Dick Morris has an interesting explanation for the recent polls showing that Obama has a narrow lead over Romney. From Dick Morris.com (where else?)Dick Morris ran the polls for Clinton's election campaigns so he might be on to something, no? Add to the mix that a.) the media is desperately pumping up Obama's numbers with b.) Obama is already buying retirement property in Hawaii and things may not be looking so gloomy for November.
1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.And Dick sez: This ain't 2008, Sparky.
[...]polling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.The bloom is off the rose, you hit a giant worm in that bottle of tequila you were slurping and fat Aunt Nettie slid her nicotine-stained tongue halfway down your throat at your birthday party. Life suddenly isn't all that sweet, is it Sparky...
2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.And Dick sez: An undecided voter ain't your Secret Santa either, Sparky.
But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.