I disagree. I think we know fairly well his core beliefs with some few well publicized individual excceptions. But as for not knowing what we were getting just look at 2008. People who took the time to investigate who we were getting knew about our current president. But that is a small fraction of a percentage of the populace. One good thing I can say about our current president, and maybe the only good thing, is that he was a fairly honest candidate. His beliefs were known for those that cared to listen. He doesn't like the Constitution. He believes that the government is too small and needs to be bigger. etc. As for Romney, I don't really see an enlargement of foregin intervention. At least not as much as the recent past 12 years, Bush and Obama included. I don't think he will throw Israel under the bus like Mr Obama. But the Middle East is an issue with no solution anyway. But Iran with nuclear weapons is very frightening for many reasons. And Mr Obama doesn't seem to care. (don't listen to his talk look at his action/inaction)

For me there is one critical way in which 2012 Obama is different than 2008 Obama. In 2008 he talked about purple states, he talked about taking the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, he dissed Bush for passing legislation that only Republicans supported and vowed that he would reach across the aisle.

2012 Obama is very clear that he is not looking to unite the country. Rather he disses the Republicans, whether it is unfair tax policy, or Ryan's approach to combat the deficit. Obama doesn't provide an alternative that solves our fiscal mess.

I do think that both sides of the aisle are to blame for our current stand off. But it is clear to me that Obama's approach is very divisive this time around. He's not looking to lead the country any more. He's content to kick the can down the road another 4 years, as far as I can tell since Republicans will still control the house after the election.

I figure Obama lost patience fairly early on in his presidency. Probably even before the Healthcare bill.

Of course, neither side appears this time to be reaching over the aisle

danivon wrote:I figure Obama lost patience fairly early on in his presidency. Probably even before the Healthcare bill.

Of course, neither side appears this time to be reaching over the aisle

I think that you are right, but fundamentally, this presents Obama's weakness. He shouldn't lose patience because how he feels doesn't matter. The President is really the one who has to rise about all of that squabbling and move the country forward in the right direction. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Reagan come to mind as leaders who were able to rise above that pettiness and lead their countries at a time of need. Obama lists Lincoln as a hero; maybe he should take a page out of his book. I agree that Obama was subject to unfair attacks by being labeled as a Muslim, or Kenyan, or Socialist, none of which is true. But at the end of the day, great leaders take that in and rise above it and lead. I frankly had high hopes that Obama had that in him, and I am sorely disappointed that at this point that he is only negative, and that he is unable to offer a credible plan to reduce the deficit or fix our convoluted tax system.

Overall, I agree with George that it is a toss up, largely based on which way the economy goes. Romney is a weak candidate, so this is not a positive reflection on Obama, and more a negative reflection on Romney and the Republicans, which is precisely how Obama is running it.

Ray Jay wrote:Overall, I agree with George that it is a toss up, largely based on which way the economy goes. Romney is a weak candidate, so this is not a positive reflection on Obama, and more a negative reflection on Romney and the Republicans, which is precisely how Obama is running it.

So, the question is can an incumbent get reelected by blaming everyone else for the "malaise" and saying, in different words, "I"m not as bad as the other guy?"

One could argue that was Bush v. Kerry, but the economy was not as bad and Kerry had other issues.

I don't think you can be the man who "brought us out of darkness and into the light" (thank you, Mrs. Obama), the man who made the "bravest call in 500 years of military history" (thank you, Mr. Vice President), and the candidate who promised a lot when running and now just finger points and expect to win. If Obama does win, it will not be for any other reason than Romney runs a catastrophic, sub-McCain race.

Contra George, the economy is not better. Unemployment is up since the President took office, inflation is a joke (they don't count food or energy), housing just took a hit yesterday, the college debt bubble looms, job gains are not making inroads because they are failing to keep up with population growth and many have been discouraged enough to leave the workforce, and the energy polices virtually guarantee oil will remain high. Furthermore, the uncertainty of "Taxageddon" (all the tax issues will hit right after the election) plus general unease with the President's policies in the business and finance sectors will depress job growth until next year.

