Predictable History, Unpredictable Past

This Associated Press story suggests that the campaign is Too Close To Call

As the 2012 presidential campaign moves to a close, national polls say the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is too close to call.

Romney's big lead over Obama from last summer is gone as the hard-fought battle has tightened over the past three months, following the pattern of presidential contests in years gone by.

As more and more Americans focus on the decision of which level ro pull tomorrow, the polls also say Obama's hopes may be damaged because many of those who support him may not vote.

The original watershed mark for the final round of polls was the nationally televised debate between Romney and Obama last month. But late-breaking developments regarding the Americans killed in Libya, or the Americans without power and heat due to Hurricane Sandy could make recent poll results quickly obsolete.
...
While the polls seem to have different results, in fact, the differences are all smaller than the error margins to which all polls are subject. This means that the polls cannot be said to put either man in the solid position as the frontrunner.

In addition, the close race spotlights the unique system of picking a president - the election is decided by who wins the most electoral votes, which are awarded sate-by-state. It is possible in a close race that a candidate could win the most populate votes nationwide and still lose the electoral vote to his or her opponent.

Of course, every election is decided by who actually goes to vote. But the polls this year demonstrate that the issue of turnout is ever more critical than ever. For example, among registered voters, the Pew Research poll put the race at Obama 49% and Romney 42%. But when the results were weighted to reflect possible turnout, their results were Romney 47% and Obama 50%.

Ok, that's not exactly what it said. To see exactly what it said, you need to replace 2012 with 1980, Obama with Carter, and Romney with Reagan. It wasn't published today - it was published on the day before the 1980 election. The day before Ronald Reagan won 50.7% of the vote vs. Jimmy Carter's 41% (John Anderson took 10%). The day before Reagan won 489 electoral votes.

Too close to call...

In which Santayana is cited. Again.

As we watch the economy tank, unemployment soar, and Islamic radicals attack US Embassies in the middle east, I'm reminded, again, of a remark made shortly after the 2008 election, to the effect that

there are two kinds of people in this country - those who remember the Carter years, and those who are about to learn.

Yeah...

 

As I noted a year ago,

You know, for some reason the events in Egypt are not making the Obama/Carter comparisons less compelling...

Malazy

An excellent new ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee - Obama's America. Malazy.

Idle thought

You know, for some reason the events in Egypt are not making the Obama/Carter comparisons less compelling...

Obama = Carter? What a novel idea!

Noel Sheppard, at NewsBusters, notes an interesting comment from Chris Matthews:

In the Carter presidency, the optics were not exactly robust, and Ronald Reagan rode that to a big victory in 1980. Is the Obama White House sending some Carteresque signals these days?

Yeah, some of us have noticed that

It's really been an amazing nine months. We've got the Carter administration re-run ("second verse, same as the first - a little bit louder and a little bit worse") and condensed into about 1/5 the time...

As someone said when he was elected:

there are two kinds of people in this country - those who remember the Carter years, and those who are about to learn.

Instapundit on Carter

Professor Reynolds doesn't think much of former President Carter: "He’s a foul old man, and a disgrace to the office he once held."

Of course, he was a disgrace to the office while he held it, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's a disgrace to it now...

Hitchens on Carter

Christopher Hitchens is a man of the left; I am not. The number of subjects on which we would disagree is large, and ranges from the existence of God to the proper role of the Government in education, and most things in between. That said, Hitchens, unlike so many on the left, is not a cultural relativist. And he seems to be an honest man. He recognized that East and West are in conflict, and is willing to side with the West, even when George W. Bush was President.

And he's got some comments on Jimmy Carter that are well worth reading:

I once had quite an argument with the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who maintained adamantly that it had been right for him to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 for no other reason. "Mr. Carter," he said, "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was the worst president we ever had."

...

The mistake of Israel, he tells us (and tells us that he told the Israeli leadership) is to have moved away from God and the prophets and toward secularism. If you ever feel like a good laugh, just tell yourself that things would improve if only the Israeli government would be more Orthodox.

...

In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock...It's hardly an exaggeration to say that every administration since has had to deal with the chaotic legacy of Carter's mind-boggling cowardice and incompetence.

Is there a word there that isn't self-evidently true?

Race arsonists at it again

Former President Jimmy Carter:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.

That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.

Here is what's actually abominable, Mr. Carter. The casual slurring of millions of sincere, concerned Americans, with no evidence whatsoever, by the single most inept, ineffective and sanctimonious chief executive of the last 60 years. It isn't just you, of course. This slur is being perpetrated by many members of the leftist and pundit class in this country, and again, there's not a shred of supporting evidence.

Let's be brutally frank for just a moment. This President is President of the United States primarily because he's a black man. Otherwise, the tea parties would still be going on and the likes of Jimmy Carter would be talking about the animosity towards President Hillary Clinton being based on the fact that she's a woman. And Maureen Dowd would be writing about how the unspoken word after "you lie" was b--ch instead of boy. If Barack Obama weren't black, he'd be John Edwards. Without the resume. And the hair. A white man with Barack Obama's particular skills and background isn't even an interesting story in the primary. No, he's President because the press fell in love with the idea of electing a black man, and it superseded their love for the idea of electing a woman.

The opposition, though, is based on his policies. Does Jimmy Carter have any recollection of what happened when Bill Clinton attempted to "reform" the health care system? Does he remember what happened to the Democrats after two years of the most liberal Presidency since Carter's own? And does he have any conception of how much more radical Obama's administration has been than Clinton's?

Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Eddie Bernice Johnson and all of the others throwing out the "racist" label are setting back the cause of "racial equality" in this country by a generation or more. And it's going to be a long time before another black man is elected to the office. Why would anyone want to support the candidacy of a President who cannot be criticized? The people of the United States are citizens, not subjects, and a President with whom one cannot honestly disagree without being accused of racism is a President that doesn't belong in office.

Obama's election was hailed, even by many of us who thought he'd be an awful President, as a good sign, a major step forward in the story of race relations in America. It looks right now as if we were very wrong. It was a horrible mistake, and it's entirely the fault of the race-arsonists on the left who plead for race-blindness while clinging to racism as primary prism through which they view the world.