Althouse: Could things possibly get any more 47-y?

September 20, 2012

Could things possibly get any more 47-y?

After a barrage of media attention to Romney's infamous 47% remark, Romney and Obama are tied at 47% each, according to Gallup.

ADDED: I propose a new chant: We are the 6%.

70 comments:

Scott said...: The debates will decide it.; 9/20/12, 2:31 PM
Matt Sablan said...: So close to 42, yet so far.; 9/20/12, 2:33 PM
Wince said...: James Taranto made a similar observation yesterday.

47 Skidoo; 9/20/12, 2:35 PM
bagoh20 said...: Look at that closing gap over the last week - a week where the media's main message was "Romeny is blowing it."

Shouldn't journalists have to be paid out of Obama campaign funds. If I was running some of these media companies, I'd insist on it. They need the income. This is a big part of why these companies are doing so badly - they aren't charging the customer who is getting their services.; 9/20/12, 2:38 PM
traditionalguy said...: Just wait until Obama and Reid threaten not to pay out anymore Social Security checks until the GOP concedes to new taxes.

Peace by compromise has a special meaning to Obama. It means war.; 9/20/12, 2:41 PM
SteveR said...: I'm not in the 6%.; 9/20/12, 2:44 PM
Damon said...: LOL - "We are the 6%"; 9/20/12, 2:46 PM
Ron said...: I prefer to call myself a rounding error.; 9/20/12, 2:47 PM
Franklin said...: The debates will decide it.

I agree. I don't want to see more Romney on the campaign trail or hear about him doing fundraisers - I want to hear about him doing debate boot camp, training with the ghosts of Ronald Reagan, Aristotle, and Cicero.; 9/20/12, 2:49 PM
Strelnikov said...: Who would lead that chant? Not you, of course.; 9/20/12, 2:50 PM
Sorun said...: I'm solidly in one and only one of the 47%s.; 9/20/12, 2:51 PM
Russ said...: I'm guessing nobody who reads this is in the 6%.; 9/20/12, 2:56 PM
Oso Negro said...: Is ANYONE who posts on this blog honestly undecided at this point? After four years of Obama, I should think you remain hypnotized or you are entirely repelled. If you have been paying zero attention, perhaps you wouldn't know. Otherwise you might be going for neither of them. Informed AND undecided? I don't believe it.; 9/20/12, 2:57 PM
granmary said...: The 6% that are undecided wouldn't know enough to learn the chant!; 9/20/12, 2:57 PM
granmary said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/20/12, 2:59 PM
KLDAVIS said...: Interesting that the downward trend coincides with the violence flaring, on Sept. 11...to the point where once you get polling data that is entirely post-9/11, the "huge Obama lead" has entirely vanished.; 9/20/12, 3:05 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I propose the chant "We are within the margin of error!"; 9/20/12, 3:06 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: There are more "undecideds" than you think.

Case in point from this very blog:

2 weeks ago, I think anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the regulars here would have said Loafing Oaf was set to vote for Obama.

Yet Obama's utter incompetence on the Cairo/Libya situation (IIRC) caused Loafing Oaf to realize he can no longer vote for Obama.

He probably was not an independent 2 weeks ago.

Let's assume he was so turned off by Obama's utter incompetence that he will vote for Romney.

So if there are several hundred thousand thinking the same way (it is quite possible), then that changed the voting totals w/o making a difference at all in the independent counts.

Then let's say as we get farther from the riots and murders over time, he reconsiders and ends up voting for Obama.

Was he an independent that broke for Obama?

Or was he a Democrat who polled for Romney for a few weeks and is polling for a Democrat again?

Who knows?

The point is, there are people who claim to be independent who know who they will vote for and aren't saying.

And there are people who knew who they were voting for who have or will change their mind.

And yes, even some people on this blog.

Obama is such an incompetent, only the extremely clueless and/or ideologically enslaved can continue to support him.; 9/20/12, 3:13 PM
Unknown said...: Ann asks, "Could things possibly get any more 47-y?" Well, yes. Mitt Romney's Mormon heritage is well know. Led by Brigham Young, the Mormon pioneer's crossed the plains from Illinois to Utah arriving in the Salt Lake Valley July 24 1847. Their arrival is celebrated every year by a Utah state holiday, a parade and related activities known as "the days of '47." Google "days of 47" for a more comprehensive account.; 9/20/12, 3:13 PM
Matt Sablan said...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_%28number%29#As_an_in-joke; 9/20/12, 3:18 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm sick of the polls.; 9/20/12, 3:19 PM
Tim said...: Obama can't break past 47%?

