Doctor Fate wrote:And, without Perot, no second term for Billy.

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

As I said before thread over. No matter how you slice this pie, Obama wins.

We despise Obama, it's not a reason in and of itself to install someone like Romney.

Take a look at his website, here's a guy that's been doing nothing other than run for president for years and he can't even tell you concretely what he's going to do other than cut Social Security & Medicare (The only things along with unemployment that the public actually agrees to have withheld from their paychecks). His plan for tackling Obamcare (mind you he invented it) is to let everyone opt out. Well that's the worst case scenario, it still allows everyone to 'opt in' and thus leave the program with the same expenses but even less revenue. How is that a solution?

He takes his most concrete stand on foreign policy where he unequivocally endorses the byline of the Project for a New American Century (NeoCon thinktank stuff that took us into our failed multi trillion dollar occupations) by saying:

It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation for an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies.

A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs. Neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America.

At least Bush took us to dinner and a movie first.

How anyone other than an avowed NeoCon could vote for Romney in good conscience is beyond me.

rickyp wrote:Steve do you have anything to back up your assertion that Obama is being primarily blamed for the economy?

Me thinks you doth cherry-pick too much. From your source:

American voters disapprove 55 - 41 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing, an all- time low, and say 77 - 20 percent that the economy is in a recession, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters say 44 - 11 percent that the economy is getting worse, not better, while only 29 percent say the economy will improve if the president is re-elected.

Now, imagine 13 months into the future. The trends continue (meaning no recession, but a slow to very slow recovery with near 9% unemployment). Will voters blame Bush or the guy that is actually on the ballot that they think has made the economy worse by a 4:1 ratio?

The key question will not be: "Did Obama inherit a bad economy?" The question will be: "Did he take a bad situation and make it better?"

I think the answer will be somewhere on the "NOT A CHANCE" to "eh, not really" spectrum.

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.

Congress and the President are two completely different animals.Congressional approval numbers have not been good for the last several years, with occasional blips.

Here are the real issues:

1. Economy
2. National Debt.
3. Obamacare.

Obama has nothing to offer on any of these. On (1), he's made it worse--even according to your poll. On (2), his response to record-breaking deficits has been to propose more spending. On (3), well, it's his baby and America doesn't like it:

After remaining roughly evenly split for most of the last year and a half, this month’s tracking poll found a higher share of the public expressing negative views towards the health reform law. About half (51 percent) say they have an unfavorable view of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), while 34 percent have a favorable view, a low point in Kaiser polls since the law was passed. While Democrats continue to be substantially more supportive of the law than independents or Republicans, the change in favorability this month was largely driven by waning enthusiasm for the law among Democrats, among whom the share with a favorable view dropped from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in September to just over half (52 percent) in October.

With the CLASS program not appearing to be viable, the last fig leaf (saving money) has been stripped away. The program is a fiasco and Obama's name is attached to it.

(BTW, if approval and disapproval numbers are so key in your analysis why do you think republicans in Congress will continue to grow?)

Because, dear Ricky, only one politician in America has 100% name ID. Presidents get, within a point or two, the percentage of the popular vote that they poll just before the election. There is no way Obama can be that far below 50% and win--at least not in a 2-way vote. Incumbents don't get the "undecided" vote. Those people have chosen not to choose the incumbent and eventually, even reluctantly, vote for the challenger.

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...)

Uh-huh. Name the last President to have such a bad economy and win. Name the last President to run down the country, blame everyone else for his failures, and identify with radical protests to win?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Same for you Neal. You guys no so much, go to In-Trade and make bank.

Neal Anderth wrote:How anyone other than an avowed NeoCon could vote for Romney in good conscience is beyond me.

If I thought Obama was a generic Democrat, you might be right. However, he is anything but. He is incompetent, liberal, dishonest, and the most partisan and divisive President we've ever had. He is the worst possible leader for us to have at this time in our history. He has shown himself willing to skirt the law (taking the law into his own hands in extraordinary ways) and to ignore the laws on the books rather than enforce them or even defend them.

Your use of labels is ridiculous. I am not a Neocon. However, compared to Obama, I would vote for any NeoCon. Why? Because he/she would at least slow the decline of the country. Obama is like the end scene of Thelma and Louise--the cliff can't come soon enough for him.

geojanes wrote: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?

When is Obama going to the middle?

I don't think he can. He is hoping for a base election. I think he's out of his mind. The way he is going he may not break 40%.

