 percent margin over Romney. That 10 percentage point gap was even more pronounced among women.
Based on that finding, it comes as no surprise that Obama won the women's vote by a decisive margin of 56-to-44 percent, according to exit interviews conducted by Gallup. Romney had an eight-percentage point edge with men, winning 54-to-46 percent. That means the gender gap was 20 percentage points, the largest ever in a presidential election claimed Gallup.
In his analysis of the data, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut commented: "...Most observers are overstating the gravity of the GOP's problem. In particular, they are paying too little attention to how weak a candidate Mitt Romney was..."
The chief lesson from the election can best be summed up this way: voters say issues are important, but in many cases, they cast their ballot for the person they like best.
That may be hard to swallow for political junkies. Unfortunately it is a sign of the times. People are either too busy or too lazy to study the issues and candidates in depth. Their votes too often are swayed by candidates' personality, style and charisma.
In spite of the research, political elitists will continue to sound the death knell for the Republican Party. But reports of the GOP's demise are greatly exaggerated.
The GOP is not a political dinosaur. But the party must quit nominating presidential candidates who look and act like one.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Thank Raymond Weeks For Veterans Day
Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Raymond Weeks, a little known World War II veteran. Weeks launched a one-man crusade 65-years ago to honor military personnel who served their country. His tireless campaign prompted Congress to officially recognize Veterans Day in 1954.
The bill signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower capped a seven-year effort by Weeks. November 11th was designated as the official observance. At exactly 11 a.m. on that day, a wreath is laid at the tomb of the unknown soldiers buried on a Virginia hillside overlooking the Potomac River.
Understanding the significance of the time and date requires a bit of background. Major hostilities in World War I ended at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 with Germany's signing of the armistice.
The day was officially crowned Armistice Day in 1926 by Congressional action. Although it is still celebrated, especially in Europe, Armistice Day has given way to Veterans Day as an official holiday for U.S. federal workers.
Armistice Day had already begun to fade from the scene when Weeks opened his campaign in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1947, he organized the very first parade to recognize war veterans in his hometown. Even then he dreamed of expanding the idea beyond his city.
His plan was not only to honor America's war dead, as Memorial Day does, but to recognize all veterans who served in the country's armed forces.
The patriotic Weeks bent the ear of every politician and military general who would listen. He struck pay dirt when he presented his proposal to Eisenhower while the general was serving as the Army's Chief of Staff. Eisenhower remembered the Alabama veteran's idea after he was elected president.
Congress passed legislation on June 1 of 1954 renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day. The historic act included this language: "...let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly" to "preserve our heritage of freedom."
The man who conceived the idea served as director of the Birmingham National Veterans Day celebration for 38 years until his death in 1985. For his noble efforts, Weeks was recognized by President Ronald Reagan, who presented him the Presidential Citizenship Medal in 1982.
Each Veterans Day should remind every American of the nation's heroes who sacrificed to serve their country, including those who gave up their lives. If you are too busy to attend a parade, tribute or a memorial service, at least take a moment to silently thank these selfless women and men.
Don't forget to also pay tribute to Raymond Weeks. He proved that an ordinary person can make a difference in the greatest country on this blessed earth.
The bill signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower capped a seven-year effort by Weeks. November 11th was designated as the official observance. At exactly 11 a.m. on that day, a wreath is laid at the tomb of the unknown soldiers buried on a Virginia hillside overlooking the Potomac River.
Understanding the significance of the time and date requires a bit of background. Major hostilities in World War I ended at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 with Germany's signing of the armistice.
The day was officially crowned Armistice Day in 1926 by Congressional action. Although it is still celebrated, especially in Europe, Armistice Day has given way to Veterans Day as an official holiday for U.S. federal workers.
Armistice Day had already begun to fade from the scene when Weeks opened his campaign in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1947, he organized the very first parade to recognize war veterans in his hometown. Even then he dreamed of expanding the idea beyond his city.
His plan was not only to honor America's war dead, as Memorial Day does, but to recognize all veterans who served in the country's armed forces.
The patriotic Weeks bent the ear of every politician and military general who would listen. He struck pay dirt when he presented his proposal to Eisenhower while the general was serving as the Army's Chief of Staff. Eisenhower remembered the Alabama veteran's idea after he was elected president.
Congress passed legislation on June 1 of 1954 renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day. The historic act included this language: "...let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly" to "preserve our heritage of freedom."
