Fellow Tarheel gunblogger and Templar Custom fan Sean Sorrentino has a theory that Mitt Romney was never trailing Barack Obama as the media’s pollsters have consistently claimed. Instead, they’ve used Romney’s crushing of Obama at the Denver debate—verified as the most one-sided butt-whipping in a Presidential debate, ever—as an excuse to concede the obvious that Romney was always ahead.
What do I think about Sean’s theory?
I’m not willing to entirely dismiss the point.
Barack Obama has, after all, run a very politicized Presidency that was in 2012 campaign mode from the second he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. He never closed his campaign office, and just kept trucking along. As a result of looking at the world through an “always campaigning” mode he’s governed as a candidate instead of as a leader, and has had the effect, I think, of polarizing the American people over a longer period of more time and with greater depth than an President before him.
The end result of this polarization has been that there are far fewer real moderates this cycle, and fewer independents that can really be swayed. They’re clinging to the notion of being undecided, but likely had made a decision on whom they were going to vote for as far back as 2010, and were almost certainly decided by the time Mitt Romney emerged as the Republican nominee.
Perhaps Mitt Romney didn’t win a lot of Independents, Moderates, and disaffected Democrats with his complete destruction of Obama in the Denver debate, what he did was give them a justification to publicly come out in support of a decision they’d made long ago.
It’s an interesting theory, and one that makes as much or more sense than the idea that Independents are a bunch of scatterbrained nimrods that can’t make up their minds as the left-learning polimedia likes to suggest.