Obama can't cross the danger line for incumbents, 50%?

Obviously, there are not enough Obama voters
pledging to support Obama over America

What's wrong with Obama voters?; 9/20/12, 3:21 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: How can one be an independent when the debt is $16 trillion ready to grow to $20 trillion under an Obama second term. Right now the fed has pushed rates down to almost 0% so the debt costs nothing to service. But at normal rates (5%), the debt will cost $1 trillion a year to service. That is a third of the budget. That is Greece! What happens when no one is left to lend the government money at 0%. What then? At that point, only the fed will be buying the debt, meaning the government will be the only buyer of its own debt.

At what point will the gig be up?

How can one possibly vote for Obama under these circumstances. Obama's plan is to raise $100 billion a year more from the Rich. That's a pretty good plan????

And thats just some of the debt, what about all the consumer debt and the debt at municipalities and states.; 9/20/12, 3:25 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Nathan Alexander, that is a fascinating point. I gather most pollsters try hard to maintain consistent party bias standards, in order to show trends. Maintaining that bias might be more important than reflecting the changing bias among the electorate, though both are important (this is why Gallup is still stops).

But in a fast-re-aligning electorate, the bias-maintaining standard would fail, as you describe.; 9/20/12, 3:28 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Uh, "still tops".; 9/20/12, 3:29 PM
MadisonMan said...: I'm in the 6% but leaning heavily in one direction.

I'll let EMD tell you which way, since he figured out exactly how (and why!) I voted in the Governor Recall Election

(Or is it EWD?); 9/20/12, 3:30 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Actually I am part of the 53% that Romney wins on Nov. 6th.; 9/20/12, 3:34 PM
gadfly said...: Landslide for Willard.

Johnson 1%
Romney 52%
Zeroman 47%

Tea Party anyone?; 9/20/12, 3:42 PM
gerry said...: Tied, ...maybe the 47% "disaster" helped?; 9/20/12, 3:43 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: Undecided, independent--these things are not inherently virtues. A law professor already knows the trivial examples and has no doubt twitted many a student with them, so I pass them over. The truth is not always found in the middle.; 9/20/12, 3:47 PM
garage mahal said...: Just stop trying to switch teams when it becomes popular not to be all pc and racially correct...

Madison Man voted for Walker in the recall, and will vote for Romney, if I had to guess.; 9/20/12, 3:48 PM
Known Unknown said...: I'll let EMD tell you which way, since he figured out exactly how (and why!) I voted in the Governor Recall Election

For the life of me, I can't remember how I cracked the code.; 9/20/12, 3:49 PM
Known Unknown said...: Uh, oh Garage has crazy eyes!; 9/20/12, 3:49 PM
God, An Original A-hole said...: According to this calculator, which is admittedly a year outdated, a $200K household income puts you in the top 6%.

And as far as I remember, Althouse, you make a bit more than $200K from your public-sector teaching job. Add in whatever other income you have coming in, and you are comfortably within your 6% zone.

A nice little bubble to be in, I'd say: Elite enough to keep you out-of-touch with the difficulties of most Americans... in fact, you can probably afford to recline back and smoke a cigar and ponder the loserdom of the masses of median-income earners.

But it's still not elite like Romney is elite. Not $250M elite. Not six homes elite. Not La-Jollla-beachfront-tear-down elite. Not Swiss-bank account elite. Not "no tax returns for you" elite. Romney is so fucking elite, he is 1338!!!

Perhaps you wish the "47%" would subside. It ain't going to. It is a declaration of class warfare; and it's the most reprehensible thing to come out of any politician's mouth since G. W. Bush's "we do not torture" misdirection.; 9/20/12, 3:50 PM
Known Unknown said...: I'd love to vote for Gary Johnson ... I just don't know if I can bring myself to do it.; 9/20/12, 3:51 PM
Known Unknown said...: It is a declaration of class warfare

That's rich.

Millionairesandbillionaires!!; 9/20/12, 3:56 PM
MadisonMan said...: I'm supposed to vote for Jill Stein, according to that which candidate are your views most like poll.; 9/20/12, 3:58 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: listened to an interviewer question two so-called undecided voters. Both voters patiently described why they were still undecided and you could tell by their responses they were both completely decided and enjoyed the special attention. They attempted to sound like informed voters looking for that last bit of information that will fill their fully informed gaps but you could tell by their vapidity, and if you had heard them too then we both would have yelled oh shut up and just vote already you liars.; 9/20/12, 4:05 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: My ass is 6% undecided.; 9/20/12, 4:06 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: No srsly, I have a donkey and sometimes he doesn't know.; 9/20/12, 4:07 PM
edutcher said...: Don't get comfy.

