Here's another article that seems to herald "the tipping point" phenom titled,
"Has O'Bongo Peaked?"Democrats' biggest concern isn't the economy; it's whether Obama has already peaked. There are numerous reasons to believe it's true. If true, there are rapidly diminishing opportunities for the Administration to reverse it, and a growing list that could accelerate it.
Pick your poll: the presidential race is a toss-up. The latest Gallup tracking poll (taken 7/22-29, 3,050 registered voters, MOE +/- 2%) has the race tied at 46% apiece. It couldn't get any tighter.
The race has been so tight for so long, that it is not news -- until we factor in campaign spending. While the focus has been on Republicans' advantage with Super PACs, the overlooked story is how much Obama has outspent Romney on campaign advertising.
This is an interesting point. Here's some more...
The National Journal's Hotline publication has been tabulating the race's television ad buys. According to their latest calculation of 2012 advertising in thirteen swing states (CO, FL, IA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI), Obama has outspent Romney almost three to one -- $120 million to $43 million thus far. The advantage is not only deep but broad: Obama has outspent Romney in all eleven states where either campaign has spent.
When adding in spending by outside groups, the Democrats' superiority seems to vanish. Democrats and their allies have spent $141 million, while Republicans and theirs have spent $203 million -- outspending Democrats in all states.
However the cash's quality is not equal. Democrats still hold a decided advantage for two reasons. First, Democrats have far greater control over their resources because a far greater proportion is under Obama's direct control -- not outside groups'. Second, under FEC rules, campaigns pay less for advertising airtime -- so Obama's campaign dollars go further than Republican Super PACs'.
I agree with this analysis except that it leaves out a key element...
the free advertising and promotion that O'Bongo receives from the MFM. This is not insignificant. It's huge, in fact. And yet, it isn't enough to move the numbers in O'Bongo's favor. All of the ad buys, all of the money spent, all of the negative Romney ads, all of the sympathetic MFM coverage...and it isn't helping move those stupid ass voters into O'Bongo's column. He's a SCOAMF and everyone
knows it.
Presidential reelections are about the incumbent and elected incumbents overwhelmingly win -- only Carter and Bush I have lost in the last 76 years. Because of this, winning incumbents increase their popular vote share from their initial election.
Never in U.S, history has a winning incumbent, in his initial reelection attempt, seen his popular vote percentage fall. However despite his spending and incumbency advantages, if current polls are correct Obama is unlikely to come close to reaching his 52.5% of the 2008 popular vote.
No, I think not.
This and the other items that I have previously mentioned are why I have such confidence, such overwhelming peace about how this election is going to turn out.
I will emphasize one more time...Romney is in the right place at the right time.
Anyone could beat the SCOAMF in 2012. Romney owes McDullard (and Huckaboob) a huge debt of gratitude for running such a dirty primary in 2008. If Romney had been the 2008 nominee he would have lost, too, and it is highly unlikely that he would get the nod again in this year's contest.
O'Bongo is facing a very serious case of emperor-has-no-clothes syndrome which is funny when you think about how the libs used to just love calling GWB an "empty suit." Good times, good times.
EDIT: There's quite a bit more at the link.