Romney and Ryan Are Not Losing

I get a kick out of reading the conservative punditry, because it reveals something about the personalities involved. The right-wing blogosphere is filled with its share of Eeyores and Tiggers.

Eeyore? "Good day to you. If it is. Which I doubt."  Paul Mirengoff of Powerline is consistently bearish on Mitt Romney's chances in November. He is simply convinced that Romney is losing. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he lives in Washington, D.C., and therefore breathes the inside-the-beltway air. Perhaps he is just a very cautious person. Whatever the reason, he is very nervous about November.

Tigger? The happy-go-lucky one with boundless energy? Hugh Hewitt. There is nobody quite like him in the ability to shrug off one fabricated media narrative after another. He is utterly convinced that Obama is destined for defeat, no matter what the mainstream media come up with next. There just aren't enough shiny objects left lying around to distract the American people from the economic disaster of this administration, which is now coupled with a deep sense of unease following the murder of our Libyan ambassador and its lackluster (okay, non-existent) response. Certainly the "Mitt-Romney-dissed-47%-of-the-electorate!" gambit will not do, if one believes Hewitt.

Of the two personalities, I will go with Hugh 25 hours a day, 8 days a week. Here's why: he is rarely, if ever, wrong about the mood of the electorate. People forget this, so I will remind you (or tell you for the first time, if you are unaware). On election day in 2004 when the first exit poll results were released, they showed John Kerry storming to certain victory. Kerry headquarters was popping champagne, and the conservative blogosphere was in a state of absolute mayhem and panic. I remember refreshing National Review's Corner blog, and reading the horror-stricken posts throughout the day. I think it is fair to say that on that day, in the heat of electoral politics, there was on the conservative side exactly ONE PERSON who, in calm and measured tones, said, matter-of-factly: "Ignore the exit polls. They are obviously wrong." That takes a whole lot of chutzpah, and I remember thinking at the time: Boy, Hugh, you sure do seem confident!

Guess what? Hugh was right and almost everybody else was wrong. The exit polls were terribly, terribly, terribly wrong. And the champagne at Kerry Headquarters quickly switched purposes: from a celebratory high to drowning sorrows. Just. Like. That.

Hugh is convinced that Romney is rolling to victory. So am I. I wrote here that I believe we are going to see a "wave" election possibly stronger than the 2010 midterm elections. I wrote that based on my own subjective feelings and theories, without any real data to back it up. I thought, and still do think, that my reasoning was completely sound. Essentially: Republicans will certainly retain every single 2010 voter. The turnout will meet or exceed 2010. I believe this to be common sense and irrefutable. The masses who turned out to run over 60 House representatives and 6 Senators out of town did so because those candidates were proxies for Barack Obama himself. These people have been waiting four years for the opportunity to vote against Obama, and they are not going to oversleep on November 6th.

Bottom line? Democrats will have little to no turnout advantage.

And yet: every poll showing a dead heat assumes a Democrat turnout advantage, often a huge Democrat turnout advantage. This is sheer lunacy, a soothing fantasy those in the media bubble like to tell themselves. The fact is this: it takes a huge oversample of Democrats to get Barack Obama tied with Mitt Romney. Take away the oversampling, and it is not even particularly close right now.

Now I thankfully have some data to back me up. Datechguy has a post here that really ought to be read by everyone. He focuses on Rasmussen's "Party Identification" poll, the history of its accuracy in predicting results, and where it stands now. It is awful, rotten, horrible news for Barack Obama. It points to exactly what I surmised about the Tea Party rage still being alive and well.

I'll give you the bottom line, which is delicious enough that even Eeyores like Paul Mirengoff should take heart: since 2004, Democrats have not won a national election without at least a 6.9% party identification advantage. Got that? If they poll less than a 6.9% advantage in this particular poll, they do not do well in national elections.  Okay, so where is that number right now?

Glad you asked.

Democrats have a 4.3% disadvantage in the poll. They are deeply under water. Rasmussen's Party Identification poll shows a substantial Republican advantage. Adding a great deal of credibility to my argument that we are going to see a Tsunami election is this: Do you want to know the 2010 number? The year the Republicans took 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats? A 1.3% Republican advantage. Yes, when the 2010 midterms came around, Republicans were up in this poll 1.3; they currently stand at 4.3.

And Mitt Romney is losing? Keep on dreaming sweet dreams; get all the rest you need, members of the media. You'll get rudely slapped awake soon enough.

Brian Mattson