Neal Anderth wrote:I vote we end this thread, Republicans can't win with their candidates, and as low of approval ratings as Obama has there's no way he's losing short of a sex scandal.

You are, of course, joking? If not, I would be willing to entertain a wager.

Please show me a poll with more than 50% re-elect numbers. However flawed the GOP candidates are, they have one thing going for them: they are not Obama.

Ray Jay wrote:For the most part I agree with this, although I do like Huntsman (which makes sense because I am a registered independent). His foreign policy is just right for me, and his economic view is not as government oriented as his detractors claim. That being said, he cannot gain traction in the campaign (subject to a big surprise in the open primaries), so it is a moot point. So, just like you, Romney becomes my defacto choice.

Romney's flip flops are part of a larger problem which is that he doesn't seem to have a core. It is hard to figure out what he really believes; he can argue either side of any issue with equal emotional and body language conviction. It seems like just about all of his positions are poll tested. Today's WSJ commends him for his housing views which are not poll tested, but he hedges on that one as well.

My sense is that he will be what Obama has not been: pragmatic, maybe to a fault.

It would be nice to vote for someone instead of against everybody else. 2012 doesn't seem like it will be that kind of year.

For me, that's because too many of the more promising candidates took themselves out of the running. That's why I continue to hold out a smidgeon of hope for a deadlocked convention.

Sadly, we're looking at the same sort of deal in the Senate race. I don't like Scott Brown. However, compared to Elizabeth Warren, he's Ronald Reagan.

Hey Steve, good to see you back. I was gonna pick up the slack on beating up Owen, but it didn't seem as fun.

I think what you're missing with the poll numbers is that nobody is positive. Nobody. 40% is good in this political climate. This could be one of the lowest election turnouts ever, or one of the highest. It all depends on who the Republicans nominate. Currently, the Republicans are aiming for someone who will make the turnout a joke, and give Obama a landslide--the most unapproved landslide in american history.

The cans and can't's of 4, 8, 12, and16 years ago no longer apply.

Romney is electable and can win the nomination. Huntsman is electable but can't win the nomination. The others are not electable. Perry maybe, if he does a lot of work on his image. But if Cain or Bachmann wins, forget it. Obama gets re-elected. Smart republicans support Romney. I see him walking away with it after the third or 4th primary.

I'm afraid I mean no joke in this DF. In fact I was suggesting to bbauska offline that it would be better for the Republicans if it wasn't a presidential election, then they could just pick off a bunch more congressional seats based on Obama's low approval ratings. However, with some creepy or kooky candidate being the face of the whole Republican party it makes even those easy gains much more difficult.

Or who knows? Maybe America will re-install Obama and simultaneously vote in tons more Republicans just to make it suck for him.

Maybe America will re-install Obama and simultaneously vote in tons more Republicans just to make it suck for him.

Is there a German term in physcology for this?
The impasse in Congress is the source of much of the uncertainty in the economy. Doing something, setting a defintive course of action that everyone knows will be followed for a few years ...even if some think its the wrong course - is more productive than the sputtering and indecision that results from your current form of government, badly divided as it is...

So the economy came in at 2.5% GDP growth last quarter.... If this continues its likely employment will start to grow... Then what?

Geo, How on earth is Romney electable, when he can't get more than 25% of his own party to support him? It's not like he's any different from Obama. So are you saying that the change people are looking for is a "white" Obama?

Neal Anderth wrote:I'm afraid I mean no joke in this DF. In fact I was suggesting to bbauska offline that it would be better for the Republicans if it wasn't a presidential election, then they could just pick off a bunch more congressional seats based on Obama's low approval ratings. However, with some creepy or kooky candidate being the face of the whole Republican party it makes even those easy gains much more difficult.

We know what Obama's strategy is. He's already running it.

Four words: "It's not my fault!" (okay, technically, with the contraction, it's five).

Truman won with that strategy, narrowly. Different times and a different man: Obama made promises that no one could keep. We'll see if voters hold him blameless.

There's also the fact that the Democratic Senate has been every bit as obstinate as the GOP Congress. They've not passed a budget in more than two years. They've blocked Republican legislation.

Meanwhile, the President has been the most partisan hack to ever occupy the White House. He talks "bipartisan" every so often--basically in between attacks on the Republicans.

And, it's hard to forget that the Democrats had control of both houses for two years. How did that work?

Or who knows? Maybe America will re-install Obama and simultaneously vote in tons more Republicans just to make it suck for him.

Schadenfreude.

Democrats are delusional. Pelosi predicted, right up until the end, that Dems would hold the House. Not even close.

Now they are talking about holding the Senate, taking back the House, and getting Obama re-elected.

I'll take anyone's money on that.

Democrats will take neither House.

Presuming Romney is the nominee, he will win. It may be close, as Democrats will run the nastiest campaign in modern history and will have a bundle of bucks to do so.