The man who conceived the idea served as director of the Birmingham National Veterans Day celebration for 38 years until his death in 1985. For his noble efforts, Weeks was recognized by President Ronald Reagan, who presented him the Presidential Citizenship Medal in 1982.
Each Veterans Day should remind every American of the nation's heroes who sacrificed to serve their country, including those who gave up their lives. If you are too busy to attend a parade, tribute or a memorial service, at least take a moment to silently thank these selfless women and men.
Don't forget to also pay tribute to Raymond Weeks. He proved that an ordinary person can make a difference in the greatest country on this blessed earth.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
How Romney Lost the Election
Most pollsters got it wrong. Many media pundits blew it. Few predicted the kind of electoral tide that swept Barrack Obama into a second term in the White House. The question on lots of Republicans' minds this morning is: How did this happen?
In his victory speech, President Obama tipped his hat to supporters and campaign workers. But he never mentioned the one group that aided his reelection more than any other: the partisan American media. If that sounds like sour grapes, the facts argue otherwise.
But Mitt Romney cannot lay all the blame at the feet of the media. His campaign never got its footing until the presidential debates, when too many voters had already made up their minds. Here is a review of what went wrong for Romney.
1. Romney Branded Early: Romney was never able to overcome the negative image created by the Obama campaign. Obama's ad blitzkrieg and the campaign's vipers nest of surrogates spent most of the summer and fall painting an ugly picture of Romney. He was too rich, too inexperienced, too out of touch. That caricature was firmly entrenched in voters' subconsciousness by the time Romney began introducing himself to the nation.
2. Romney Gave Obama a Pass: Like John McCain before him, Romney never personally attacked Obama. While the president's campaign was slinging mud, the Romney folks tried to stick with the issues. That may earn Romney praise in some quarters, but it lost him the election. Both McCain and Romney had lots of ammunition to use against Obama, but they were intimidated over being branded a racist. The last two Republican presidential campaigns are models of how to lose an election. Candidates who play nice finish last in presidential politics.
3. Media Hammered Romney: The mainstream media showed early it would abandon all pretense of journalistic fairness to plunge a dagger in Romney's chances. No sooner had Romney cinched the nomination when the The Washington Post ran a 5,400 word pseudo expose about how a teen aged Romney had pinned down a boy and cut his hair. That set the tenor for the media coverage. But it wasn't just the usual suspects (NBC, CBS, ABC). Online media was solidly in Obama's camp. That made a difference, especially with young voters.
4. Media Buried Bad News: Not only did the media bludgeon Romney, but faux journalists suppressed, twisted and misreported any hint of bad news for the Obama campaign. There was a virtual blackout in the mainstream media over the fallout from the murder of the U.S ambassador in Benghazi. The government-supported gun-running operation known as "Fast and Furious" disappeared as quickly as it became a news item. Economic and unemployment numbers, which appeared at odds with reality, were never questioned. Most Americans now may never know the truth about the stench surrounding the administration's missteps.
5. Turnout Conundrum: Final numbers are still dribbling in from the states, but an early analysis appears to indicate that Obama will grab less popular voters than he did in 2008. So how did he win? While Obama did worse among some constituencies, his campaign was successful in increasing turnout, particularly among Latinos and other ethnic groups. The Romney camp was late to the game in several states, such as Pennsylvania, that came into play during the campaign's waning days. More data will be available in the coming days, but at least initially, it appears the so-called "enthusiasm" gap for Obama was more wishful thinking than reality.
Many Republicans and independents awoke this morning with a case of election flu, including symptoms of regret, despondency and chagrin over the prospect of Barrack Obama's second inauguration.
But there is one fact that should comfort them. Four years from now, the long American nightmare will be over.
In his victory speech, President Obama tipped his hat to supporters and campaign workers. But he never mentioned the one group that aided his reelection more than any other: the partisan American media. If that sounds like sour grapes, the facts argue otherwise.
But Mitt Romney cannot lay all the blame at the feet of the media. His campaign never got its footing until the presidential debates, when too many voters had already made up their minds. Here is a review of what went wrong for Romney.
1. Romney Branded Early: Romney was never able to overcome the negative image created by the Obama campaign. Obama's ad blitzkrieg and the campaign's vipers nest of surrogates spent most of the summer and fall painting an ugly picture of Romney. He was too rich, too inexperienced, too out of touch. That caricature was firmly entrenched in voters' subconsciousness by the time Romney began introducing himself to the nation.
