Politics: Dick Morris goes all in with the thing about Romney leading
Published by: Dan Calabrese on Thursday September 27th, 2012
By DAN CALABRESE - Obama below 50 percent means a Mitt win.
This is a couple days old, but I think it's worth a look. I know, I know, it's Dick Morris. The same Dick Morris who declared shortly before the 2008 election that Obama's momentum had peaked and that McCain would be the next president. Fair enough. Consider the source.
But also consider the strength of his argument.
So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:
• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).
This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…
• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)
• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins.
It really comes down to Morris's belief that an incumbent who's stuck below 50 percent in the polls can't get to 50 percent on Election Day, regardless of the "lead" he appears to have because just about all undecided voters break for the challenger in the voting booth. And of course, Morris isn't buying polls that show, say, Obama up by 5 in Ohio because he's convinced that every pollster but Rasmussen is weighting the samples incorrectly.
Now with all that in mind: Morris is no fool. Surely he understands that he has to protect his own reputation and he can't just go off, election after election, making absurd predictions that cut against the grain. If he's wrong again, like he was in 2008, then he just becomes the guy who tells Republicans what they want to hear but never gets it right in the end. Rasmussen's the same way, but Rasmussen has a much better track record of accuracy.
Morris's scenario isn't really that hard to envision, is it? The economic news gets worse by the day (Q2 GDP growth downgraded to 1.3 percent just today, you know) and Libya's a fiasco. How implausible is it to think that on Election Day, undecided voters take stock of Obama's entire performance in office and say, en masse, "Time to try something else"?
Indeed, if you ask me, it's far more implausible to buy the media's storyline that Obama is winning, considering the vomit that is clearly his record in office. That's why I can't just write off Dick Morris's theory - because I just can't see how anyone but a hard-core leftist wants Obama re-elected.