"white obama" Ha. The fact he's actually done some governing and has a record (done something about health care in MA, for example) hurts him in his primary but will help him in the general. I don't follow the republicans closely, at all, but I see him and Huntsman as the two most moderate and that's a good thing in the general. A lot of folks are disappointed with Obama. He was dealt a terrible hand, but he still didn't play it well. Romney isn't a nutcase, nor is he so right wing. Disappointed Obama voters could switch over to him and still feel OK about their vote. Of course, I'm originally from Michigan where all of the Romney's are loved. Something in the water, I guess.

Of course, if the economy continues to improve (a not terrible GDP number yesterday) I think Obama's going to be hard to beat, Steve's eloquent commentary notwithstanding.

geojanes wrote:Of course, if the economy continues to improve (a not terrible GDP number yesterday) I think Obama's going to be hard to beat, Steve's eloquent commentary notwithstanding.

The GDP figures were an improvement, that's for certain. Not brilliant, but at least the US has had growth over the past year. I think that if the economy is seen to recover over the next 6-9 months, and optimism and confidence return, the election will be in a very different context.

As someone who was a fair way back in the polls a year before his re-election once said, "It's the economy, stupid".

Our statesmen used to say:
"Give me liberty or give me death."
"From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

More recently we have, "It's the economy, stupid."

The thing is, while it's not very eloquent, it's probably the most accurate . . .

A lot of folks are disappointed with Obama.

There's a lot of disappointment to go around.
The latest WSJ poll (summed on page 8) shows a positive by Americans as a whole of Obama at 46% The next highest entity or person in approval rating is the Democratic Party at 37% then the republican Party at 33% and Mitt Romney at 27% followed by Cain at 24% People might disapprove of his job performance but he's still got more positive for him than the other players...

The same poll has Cain the choice of republican primary voters at 27% leading Mitt by 3 points. On head to head Obama beats both. Mitt by 2% and Cain by a landslide...
And this is a Republican pollster...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44881446/ns ... -gop-pack/

Somewhere in the 29 pages it shows Clinton's approval ratings at the same point in his presidency.39%.

rickyp wrote:

A lot of folks are disappointed with Obama.

There's a lot of disappointment to go around.
The latest WSJ poll (summed on page 8) shows a positive by Americans as a whole of Obama at 46% The next highest entity or person in approval rating is the Democratic Party at 37% then the republican Party at 33% and Mitt Romney at 27% followed by Cain at 24% People might disapprove of his job performance but he's still got more positive for him than the other players...

Of course, this isn't how polls work, and, as a big fan of Nate, you ought to know that. The President's disapproval rating is what really hurts.

Let's be clear: with a President this far under 50%, he will get few, if any, of the undecideds. So, how does he win? Answer: only with a strong 3rd party to siphon off GOP votes.

The same poll has Cain the choice of republican primary voters at 27% leading Mitt by 3 points. On head to head Obama beats both. Mitt by 2% and Cain by a landslide...
And this is a Republican pollster...

Name ID of Obama: probably 100%

What about the other people?

And, again, you know better. The incumbent is the one on trial. He is the one who has seen his popularity slide. He is the one on whom people cast their hopes and in return they've gotten . . . a huge bill and the weakest recovery in modern history.

Somewhere in the 29 pages it shows Clinton's approval ratings at the same point in his presidency.39%.

And, without Perot, no second term for Billy.

Same goes for Obama. Unless Paul runs independently, Obama has little chance.

George points to the "not terrible" GDP number. Okay, I'm fine with that.

"Re-elect Obama: things are not terrible."

I'd put that on my car.

The truth is no one, no one, not one economist, thinks we will experience a "robust" recovery before the election. Obamacare will be an issue. The debt will be an issue. Solyndra will be an issue. The Stimulus will be an issue. Operation Fast and Furious will be an issue.

Obama has only three answers:

1. Things could be worse.
2. It's someone else's fault (Bush or the 1/2 of the Congress he didn't control for 1/2 of his term).
3. I killed Bin Laden.

Things could be worse. Sure, but they haven't been in 70 years. Furthermore, even though you've told us you are stymied by the Republicans (whom you won't talk to or negotiate with), you've not proposed anything different in your AJA than you have proposed for the first 2 1/2 years that brought us to this point. So, why should we think your ideas are suddenly the right ones?

When are you responsible? When things go well? Did you give Bush credit for anything, like all his security policies you critiqued and now have adopted?

And, isn't a leader supposed to convince rather than scold and mock? Didn't you say you would reach across the aisle? So far, you've only reached out to throw combinations. You can blame Republicans for not working with you, but haven't you gone out of your way to publicly humiliate them (Paul Ryan comes to mind)?

You killed Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki. Good for you! Please show us that none of the intelligence was gathered via extralegal measures. After that, how about explaining how you need no warrant nor declaration from Congress to kill an American citizen (note well: I don't have a problem with this. What is troubling, however, is the reluctance of the government to prove that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist. Right now, we have allegations and press reports. Why not release proof?).

In any event, I'm still waiting for some Lefty to have the confidence in Obama to put his money where his keyboard is. It's easy to say, "Obama will win."