2. Romney Gave Obama a Pass: Like John McCain before him, Romney never personally attacked Obama. While the president's campaign was slinging mud, the Romney folks tried to stick with the issues. That may earn Romney praise in some quarters, but it lost him the election. Both McCain and Romney had lots of ammunition to use against Obama, but they were intimidated over being branded a racist. The last two Republican presidential campaigns are models of how to lose an election. Candidates who play nice finish last in presidential politics.
3. Media Hammered Romney: The mainstream media showed early it would abandon all pretense of journalistic fairness to plunge a dagger in Romney's chances. No sooner had Romney cinched the nomination when the The Washington Post ran a 5,400 word pseudo expose about how a teen aged Romney had pinned down a boy and cut his hair. That set the tenor for the media coverage. But it wasn't just the usual suspects (NBC, CBS, ABC). Online media was solidly in Obama's camp. That made a difference, especially with young voters.
4. Media Buried Bad News: Not only did the media bludgeon Romney, but faux journalists suppressed, twisted and misreported any hint of bad news for the Obama campaign. There was a virtual blackout in the mainstream media over the fallout from the murder of the U.S ambassador in Benghazi. The government-supported gun-running operation known as "Fast and Furious" disappeared as quickly as it became a news item. Economic and unemployment numbers, which appeared at odds with reality, were never questioned. Most Americans now may never know the truth about the stench surrounding the administration's missteps.
5. Turnout Conundrum: Final numbers are still dribbling in from the states, but an early analysis appears to indicate that Obama will grab less popular voters than he did in 2008. So how did he win? While Obama did worse among some constituencies, his campaign was successful in increasing turnout, particularly among Latinos and other ethnic groups. The Romney camp was late to the game in several states, such as Pennsylvania, that came into play during the campaign's waning days. More data will be available in the coming days, but at least initially, it appears the so-called "enthusiasm" gap for Obama was more wishful thinking than reality.
Many Republicans and independents awoke this morning with a case of election flu, including symptoms of regret, despondency and chagrin over the prospect of Barrack Obama's second inauguration.
But there is one fact that should comfort them. Four years from now, the long American nightmare will be over.
Monday, November 5, 2012
And The Winner Is....
There are three metrics that will determine the outcome of Tuesday's presidential election. They are, in order, turnout, turnout and turnout. With the latest polls predicting the race is virtually deadlocked, the candidate that coaxes the most supporters to the voting booths will win.
If you doubt this prognosis, look no further than the 2008 presidential race. In that election, there was a ten percentage point gap between Democrat and Republican voters. Exit polls conducted by Gallup showed Democrats made up 39 percent of total voters. Republicans represented 29 percent. The remaining 32 percent were mostly independents.
Turnout mattered to President Obama because he won nine key battleground states by less than five percent of the total votes cast. Those states were: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. Recent polling data suggests nail-biters again this election.
As further evidence of the impact, when George W. Bush nipped Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Republicans had an edge in turnout. Exit polling found 39 percent of all people who voted were Republican, while 37 percent self-identified themselves as Democrats.
Gallup's polling this time suggests that Republicans will outnumber Democrats by one percentage point (36 percent versus 35 percent). Although there are many other polling outfits, non-partisan Gallup is the gold standard with 75 years experience in global research.
Most polls, except for Gallup, have sampled more Democrats than Republicans. In other cases, pollsters have assumed Democrat turnout will surpass Republicans. That explains why most polls predict the race is tied or give a razor-thin margin to the president. But the turnout numbers are wrong.
In 2008, the turnout was the largest in American history. More than 132 million people marked ballots, representing 56.8 percent of the voting age population. That was 10.3 million more votes cast than the 2004 election, when 55.3 percent of the voting population elected to participate.
An indicator of turnout is early voting. Gallup released a new poll reporting that more Republicans than Democrats have already voted by a margin of 19 to 15 percent. People leaving the polls were asked to reveal their vote: Romney holds a 52-45 percent margin in the exit interviews.
In the 2008 election, the president fared better in early voting. Polling data asserted that Obama had a 54 to 39 percent advantage over challenger John McCain. Many Republicans, suffering from a lack of enthusiasm for the Arizona senator, stayed on the sidelines that election.
This election night watch three key states for an early indication of the likely outcome. New Hampshire, which has voted for the winning candidate in seven of the last eight presidential elections, could be a harbinger of momentum. Other early reporting states Virginia and Florida hold keys to the electoral outcome.
