If the latest Pew poll is grounded in anything even remotely resembling statistical reality, if it's anything but the product of 50 chimps at tabulating keyboards, if it's anything but a cruel joke from the political gods, then 2012 is destined to replace 1964 as the presidential year that defines the electoral relationship between extreme ideology and party calamity.
In a head-to-head matchup between the president and Mitt Romney, the former leads by a game-over 12 points. Leads of fewer points than that (generally about 10) are unbeatable, considering the voting preferences from even unfavorable electoral-college states required to amass such a nationally comprehensive number.
Charles Blow of the Times is struck by Obama's 20-point lead over Romney among women, as well as a powerful lead among the young and even a tie among the 65+ demographic. "And," notes Blow, "he outperforms Romney in every region of the country and among every income group."
That "every region" is no typo. It does in fact include the South (Obama, 52; Romney, 44), which is what impels one to intense dubiousness about the Pew poll. The same goes for "every income group," in that Pew shows Obama leading by 26 points among voters with a family income of $30,000 or less. In addition, Obama is reckoned to hold a 7-point lead among the high school-only (or less) educated.
Obama also possesses a 3-point lead among men, which, if true, would offer absolute, even Inhofe-convincing proof of Darwinian evolution and resolve any questions as to the whereabouts of the missing link. It is here, though, that my Humean skepticism violently kicks in, with an exceptionally reasonable doubt that approaches the damning.
As Blow concedes, in so many and other words, the latest NY Times/CBS News and Washington Post/ABC News polls, for instance, aren't nearly as promising, overall, to the "Rational" demographic. But if Pew is on to something, however skewed for the moment, then 2012 shall be historic indeed.