There really is no objective evidence. We know it is difficult to defeat an incumbent.

However, no one has won reelection with unemployment this high (other than FDR), the debt this high, record deficits, unfolding scandals, massive incompetence, and a smug, self-righteous, and yet whiny campaign. Additionally, I think it very likely we will see a foreign crisis of some kind unfold in the next year. I think it will be one that Obama will botch completely because he has been fairly incompetent so far.

Electorally, he won't hold Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, or Virginia. I suspect he will need every penny he raises and more--because more blue states will be threatened than red states.

If the election were today, Obama would lose. Of course, that presumes we would have had three debates and that the GOP nominee would be as known as the President. Under those circumstances, I don't think Obama would get 46% of the vote--and there is no poll to suggest he would. The undecided will go for the non-incumbent, like they always do.

Obama will not win barring a massive economic improvement--one that no one is forecasting.

Steve do you have anything to back up your assertion that Obama is being primarily blamed for the economy?
I agree with you that the judgement is that he has under performed. And he has.
But all the polls you posted and I've posted show that disapproval of Democrats in Congress is higher than the President and and republicans in Congress face even greater disapproval. (BTW, if approval and disapproval numbers are so key in your analysis why do you think republicans in Congress will continue to grow?)
Directly on point (who's to blame for the economic mess...) is this qunnipiac poll.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1657

The salient point:

Voters continue, however, to blame former President George W. Bush more than Obama for the economy, 51 - 32 percent, statistically unchanged from 53 - 32 percent in September.
"The political challenge for the president will be whether he can make voters believe his eventual GOP opponent is a carbon copy of the former president," said Brown. "The fact that voters are unsure whether the economy will improve if he is re-elected is not a good sign for Obama

The poor economy and unemployment give the republicans a huge opportunity. But if the eventual candidate (probably Mitt) can't convince the majority that his policies are going to be largely different from those that got the country in the mess... then how can he win? (And Mitt has a problem in that many of his economic policies are an echo of the Bush Administration.)
The point behind the sympathy for OSW is that people in the US have largely identified the culprits for the economic mess. You and the Tea Party like to think its mostly in Washington. (I guess that would be mostly the Bush administration?) The majority think its the puppet masters on Wall Street still pulling in the absurdly big bucks for under performing.
That Obama has been disappointing to many doesn't matter when it comes down to a head to head battle with a guy who is identiifed more strongly with the polciies that created the mess, and the philosophy that backed it up. "Corporations are people too" and his fudging on all the issues will be difficult to over come. Example?: Creating health care in Mass, that is very popular in the state , but disavowing it for the nation as a whole... Especially if there is an improving economy.
More so please refer to the current head to head choice (previous WSJ poll you criticize, ) where Mitt loses to Obama in a direct contest. And thats before he actually has to debate the man or campaign directly against him. His opponents in the republican primaries are no where near as skilled as Obama or the Chicago team. Its looking increasingly like Obama can rebound.(Well not rebound, since he's actually ahead. But I'll bet the margin indicated in the WSJ poll increases as the economy improves a little...)

geojanes wrote:"white obama" Ha. The fact he's actually done some governing and has a record (done something about health care in MA, for example) hurts him in his primary but will help him in the general. I don't follow the republicans closely, at all, but I see him and Huntsman as the two most moderate and that's a good thing in the general. A lot of folks are disappointed with Obama. He was dealt a terrible hand, but he still didn't play it well. Romney isn't a nutcase, nor is he so right wing. Disappointed Obama voters could switch over to him and still feel OK about their vote. Of course, I'm originally from Michigan where all of the Romney's are loved. Something in the water, I guess.

Of course, if the economy continues to improve (a not terrible GDP number yesterday) I think Obama's going to be hard to beat, Steve's eloquent commentary notwithstanding.

I don't understand your first (well, second) sentence. How does being more similar to Obama help him in the General? And that's my point. Since when has anyone ever said, "oh, he's more like the guy i'm not voting for, so maybe i'll vote for him"?

Anyone who is pro government-healthcare will vote for Obama. The ONLY chance Republicans have is by nominating someone who is so different from Obama and the rest of the status quo, they re-inspire the typically non-voters to vote for him. In other words, they need Ron Paul.

Looking back at the beginning of this thread, who has been the most accurate prognosticator?

Update: Ron Paul gets 82% in Iowans only poll at NFRA

Imagine you have a mile of beach, and two ice cream sellers. Everyone goes the the closest ice cream seller. The ice cream sellers can move freely to optimize their position. They will end up right next to each other in the middle of the beach.

And that's politics, if you think of it as left/right linear, politicians rush to the center to optimize their base. Now, if you think of politics of multi- dimensional it's a more complex problem, but center is still where you want to be because you have more voters closer to you. I don't think it's typical that someone out of the mainstream is often elected. It happens I'm sure, but it's not typical, is it?

If it happens, I think it has to happen like you say, with non-voters coming out. They are the wild card.