Steve, whose foreign policy do you prefer: Ron Paul or Barack H Obama?

Me thinks you doth cherry-pick too much. From your source:

Cherry pick? I picked the one point that asked the specific question which you asserted, who's to blame for getting into the mess.
You've picked the fuzzy points about approval. I'll stipulate for you again. The public can disaaprove of his performance, and yet still disapprove of others more... They can blame him for his role in not not having cleaned up the mess, and yet fully understand that he wasn't responsible for creating the mess. And also understand that he operates in a federal system with 2 Congressional bodies who can and do thwart his actions.

Will voters blame Bush

Bush was in office for the 7 years up to the Crash. And in office for the Bail out that both Tea Party and OSW protests...protest.
So Bush.

or the guy that is actually on the ballot that they think has made the economy worse by a 4:1 ratio?

They'll blame the log jam in Congress more than Obama. Because thats how the dem are going to run...

I think you're painting exactly the debate that will occur in the election though. Republicans will say, sure it was bad but he made it worse. And Democrats will say, it was bad, and everything we tried republicans stopped us. And if they get in, it'll be tax the middle class and working clas at the expense of the rich... At the moment every tax proposal unveiled by leading republican candidiates is shown by careful analysis to cost poor and middle class more at the expense of the rich ...and at the same time, do nothing to alleviate the deficit. So the alternative isn't looking all that good. I'm sure Romney will do better though, perhaps disappointing the hard right when he does .

One number was reported on CNN yesterday that highlight where the focus will be for the Dems Over the last 30 years in the US incomes for the rich have gone up 234%, for the middle class 43% and for the working poor 17%. If Obama makes this a "class war" and he will, there are more voters who haven't had things work out too well for them in the last 30 years. And remember that those "radicals" in OSW have 54% of the electorate symapthizing with them.
its always radicals who lead the fight. The Viet nam protests were lead by radicals too. But they ended up reflecting the majority view...

rickyp wrote:

Me thinks you doth cherry-pick too much. From your source:

Cherry pick? I picked the one point that asked the specific question which you asserted, who's to blame for getting into the mess.
You've picked the fuzzy points about approval. I'll stipulate for you again.

You're not "stipulating" anything.

intransitive verb
1
: to make an agreement or covenant to do or forbear something : contract
2
: to demand an express term in an agreement —used with for
transitive verb
1
: to specify as a condition or requirement (as of an agreement or offer)
2
: to give a guarantee of

If anything, you're postulating (claiming) or hypothesizing.

The public can disaaprove of his performance, and yet still disapprove of others more... They can blame him for his role in not not having cleaned up the mess, and yet fully understand that he wasn't responsible for creating the mess. And also understand that he operates in a federal system with 2 Congressional bodies who can and do thwart his actions.

Right. In other words, he's either not responsible (a fine claim for the most powerful man on the Earth to make) or he's incompetent, but others might be worse.

Mercy.

Again, if you really believe what you're saying, show me the money. No one has ever won a Presidential election with the claims you're laying out. He's going to blame Republicans in Congress? Well, what about the Democratic Senate? They unanimously rejected his budget AND have refused, on a bipartisan vote, to take up his "jobs bill."

"I'm President Barack Obama. Many of you think I'm not up to this job. You might be right, but I'm not as bad as . . . "

Really?

Will voters blame Bush

Bush was in office for the 7 years up to the Crash. And in office for the Bail out that both Tea Party and OSW protests...protest.
So Bush.

Uh-huh. Just like last November. You are living in an alternate reality. The trends are all Republican, but you don't like them. That doesn't change reality.

You love citing polls that show people still blame Bush MORE than Obama. There's a problem with that. As time goes on, the blame for Bush goes down and the blame on Obama goes up. That trend will continue.

There's one more problem: only one of those names will be on the ballot.

With the bang-up job Obama is doing, GWB might surpass him in popularity by election day!

or the guy that is actually on the ballot that they think has made the economy worse by a 4:1 ratio?

They'll blame the log jam in Congress more than Obama. Because thats how the dem are going to run...

So, convincing the electorate that Republicans refusing to run up bigger deficits and refusing to do a second Stimulus, thus cutting off funding for more Solyndras, is a winning formula?

Again, please, I beg you, run Obama's campaign. He won't get 35% with that strategy. People don't think government is too small. Obama does.

I think you're painting exactly the debate that will occur in the election though. Republicans will say, sure it was bad but he made it worse. And Democrats will say, it was bad, and everything we tried republicans stopped us.