According to Gallup, everything's going all 46-y for Choom.; 9/20/12, 4:07 PM
alan markus said...: Now you have to figure out if you are an "innie" or an "outie":

Obama: ‘You Can’t Change Washington from the Inside’; 9/20/12, 4:08 PM
David said...: You may be part of the 6%. I was last time. Fool me twice shame on me.; 9/20/12, 4:08 PM
David said...: Scott said...
The debates will decide it.

More likely, events will.; 9/20/12, 4:10 PM
Christy said...: Did anyone else see the video yesterday of someone playing the answering machine message they received of a polling call? Forgive me, I cannot recall where I saw it.

The polling call went like this -
If you support Obama, press 1
If you support Romney, press 2
If you support Johnson, press 3
If you are undecided, press 4

no reponse of course, then

Is your support of Obama strong, press 1, .....

Apparently this poll was designed to tally silence as an Obama supporter.

And we despair over the polls!; 9/20/12, 4:10 PM
David said...: How reliable are the polls? I read an article that reminded me that Carter had a solid lead over Reagan in the polls in late October in 1980. Carter was polling close to 50%. Reagan low to mid 40's, and the rest to John Anderson.

Carter ended up with 41% of the overall popular vote. Very doubtful that there was that big a shift over less than two weeks. The polls were just wrong.; 9/20/12, 4:13 PM
TMink said...: Actually, I am part of the 51%. We are the slim majority that earns a paycheck and pays taxes to support the rest of you.

And by the way, we are looking to see which of you 49% need to get your checks canceled so you get out to work like us.

Trey; 9/20/12, 4:14 PM
paul a'barge said...: Yeah, I'm not in the 6%.

And quite frankly, anyone at this point in American history who is in the 6% is a huge loser. And I do mean with a large neon "L" on their forehead.

By the way, you were not in the 6% in 2008 either. Part of the reason we're as F'ed today as we are.; 9/20/12, 4:20 PM
Toad Trend said...: "Carter ended up with 41% of the overall popular vote. Very doubtful that there was that big a shift over less than two weeks. The polls were just wrong."

Same thing with Dukakis and H.W. Bush in '88...Dukakis had a 17 point 'lead' and lost by a big margin.

The ONLY poll that matters is in November.; 9/20/12, 4:21 PM
wildswan said...: It's strange. My insight persons for how-undecided-Wisconsin-liberals-think made up their minds after the DNC convention - choosing Romney because Obama had no plan for the debt. They say that independents in Wisconsin have decisively broken for Romney. That very week out come polls saying that Wisconsin is going for Baldwin; Massachusetts is going for Warren. "So very strange", as my Russian friends used to say, about most political stories in that country.; 9/20/12, 4:32 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "you can probably afford to recline back and smoke a cigar and ponder the loserdom of the masses of median-income earners. "

Althouse, that would make a good pic for your blog! I dare you to do it.; 9/20/12, 4:42 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Perhaps you wish the "47%" would subside. It ain't going to. It is a declaration of class warfare; and it's the most reprehensible thing to come out of any politician's mouth since G. W. Bush's "we do not torture" misdirection.

Do you mean the 47% that supports more food stamps, $20 trillion debt, $trillion deficits, government controlled healthcare, appeasment in foreign policy, record government spending, and neverending welfare (those voting for Obama?), or the 47% who don't pay any federal income tax?; 9/20/12, 4:57 PM
Brennan said...: Romney is going to win by a large margin. He will win because Romney voters can be found while about 15% of all the 2008 Obama voters cannot be found by the campaign. They have 47 days to find them.

Good luck.; 9/20/12, 5:02 PM
Brennan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/20/12, 5:02 PM
B said...: Scott said...
The debates will decide it.

Maybe the vice-presidential debates, but probably not the presidential debates.

Debates at the national level traditionally do not move the voters much if at all unless there's a serious gaff. Obama can't win any debate on substance with his record, but all he has to do is issue platitudes and slogans, stay vague on specifics, and bank on sympathetic post-debate analysis. If he doesn't engage, he can survive the debates. Romney will have facts on his side and while he'll get a very unsympathetic post-debate analysis to the point of partisan hostility, if Obama doesn't engage, Romney neither wins nor loses.

