« St. Louis Reporter To Obama: You Know, People Are Kind of Frustrated And Angry About How Many Vacations You're Jetting Off To At Taxpayer Expense | Main | AoSHQ Presidential Projection 2012- April Edition »
Rasmussen: Romney 48, Obama 44
Both FoxNews and Rasmussen have been very disappointing this cycle -- for rightwing make-it-up wingnut polling operations, they sure have had Obama ahead an awful lot.
Well, FoxNews showed Romney's 2nd-ever lead on Obama yesterday, and Rasmussen shows now a Romney lead too.
(Both Fox and Rasmussen have lower figures for Obama's Job Approval than anyone else, though.)
I haven't been mentioning polls, because 1, this is an atypical period (bruising primary, no rallying effect yet) and 2, it's so far off and 3, they've been bad for Team Red.
I'm mentioning these two because lately the meme has spread like wildfire, even among Republicans, that Obama is going to win in a walk.
Um, what?
Either these people are crazy or I'm crazy. I don't think I'm crazy, so I'm going to say "them." But I do not see how you preside over the worst recession since the depression -- four grueling years of spirit-crushing joblessness -- and say "Let's have more of that!" and then win an election in a walk.
I just do not see how that is possible.
I thought 2000 would be close because even though Gore was a bit of dickbag, the economy had been good previously. It was close.
I thought 2004 would be close but we'd lose, because the economy wasn't booming and the public began showing signs of War Fatigue. It was close, but we won.
I thought we'd lose 2008, and not closely, because the economy was now in recession and we had a financial crisis and War Fatigue was now a majority complaint. We lost, and not closely.
I know "Campaigns matter," as political professionals are especially eager to tell you, and so do candidates, but basic underlying facts matter too.
The underlying facts of this election do not favor Obama. If they did, he'd be talking about them. But he's not. He's talking about everything else, but not The Question.
Reagan's question -- are you better off now than you were four years ago...? Obviously we're not, but he can't even offer a plausible Hypothetical Future Scenario where things are going to get better under his leadership.
And he'd better offer a really strong, very plausible Hypothetical Future Scenario. Because he offered a grand one up in 2008 and we're about as far from that as a monkey is from building a Saturn V.
He needs to answer The Question. He can't dodge it forever.
The public is giving him every last chance, but at some point, they're going to need reassurance and not just this ridiculous game of Winning the 24 Hour News Cycle.
Obama can win every news cycle from now until November 6th, but people will still vote against him if he can't answer the only question that matters.
Thanks to @comradearthur