Fine, except only morons will believe the latter. Democrats had the Presidency, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate for a year. They had 59 votes for another year.

Did they pass healthcare that was bipartisan? Did they even try to recruit RINO's?

Not really. Obama to Republicans: "I won."

Now? He's not responsible. It's the Republicans' fault?

Try it.

And if they get in, it'll be tax the middle class and working clas at the expense of the rich...

Except we all know whose wallets Obama has been filling. His rich fat-cat friends who visit the White House and get his energy department to subordinate the taxpayers' interest to. Obama is not helping the middle class or the poor. He is borrowing, borrowing, and borrowing. Eventually, that has to be paid back. There aren't enough rich people in the US to handle the debt crisis at 100% of their income.

Will class warfare work? You better hope not. If it does, it will eventually bankrupt the US.

One number was reported on CNN yesterday that highlight where the focus will be for the Dems Over the last 30 years in the US incomes for the rich have gone up 234%, for the middle class 43% and for the working poor 17%.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. The one stat Obama can't lie about is the one that will cause his political demise: unemployment.

Also, Obama is easily shown to be a hypocrite. All of his railing against lobbyists. So, what does he do? Take all kinds of money from lobbyists who just don't register as lobbyists. His conduct is laughable.

If Obama makes this a "class war" and he will, there are more voters who haven't had things work out too well for them in the last 30 years. And remember that those "radicals" in OSW have 54% of the electorate symapthizing with them.

It won't work. It can't work. People know he's incompetent and that things are worse. You have way too much faith in OWS. As riots, mass arrests, and pictures like these become more common, the OWS protests will be seen for what they are: something that has been overtaken by the most radical elements of our society, namely anarchists, socialists and communists.

its always radicals who lead the fight. The Viet nam protests were lead by radicals too. But they ended up reflecting the majority view...

When? Answer: decades AFTER the protests, not during elections that mattered.

Furthermore, the nature of the protests turned middle America away from sympathizing. Why? Because it was filled with anti-Americanism, just like OWS.

If OWS exists 6 months from now, it will have favorability ratings below 30%. By election day, it won't move anyone in a positive way.

Obama's plan? Run like it's 1936. It's not. He's not FDR either.

Where is Obama's coalition? How did he get elected and what has he done to consolidate it into a movement? Are the independents going to vote with him like they did in 2008? Can he get the independent vote with a "I'm not as bad as . . . " campaign?

Not this time.

Doctor Fate wrote:However, compared to Obama, I would vote for any NeoCon. Why? Because he/she would at least slow the decline of the country. Obama is like the end scene of Thelma and Louise--the cliff can't come soon enough for him.

How exactly are you using this plot as a metaphor for Obama? I'm not sure it makes out quite as you'd meant. Maybe you'd do better picking from the French Revolution or something.

Neal Anderth wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, compared to Obama, I would vote for any NeoCon. Why? Because he/she would at least slow the decline of the country. Obama is like the end scene of Thelma and Louise--the cliff can't come soon enough for him.

How exactly are you using this plot as a metaphor for Obama? I'm not sure it makes out quite as you'd meant. Maybe you'd do better picking from the French Revolution or something.

Um, not the plot--the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zRkerEHHso

Doctor Fate wrote:

The public can disaaprove of his performance, and yet still disapprove of others more... They can blame him for his role in not not having cleaned up the mess, and yet fully understand that he wasn't responsible for creating the mess. And also understand that he operates in a federal system with 2 Congressional bodies who can and do thwart his actions.

Right. In other words, he's either not responsible (a fine claim for the most powerful man on the Earth to make) or he's incompetent, but others might be worse.

Well, if you do think that the President is 'the most powerful man on earth', then you may actually look to who was in the post when the 2007 Credit Crunch became the 2008 crash.

Which could explain the figures in the polling that ricky pointed us at - more people blame Bush than blame Obama. That doesn't mean that the latter is in no way responsible for the current economic situation, but I suppose it reflects a view that he inherited a big pile.

And yes, it's clearly not beyond the bounds of reasonable thought to consider that while Obama is not the greatest, his eventual opponent will be worse. We have Cain who is proposing a brilliant plan to increase everyone's grocety bills by 9% and tax those on lower incomes more, and who can't decide if he's pro-choice or pro-life, but he's definitely in favour of something relating to abortions. And you have Perry, who is so confident of his capabilities that he's decided to reduce head-to-head debates with other GOP runners, not that he came across badly or anything.

