There is no “Romney Surge”

I’ve pointed this out before. You are being lied to. The latest lie in “Election Coverage 2012™” is the “Romney Surge.” Romney isn’t surging at all. In order for Romney to “Surge Ahead!” he’d have to start out behind. And that’s not what is happening.

From Fox News,

National polling released Monday continues to demonstrate an apparent Mitt Romney surge, with the Republican nominee at least pulling even with President Obama — and in one poll shooting past him — on the heels of what Gallup deemed the biggest debate victory in recorded history.

Poor old Andrew Sullivan, former conservative gay man and now primarily known as the nation’s foremost long-distance forensic gynecologist, penned this cri-de-coeur,

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Andy, when you’re writing, it’s not necessary to write “I repeat.” If they’ve missed what you wrote they can just read it again.

They say that “Figures don’t lie, liars figure.” It’s as true today as it ever was. The polls have consistently shown Obama close or ahead in the race. They’ve also shown a significant party identification advantage for the Democrats. The latest poll shows that party ID reduced, eliminated, and even reversed a bit.

All of the change in both polls came from the composition of each sample. In pre-debate interviews by Gallup, self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by five percentage points, according to Gallup’s Jeff Jones. By contrast, in the three days following the debate, the balance shifted in a GOP direction, with 34 percent of registered voters identifying as Republicans (two points up from pre-debate), 33 percent as Democrats (four points down).

So why is this happening? That’s actually a two-part question, which has a two-part answer.

  1. Why is the news media showing Obama up and then down?
  2. Why are the journalists showing Obama up and then down?

The news media, the corporations, need you to show up and watch their program. If you don’t watch, their audience share goes down, and therefore their ad revenues go down. If they told you the truth from the beginning that Obama is on the wrong side of the Little League slaughter rule, you’d go watch something else. So they lied to you to keep your attention. There is a risk. They can’t allow this lie to go all the way up to the election. If they’re calling it close all the way up until the election, you are going to lose even more respect for them when their vaunted polls turn out to be about as reflective of reality as Obama’s campaign promises. They need a “Romney Surge” to reconcile their lies about Obama being ahead with the reality that Obama is has about as much chance as the Titanic. They have to manufacture a realignment to cover their earlier lies.

The journalists, however, have to go along with this. Why would the do that? Well, wouldn’t you? What are journalists, anyway? Do they have some arcane knowledge? Secret insider info? Good looks and charm? None of these. Jennifer says that actors are nothing but monkeys who dance for our entertainment.  Journalists are no different. They exist solely to entertain us. They entertain us by bringing us information, tying it up into a neat bow, and using it to tell us a story. No one, no matter how un self-aware can forget that the bottom line is to get viewers or readers. The journalists like to pretend that they are brave tellers of truth, but in the end, they are just dancing monkeys. The one time they can really be involved in something big is during election coverage. The rest of the time they cover sappy human interest stories or the local crimes, but during election coverage they get to pretend to be the voice of the people. They pretend that they are bravely demanding answers from politicians, and bringing us vital information that we will use to determine the course of an entire nation, even the world! What happens to those brave truth tellers when they don’t have a race, but a blowout? When the outcome is well known in advance and the audience has left for more interesting stories? They either pretend not to notice the obvious, or they lie to hide it.

We will probably hear of a few more ups and downs in the last few weeks before the election. They all want to keep it interesting. But it’s over. It’s been over for months. Romney isn’t surging, the media is simply realigning their polls to reflect reality.

My prediction. Romney wins in a walk. The Senate flips. The House, due to significant redistricting by Republican run State Legislatures, gets even more Republican.

4 responses to “There is no “Romney Surge”

  1. Pingback: Sorrentino: There is no “Romney Surge.” « Bob Owens

  2. Pingback: Now I've voted, some election predictions - An NC Gun Blog

  3. Ha…Ha! This entire delusional blog is laughable, in hindsight, huh? What a cogent analysis – except like all authoritarian conservative reasoning, it’s wrongheaded and basically delusional. Ha!

  4. Clearly the polls were right and I was wrong.

    I do so enjoy when the Left shows up and tells the rest of us that WE are the authoritarians. It’s projection at it’s finest.