"I have had faith that both quality and truth will ultimately win out in this election"

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/9/21/13613/4871

What I've Been Talking About

by BooMan
Fri Sep 21st, 2012 at 01:06:13 PM EST


My working assumption for over a year has been that this election would follow a familiar pattern in American politics. We elect presidents, and then we either fire them or we give them a rousing endorsement. If you ignore 2004, you have to go back into the the 19th-Century to find a counterexample. The only exception to this rule in the 20th-Century was when FDR ran for his third and fourth terms, but the circumstances of those elections were so exceptional that we can't draw any conclusions from them. In any case, it would be nearly impossible for any president to improve on FDR's performance in 1936, in which he won over 60% of the vote an his opponent was left with 8 electoral votes. Considering that running for a third-term was controversial and ultimately led to a constitutional amendment precluding such a possibility, it is no wonder that FDR did worse in 1940 and 1944 than he did in 1936.

Almost all pundits, whether they be conservatives, progressives, or corporate-paid in-betweens, have been predicting that this election would either follow the example of 2004 when an incumbent was reluctantly given a second term or the example of 1992 when a president was tossed out because of a weak economy. I have never believed that either scenario was likely.

The reason, in addition to history, is the massive differential in quality between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and the massive differential in the popularity of the truthful positions for which they stand. I have had faith that both quality and truth will ultimately win out in this election. And I believe that that is what we are starting to see. I also believe that if we were still operating in a Fairness Doctrine era, Obama would be clearly ahead in at least forty states. If Obama were white, we had sensible campaign finance laws, and we were operating in an era without the controversy over Roe v. Wade, I believe that Obama would be leading in 49 or 50 states. Even with our economic difficulties, the difference in quality and platform between the two candidates and the two parties is so massive, that only an enormous right-wing media wurlitzer, huge corporate funding, a strong anti-choice movement, and latent racism are keeping Romney competitive at all.

And, yet, despite all these fingers on the scale, Obama is probably going to beat Romney worse than he beat McCain. I predict that before long, we will see a couple of states that no one thought would be in play are polling neck-and-neck, and I predict Obama will win one or more of them.

I can't say that I predicted that Romney would be a dunce about an assassination in Libya or that a video of one of his fundraisers would emerge and damage his candidacy. No one can predict anything with that kind of specificity. What I predicted is that the quality differential between the candidates would show up and make a decisive difference in the campaign, and that the American people would reelect Obama with enthusiasm.

I believe that is what is what we are witnessing right now. That is what is unfolding before our eyes as we speak.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. This is perfectly and beautifully said!

I could not agree more.

A very enthusiastic recommendation! And I hope to see many, many more...

[phantom power]

2. This particular booman post had me asking: why did he have faith in that this cycle?

Because, frankly, we all know that 'quality and truth' have been more or less systemically losing ground, more or less since Reagan.

So, I'm interested in why he was predicting that dynamic would change this cycle.

[babylonsister]

3. Maybe he likes and trusts Obama more than you do. nt

[phantom power]

5. Maybe, but my point is, his prediction is more about a failure of the RW noise machine...

than it is about Obama's campaign. Consider - he said: "truth and quality" would win, not "Obama's campaign" would win.

So, his prediction really is a pretty strong statement, involving a change in the dynamic between Dems, the GOP, and the 4th estate, that has held sway for thirty years. How did he infer that would happen?

[babylonsister]

6. I took his whole article/argument as a comparison between the candidates

more than the parties. He's pointing out the distinct differences between candidates, and that is obvious and getting moreso hourly.

[colin62]

4. I hope you're right

I'm in central PA and I can tell you that unfortunately, some people do not care about facts or the truth. Republicans have figured that out. It's why we're seeing them lie and ignore facts even worse than usual.