I think Team Obama is going to have to viciously attack Romney in order to win. And, I think they will. They will pull out every stop. We are going to see Chicago-style hardball politics applied across the country.

No vision and plenty of raw aggression--that is what has become of the Hope and Change candidate.

Doctor Fate wrote:One could argue that was Bush v. Kerry, but the economy was not as bad and Kerry had other issues.

The economy was in the pits in 2002 and it got steadily better before the election, and had it remained lousy Bush would have lost easily, in my back-cast. It's not so much the condition of the economy, its the direction of the economy is headed that's important in presidential election. Are things getting better--short term--that will determine the winner.

Ray Jay wrote: Romney is a weak candidate, so this is not a positive reflection on Obama, and more a negative reflection on Romney and the Republicans.

I think I might like Romney more than you do, though your judgment of him as a candidate is probably right. He just doesn't have that "everyman" quality that people can relate to. He's like your boss, a likeable, good boss, but a boss nonetheless.

I do like Romney. I've met him and chatted with him over several innings at Fenway. I've also heard him speak where he gave a not necessarily popular message to crowd of about 1,000. I also know a guy who worked with him at Bain who said that he was by far the most well prepared and smartest guy in the room (and it's an impressive room).

I do agree with you that part of his problem is likeability. The other part is that he does not have the natural instincts of a politician the way that B. Clinton does. Lastly, no one really knows what he truly believes in. What drives his core? Of course ambition like every other successful presidential candidate, but what else? I think it is rationality and efficiency (which is probably why I personally like him and others don't). But those are not the most top level issues for the president which is primarily about core VALUES.

Ray Jay wrote:I think it is rationality and efficiency (which is probably why I personally like him.

Same here. We should be hiring an able administrator, and I think Romney enjoys being an administrator. If you want values, you should go to your clergy. But that's just me.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

ray

I think that you are right, but fundamentally, this presents Obama's weakness. He shouldn't lose patience because how he feels doesn't matter

Noble thoughts. But its unlikely any kind of compromise is really possible with the current political quagmire that is US politics within the consitutional make up and system of governance. You have to have opponents willing to meet you half way in order to compromise with them....
Moreover; your thought that Obama takes the heat for this is not supported by evidence of public attitudes.(Which is what really matters.)
In the CBS poll published today Congress gets a 64% disapproval rating whilst Obama gets a 6% approval rating. (see polls linked)
The election is not going to be fought primarily over Obamas record, simply because amongst the electorate he doesn't get the majority of blame for the countries malaise. Bush still gets the major part of the blame for the crash, and Congress the major part of the blame for legislative inaction. Obama disappoints, yes. But only because he hasn't over come intransigence. In the same way, the Cubs disappoint, but "they really didn't have a chance anyway". (And he also disappoints the far left, who hav't got anywhere else to go with their disappointment)
What Obama is going to do is tie Mitt closely to the republican positions in congress. (Mitt is willing to go along with this, because he's backed himself into that corner. If he tries to disavow, he'll end up facing a litany of ads with his visage repeating contradictory positions ad nauseum. Aways compelling negative ads.) And so Obama is going to fight the election on a large narrative of the guy fighting for the middle class/ working class versus the guy fighting for wall street and rich folk .
Mitt faces an uphill battle in this narrative... And the republicans havn't done him any favours by the recent surge in "anti-women" legislation . Both nationally and at the state levels these moves have entrenched women solidly against Mitt, who faces an uphill battle on this issue too. (Being a Mormon Bishop really is a difficult thing to negotiate on his attitudes to women) When you add in massive Obama majoritites with Blacks and Latinos, Mitt needs to win a huge majority amongst white men and its doubtful there exist enough of these as mallable voters currently .
On a state by state basis, Mitt has to win most of the battleground states ...where the mallable group is significant. And he's too far behind in many, with vastly unpopular history (say in the auto industry states) to recover.
The reason I made my predictions now, is becasue, frankly the group in the middle that is capable of changing their minds is pretty small. Only in the battleground states is the group large enough to matter... Mitt will win the traditional southern republican states by large margins, Obama wiill win the safe Democratic regions by smaller margins and most of the balleground states by a couple of points... The math on this is really against Mitt. Especially if the economy doesn't change direction.... It is going, (too slowly) in the right direction, and direction matters most for incumbents. Moreover, when the debate does focus on the economy, where Mitt is suppossed to be stronger, it may actually turn to Obamas advantage. Most of Mitts positions on economic policy were remarkably similar to Bushes ....and Obama will harken to those fond memories,..