If the Republicans have the sense to run Romney, then they can argue competence. If they don't, I'm not sure how the idea that Obama is a better alternative won't have some traction in the 'reality community'.

steve

So, convincing the electorate that Republicans refusing to run up bigger deficits and refusing to do a second Stimulus, thus cutting off funding for more Solyndras, is a winning formula?

You keep quoting approval polls as a measure of future electoral support. The approval polls for republicans in Congress are lower than either the Dems or Obama. So the strategies you mention here don't seem to have helped their approval ratings....Yet they'll help in the election?

Ricky,

I see your point, although the Congressional polling is not necessarily a guide. Few of the Republican candidates are in Congress, most of them are governors, and I suspect that there is a difference to voters - being less likely to be tainted by the Beltway politicking. Bachmann is the main exception, and she has a maverick reputation anyway.

I don't think it's wise to predict at this point - it is way too early. Just as Steve is being far to optimistic, so are you.

Danivon I'm refering to Steve's predictions that republicans will win larger majorities in the House and more seats in the senate ...
He believes that this

So, convincing the electorate that Republicans refusing to run up bigger deficits and refusing to do a second Stimulus, thus cutting off funding for more Solyndras, is a winning formula?

is popular andcovnincing. And yet, approval ratings in Congress are lowest for republicans. After conducting themselves as he's just mentioned. I'm only questioning his logic in slecting one form of argumentation to demonstrate Obamas weakness, and applying it differently when he discusses the Congressional battle...

I don't think the approval ratings of Congress directly reflect any republican candidates electability. I'll hang my hat on the polling of the direct comparisons...And so far Obama's ahead. And without actually campaigning or debating Romney.
And after Cains problems today, probably now Romney's the presumptive choice for the Republicans...Or is Newt due for a rebound?

What problems, the accusations of sexual harassment, or the dodgy campaign financing?

I wonder who the Republican right will find to be the next 'stop Romney' candidate.

What problems, the accusations of sexual harassment, or the dodgy campaign financing?

Plus the smoking in his campaign ads, and the fraudulent claims about Planned Parenthood on FAce the Nation..
He's imploding..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ml?hpid=z2

rickyp wrote:Danivon I'm refering to Steve's predictions that republicans will win larger majorities in the House and more seats in the senate ...
He believes that this

So, convincing the electorate that Republicans refusing to run up bigger deficits and refusing to do a second Stimulus, thus cutting off funding for more Solyndras, is a winning formula?

is popular andcovnincing. And yet, approval ratings in Congress are lowest for republicans.

Tell you what. I'll make it easy. You take the Democrats. I'll take the Republicans. $100 for each house, straight up.

Deal?

After conducting themselves as he's just mentioned. I'm only questioning his logic in slecting one form of argumentation to demonstrate Obamas weakness, and applying it differently when he discusses the Congressional battle...

Because popularity is not particularly relevant in one race (Congress) and is in the other (President). There is no "Congress, please select from the following: Republican Democrat" on the ballot. You vote for the incumbent or the challenger, if any. Have a look at the generic Congressional RCP average. Typically, anything less than D +6 = a Republican edge. If you think Democrats have the edge, then take my money.

I don't think the approval ratings of Congress directly reflect any republican candidates electability. I'll hang my hat on the polling of the direct comparisons...And so far Obama's ahead. And without actually campaigning or debating Romney.

I'm sorry, but that is a foolish statement. What is their name ID?

Beyond that, you don't understand the importance of Obama being significantly under 50%. Have you learned nothing, being Silver's acolyte and all?

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

In other words, more than 4:1 of undecided voters go to the challenger. That is why Obama is not in good shape. He has to be at 48% or so to have a decent chance.

On Cain: this is nothing. Of course, it has Lefties like you in a tizzy. Gee, he doesn't like PP. That will hurt him with whom? Bogus charges leveled by Politico. That will hurt. Not.

The only thing that will hurt Cain is his lack of resources. So far, only liberals are upset. Of course, they're the same ones making racist or semi-racist statements about him on network news, so . . . who cares? Liberals love minorities--as long as they're liberal. Conservative minorities, Hispanic, black, female, must be destroyed (Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Rubio). That's just the way your side plays.

Doctor Fate wrote:The only thing that will hurt Cain is his lack of resources.

That, and his mouth which is constantly getting him into hot water. Seriously, I don't think he would have much trouble with resources if it weren't for the fact you never know what he's going to say. Republican $$ is looking for a place to go, but Cain is too much of a loose canon for much of it to flow to him.