Six months ago, at the beginning of February, I wrote a column about President Obama and Mitt Romney's being two unelectable candidates about to face off in the general election.
There were many unanswered questions at the time, and much has transpired since, but let's take a look again at the equation.
Well, different day, same story. After all these many months, we still have two unelectable candidates running against each other. If you look at historical precedents, Gov. Romney and President Obama wouldn't be able to win this presidential election. But because they face each other, someone has to win this very tight election.
Let's take a look at President Obama. According to the latest Gallup poll ratings, his approval has been stuck at roughly 47 percent for months. No incumbent president has won re-election with an approval rating consistently in the 40s. Further, Gallup rates the direction of the country, and today it has 28 percent of Americans satisfied with how things are going, and 69 percent dissatisfied. In 2004, in that close election for President Bush, the numbers were 44 percent satisfied and 54 percent dissatisfied, a whopping net difference for President Obama of minus 31 points.
Further, the Consumer Confidence numbers that Bloomberg News tracks on consumer attitudes toward the economy and spending show the latest levels at minus 39.7. A number much more akin to President George H. W. Bush. who lost re-election (minus 42), than President George W. Bush, who won re-election (minus 5).
Now, Gov. Romney's turn. His personal ratings in the latest ABC News poll show him with a net negative of minus 9 points (40 percent view him favorably, 49 percent view him unfavorably). He finished the primary season with the lowest favorability of any nominee since ABC News-Washington Post has been doing polling the past 28 years. No nominee of a major party has won the presidency with that high a negative favorability going into Election Day.
So, where does this leave us?
First, this is some explanation for why the campaigns have conducted themselves the way they have. Neither one, it seems, can run and win on its own record or its own approval. This is why for the past few weeks, 90 percent of the television ads run by both campaigns have been negative. And this doesn't seem likely to change. It seems the message from Romney is "Fire Obama,' and from President Obama it is, "Don't Hire Romney."
Second, the electorate is almost totally polarized at this point, with Republicans solidly backing Romney and Democrats solidly behind the president. And each side is unified in its dislike for the opposing party candidate, so there doesn't look like much room to gather votes across the aisle. And so the battleground for this election will be a tiny percentage of swing voters (roughly 5 or 6 percent) who are either undecided or soft in their support; meaning this seems to be an election that is likely to stay within the margin of error all the way until November, absent a major surprise or mistake.
In February, I speculated that this might leave room for a third party. That is no longer possible because the major-party supporters are solidly behind their candidates. And I also thought that Romney might be able to adjust the equation by unifying the Republicans. He has done so, but so has the president with Democrats. So it's a wash.
Two unelectable candidates running overwhelming negative campaigns against each other will result in one's winning and one's losing in November, but with the winner unlike to have a mandate for governing or a vision that the public was behind. And with the results in congressional races likely to produce a Congress even more split, it certainly doesn't bode well for functional governing next year.
I hold out hope that in the next three months something will break this dynamic, and give us an opportunity to deal with the major issues in a positive way. But I am realistic that whoever wins the election as president might be akin to the No. 2 finisher at the Tour de France who won because the winner was disqualified.
Cross-posted from ABCNews.com.
Follow Matthew Dowd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/matthewjdowd
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Let's all write in someone else.
_____________________________________________________________
SelfCentered Commented 7 hours ago
"This game is being perfectly played. It's a game played by
psychologists. It's called guided choices. I provide someone
with a series of choices, and the person gets to choose. Down
the line, the person is doing what the psychologist had
intended them to do from the start. The person believes that
they got to choose this path. The reality is that all the
choices provided by the psychologist were choices acceptable to
him or her and crafted to guide the "subject" to the desired
behavior. We are all caught up in all this political drama.
It's stressful. It's engrossing. We all have seeming
choices. With Obama we have a cabinet full of bankers and Wall
Streeters. With Romney, we would likely have a cabinet full of
bankers and Wall Streeters. What would have really
changed? Our system of government is corrupt. We are the herd
upon which the wolves intend to feed. We may be electing one
of our own sheep, but that sheep is definitely being told what
to do by one of the wolves. Legitimacy of our government
should be called into question at some point. It will
ultimately occur in one way or another."
ROCKY ANDERSON 2012
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/
Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets
That was before the SCOTUS "Citizens United" decision
The second problem is that ballot access laws have been rigged by the two-party duopoly to make it almost impossible for independenÂt or third-partÂy candidates to get on the ballots:
http://www.freeandequal.org/2009/06/ralph-nader-ron-paul-agree-ballot-access-laws-are-rigged-against-independent-third-party-candidates/
Ralph Nader & Ron Paul Agree: Ballot Access Laws are Rigged Against IndependenÂt & Third Party Candidates | The Liberty Voice
http://rangevoting.org/Strangle.html
RangeVoting.org - Stranglehold of 2-party domination
Even the Green Party doesn't have ballot access in all states:
http://www.gp.org/2012/ballot-access.html
Ballot Access - 2012 Presidential Campaign
There was more turnover in the Soviet Politburo than in the U.S. Congress
There is some progress:
http://www.freeandequal.org/2011/04/ballot-access-reform-bills-in-16-states-nation-wide/
Ballot access reform bills in 16 states nation-wide | Free And Equal
Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
If I remember correctly, in A Tale of Two Cities, the 1%ers lost --- and they lost big.
Now is the time for third parties to start working at all levels. Will they win the presidency in 2012? Almost certainly not. However they CAN start to make a difference. The the more of a difference they make the more "viable" they become to that 60%.
Think it won't matter in the long run? Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. Think HE doesn't matter? THAT'S what we have to gain with third parties.
A joke: "Why are there only two candidates for president when there are 50 for Miss America"?