As results are tabulated in those states, all eyes will turn to Ohio and its 18 electoral voters. The president won Ohio last time, but benefited from a record turnout from young voters, aged 18-24. For example, voting surged 90 percent in the precinct where Ohio State University is located.
In the last 10 presidential elections going back to 1972, Ohio has voted for the winning presidential candidate. Will that trend hold true this time?
The prediction here is that Mitt Romney will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.
Enthusiasm levels for the president are flagging, even among his die hard base. The youth vote will dip below last election's record levels. Independents will swing toward the challenger. GOP voters are more energized than last election. Republican turnout will undo the president's reelection.
Romney will win the popular vote: 50.9 vs. 49.1 percent. He will claim 290 electoral votes to the president's 248. However, it would not be a surprise if Romney surpassed 300 electoral votes on his way to a landslide, ignited by the late momentum he has enjoyed.
After the election, Democrats will cry foul and dredge up all sorts of bogeymen. Expect demands for recounts. Romney voters will be branded racists. The media will claim Obama was robbed of victory. Attorney General Holder will launch an inquiry.
But it will all be in vain. President Romney will take the oath of office on January 20.
If you doubt this prognosis, look no further than the 2008 presidential race. In that election, there was a ten percentage point gap between Democrat and Republican voters. Exit polls conducted by Gallup showed Democrats made up 39 percent of total voters. Republicans represented 29 percent. The remaining 32 percent were mostly independents.
Turnout mattered to President Obama because he won nine key battleground states by less than five percent of the total votes cast. Those states were: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Colorado and Iowa. Recent polling data suggests nail-biters again this election.
As further evidence of the impact, when George W. Bush nipped Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Republicans had an edge in turnout. Exit polling found 39 percent of all people who voted were Republican, while 37 percent self-identified themselves as Democrats.
Gallup's polling this time suggests that Republicans will outnumber Democrats by one percentage point (36 percent versus 35 percent). Although there are many other polling outfits, non-partisan Gallup is the gold standard with 75 years experience in global research.
Most polls, except for Gallup, have sampled more Democrats than Republicans. In other cases, pollsters have assumed Democrat turnout will surpass Republicans. That explains why most polls predict the race is tied or give a razor-thin margin to the president. But the turnout numbers are wrong.
In 2008, the turnout was the largest in American history. More than 132 million people marked ballots, representing 56.8 percent of the voting age population. That was 10.3 million more votes cast than the 2004 election, when 55.3 percent of the voting population elected to participate.
An indicator of turnout is early voting. Gallup released a new poll reporting that more Republicans than Democrats have already voted by a margin of 19 to 15 percent. People leaving the polls were asked to reveal their vote: Romney holds a 52-45 percent margin in the exit interviews.
In the 2008 election, the president fared better in early voting. Polling data asserted that Obama had a 54 to 39 percent advantage over challenger John McCain. Many Republicans, suffering from a lack of enthusiasm for the Arizona senator, stayed on the sidelines that election.
This election night watch three key states for an early indication of the likely outcome. New Hampshire, which has voted for the winning candidate in seven of the last eight presidential elections, could be a harbinger of momentum. Other early reporting states Virginia and Florida hold keys to the electoral outcome.
As results are tabulated in those states, all eyes will turn to Ohio and its 18 electoral voters. The president won Ohio last time, but benefited from a record turnout from young voters, aged 18-24. For example, voting surged 90 percent in the precinct where Ohio State University is located.
In the last 10 presidential elections going back to 1972, Ohio has voted for the winning presidential candidate. Will that trend hold true this time?
The prediction here is that Mitt Romney will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.
Enthusiasm levels for the president are flagging, even among his die hard base. The youth vote will dip below last election's record levels. Independents will swing toward the challenger. GOP voters are more energized than last election. Republican turnout will undo the president's reelection.
Romney will win the popular vote: 50.9 vs. 49.1 percent. He will claim 290 electoral votes to the president's 248. However, it would not be a surprise if Romney surpassed 300 electoral votes on his way to a landslide, ignited by the late momentum he has enjoyed.
After the election, Democrats will cry foul and dredge up all sorts of bogeymen. Expect demands for recounts. Romney voters will be branded racists. The media will claim Obama was robbed of victory. Attorney General Holder will launch an inquiry.
But it will all be in vain. President Romney will take the oath of office on January 20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)