Again, this assumes no real gaffs. By real I mean a gaff that a viewer or a transcript reader sees as a real gaff and not something that the media wants to morph into a gaff. The media has already spent those arrows.

The vice-presidential debates are a different story. There is no way Biden will get through them without making an ass of himself - probably many times over. Ryan just has to stay on message and let Biden debate himself dizzy.

What will make the difference is the October surprises. I don't know what the Obama camp can still have in the queue for that. They've beaten the obvious ones to death without establishing any meme or lasting damage to Romney. On the other hand, the Romney camp has plenty of angles.

I expect that to be revelations on how Barry Sotero worked around the Occidental, Columba, and Harvard applications. It's been too long now for someone not to have ferreted out that info.; 9/20/12, 5:20 PM
campy said...: about 15% of all the 2008 Obama voters cannot be found by the campaign. They have 47 days to find them.

They don't have to be found. Only manufactured.; 9/20/12, 6:07 PM
but I am a robot said...: Yeah, the 47% comment sure is "reprehensible." To the Obama cultists, that is. Look, we all know how the leftist loonies are going to react to virtually anything that comes out of Romney's mouth. But maybe we should ask those elusive 6%. Or maybe we already know, by the fact that there IS a 6%, that sane people don't react to these things the same way Obama's loyal minions do.; 9/20/12, 6:14 PM
Rob said...: Okay, I admit it. "We are the 6%" made me laugh out loud.; 9/20/12, 6:24 PM
Alex said...: Yet Obama is leading by a lot in the EV count. Gallup poll is a trivia piece.; 9/20/12, 6:26 PM
sane_voter said...: about 15% of all the 2008 Obama voters cannot be found by the campaign. They have 47 days to find them.

Zero got 53% in 2008, less 15% = 45% in 2012. Sounds about right.; 9/20/12, 6:27 PM
sane_voter said...: Or maybe that War on Womyn will smoke 'em out.; 9/20/12, 6:29 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I'm going to register fortyseven.com right now!

No, wait. I'll get fortysix.com.

No, wait. Fortyfive.com?

Obama, you've got about thirty days to convince us you're not the jerk you appear to be.; 9/20/12, 6:30 PM
pm317 said...: We are the 6%.

Althouse keeping her options open.; 9/20/12, 6:33 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I agree. I don't want to see more Romney on the campaign trail or hear about him doing fundraisers - I want to hear about him doing debate boot camp, training with the ghosts of Ronald Reagan, Aristotle, and Cicero.

I think that he is picking up the pace. For example, today: 'The candidate of Yes We Can has become the President of No I Can't': Romney says if Obama can't change Washington from the inside then 'he's going outside!' Here's the video.; 9/20/12, 7:12 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Can anyone tell me why the press is boycotting Paul Ryan? The coverage of him is nonexistent.

I posit two possible reasons. One, he's a shrinking violet who doesn't appear much on the campaign trail. He's too shy. Two, and more likely, he's actually pretty good on the campaign trail, and the MSM is refusing to cover him lest they give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Ann, please feel free to link to more coverage of Ryan. Not because he's a Repub, but because he's a Wisconsinite and he's being short-shrifted by the media.; 9/20/12, 7:48 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Now I need to go read the latest installments in the MSM War on Romney. I'll be back later with a trip report.; 9/20/12, 7:51 PM
Tim said...: The recent (last 40 years or so), going back to LBJ) history of second terms of presidents is that they are, invariably, worse than the first term.

Given that Obama, while "special," isn't that special, and his second term is likely, just on odds alone (although given the paucity of policy initiatives, predictably too) doomed to be worse than his first, what is anyone's rational for voting for him again?

Ignorant of history?

Hope against hope the least experienced man ever elected president somehow figures it out?

Some vague, ill-defined sense that Romney (of all people) will somehow be worse?

As if anyone plausibly qualified for the office could be worse than the incumbent (who, by the way, still has never cleared the 50% threshold of support for which all incumbents who fail to clear lose)?

What, exactly, is the rational, 6% or 47%, for supporting Obama?; 9/20/12, 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm surprised AA missed this 47. Ann Marie Habershaw of the Obama campaign informs me today:

So there you have it. Enter this cool contest, and help President Obama win the much bigger one coming up in just 47 days:

https://donate.barackobama.com/47-Days; 9/20/12, 9:05 PM
kentuckyliz said...: We are the Margin of Error!; 9/21/12, 5:41 AM
AlanKH said...: I'm glad to be the 58-point-something percent.

http://mercatus.org/publication/single-most-accurate-indicator-labor-market-health; 9/21/12, 6:07 AM