See the problem here ricky is twice in the primary campaign you made the hard fast claim that Santorum was so far ahead in the polls a month out from the primary (Ohio - 22% & Pennsylvania - 15%) there was no way Romney could catch up. Yet Romney wins Ohio and closed the gap in PA so fast that two weeks later Santorum dropped out of the race. So my question is, why are you so confident that things will continue to remain the same 7 months from now?

Are you looking deep enough at the polls? The recent ABC/WaPo poll had Obama with a favorability rating of 50%. However, if you looked at the specific questions, he was getting slammed. On right track/wrong track it was 64% in wrong track and approve/disapprove of how he is handling the economy was 54% disapprove. Finally, on the question of do you think the recession is over or is the economy still in recession, the result was 76% still in recession.

So clearly, the public is not seeing a bettering economic situation. I can tell you, has someone who has been unemployed for the last 12 months. No matter what the indicators may show, the public is not seeing an improving economy. They are looking an economy where unemployment is stagnate (and I agree with Steve that the decrease in unemployment numbers does not represent more people getting back to work. It represents more people giving up and no longer actively looking for work), food prices increase almost monthly, gas prices seem to be at an ever increasing climb.

These numbers come from a poll that oversampled Democrats by 11pts, which is about 4 or 5 pts higher than the highest historical advantage in turn out the Democrats have had the last 20 years. So how about we look at a poll with a more realistic sampling.

Quinnipiac just released a poll in which Democrats were oversampled by 6pts which is closer to the historical average. It had 49% say Obama does not deserve to be reelected and 56% disapprove of the way he is handling the economy. For the question, who would do a better job on the economy Romney wins 47/43 while the question of who would do a better job at creating jobs goes to Romney 45/42.

I don’t see how you can be so confident that Obama is a sure thing.

geojanes wrote:Same here. We should be hiring an able administrator, and I think Romney enjoys being an administrator. If you want values, you should go to your clergy. But that's just me.

Administrators are not necessarily the best for the very top jobs. They are good at running things, but are usually doing so within guidelines, for a purpose. They are not usually the ones good at setting the purpose itself. Not sure you need 'Values' for that, but you do need some vision.

What is Romney's vision for the USA? Other than himself as President, I mean.

Too much poll data which at this point has absolutely no meaning. But one comment Ray Jay, FDR moving the country in the right direction is kind of a stretch. His economic policies arguably made the depression worse and last longer than it should have been. And we are still trying to pay for the mess he made. The government cancer really took off under him and we haven't been able to cure it since. Don't understand how he gets in the same sentence as Churchill or Reagan. But Romney has a fight on his hands. Obama will be doing what he did last time. "Don't look at my record" (last time he didn't have one and this time, unfortunately for us, he does). His main point may be that even though he has made a horrible mess of the economy the other guy wants to kill women and old people and he hates poor people and they deserve what they get.

But one comment Ray Jay, FDR moving the country in the right direction is kind of a stretch.

I didn't say that FDR moved the country in the right direction. I said that he had the personal characteristics and skill to lead the country in a direction even if many didn't agree with him. Obama doesn't seem to have that skill set.

By the way, Obama is running the same campaign that FDR ran in 1936. FDR ran against a very weak Republican candidate (Alf Landon). Obama doesn't have FDR's touch, so we shall see.

From my perspective, putting FDR in with Churchill and Reagan is more of a slur on FDR :-)

Polls at this stage are not completely meaningless. They'd be very meaningful if the incumbent was consistently behind, for example. But there is a long way to go yet, and a lot of unknowns to go.

Dr Fate is convinced (as he has been for a while, despite the evidence) that the economy is faltering. Obama is of course hoping that it doesn't. The real question is what voters think has been the case by November