I get the idea about the nomination being a very long shot, but imagine a miracle and Huntsman wins a major party nomination. Wouldn't he be a great candidate against Obama? He'd win. I'm not sure any of the others will.

geojanes wrote:I get the idea about the nomination being a very long shot, but imagine a miracle and Huntsman wins a major party nomination. Wouldn't he be a great candidate against Obama? He'd win. I'm not sure any of the others will.

He's in the wrong party!

Neal Anderth wrote:Polling data: Cain is down, Perry is down, Gingrich is way up, and Romney is ho-hum the same. The Republicans have no viable candidate to run against Obama.

Romney is viable. He has the best shot of winning as things stand.

Headline: New poll shows 4-way tie in Iowa as XXX XXXX moves to top tier

steve

but must you post the same questions endlessly too?

I suppose because I'd like you to try to answer them directly and logically. What you posted was a non-sequitar. Silverman explaining why undecided's may swing differently then they used to..

What I'm challenging is your assertion that Obama's disappointing approval ratings doom him in an election. Clearly the poll that shows high disapproval numbrs also shows that when faced with a direct choice these same peole (note that they disapprove of the presidents performance) still would choose to vote for him instead of any named or unanmed republican.
Thats pretty compelling evidence that your theory is hogwash.
The republicans will have to nominate a credible candidate to beat Oabama. And so far none of them appears to have credibility when it comes down to making the up or down voting choice. Romney may develop that credibility outside of the republican party, but he can't even convince his party. Huntsman could too. But his party won't consider him.
Now its Paul and Gringinch?
By the way, if enthusiasm about a candidate is important check out page 13 of the WSJ poll.(link below) 11 points of the 44 who said they would vote for Romney would only vote for him because he's the parties nominee. No real enthusiasm for the Mittster.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... r_Poll.pdf

rickyp wrote:steve

but must you post the same questions endlessly too?

I suppose because I'd like you to try to answer them directly and logically. What you posted was a non-sequitar. Silverman explaining why undecided's may swing differently then they used to..

Just wow.

You can't even get your idol, Nate Silver's name right? You used to quote him like he was Scripture.

As to the substance, it is not a non-sequiter (sic). I thought you would grasp this. You wrote:

So, splain again why disapproval is the key? They can't disapprove of the Presidents performance and yet dislike their options even more?

Traditionally, experts have said the undecided tend to vote against the incumbent. So, when the incumbent is far below 50%, he is considered to be in some serious trouble. Obama has been in the low 40's for some time. Most see that as the danger zone.

Silver's article, if you'd read it, is directly on point. He argued against my thesis, but he concluded by noting that this used to be the case. He did not give a breakdown on Presidential elections, but on Congressional elections. Of course, this was before the 2010 elections and things didn't quite hold up as he predicted.

What I'm challenging is your assertion that Obama's disappointing approval ratings doom him in an election. Clearly the poll that shows high disapproval numbrs also shows that when faced with a direct choice these same peole (note that they disapprove of the presidents performance) still would choose to vote for him instead of any named or unanmed republican.
Thats pretty compelling evidence that your theory is hogwash.

Not at all. I've cited (via Silverman (sic)) two head to head polls a year before the Presidential elections that were wildly inaccurate. Those who are fervently against Obama are not going to change their mind because the nominee is Romney. Now, that might not be the case if the nominee is perceived to be a right-wing zealot (say Bachmann). However, I don't think you can find a "strongly disapprove" number a year out that is like Obama's and yet the incumbent overcame it to win.

Four in 10 Americans “strongly” disapprove of how President Obama is handling the job of president in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, the highest that number has risen during his time in office and a sign of the hardening opposition to him as he seeks a second term.

You have nothing upon which to base the theory Obama will win reelection. In fact, none of the polls indicate he will. If he is leading now over Romney, but his numbers are under 50% (they are), Romney has less name recognition (because he's not the President), and the President's economic numbers are somewhere around 30/70, what makes you think he will win?

The republicans will have to nominate a credible candidate to beat Oabama. And so far none of them appears to have credibility when it comes down to making the up or down voting choice. Romney may develop that credibility outside of the republican party, but he can't even convince his party. Huntsman could too. But his party won't consider him.

Romney's problem is that he is perceived as being too liberal. How will that hurt him in a general election? Answer: it won't.

Romney is going to be the nominee. Period. Everyone except Santorum has had their shot. They've all gone down in flames--and Newt will too. He's too much of a lightning rod and he has to explain his income from Freddie and Fannie. That won't go down well with conservatives.

Now its Paul and Gringinch?

Paul has a solid base. Economically and domestically, he says what all conservatives think. Internationally, I think he is very unrealistic. I know the Paulistas will go nuts. I don't care. The truth is that even if he won Iowa, he would not win anything else. The Paulistas need to cool their jets. Rand Paul is 10x the politician his dad is. He is someone that actually could capture the nomination in the future.

By the way, if enthusiasm about a candidate is important check out page 13 of the WSJ poll.(link below) 11 points of the 44 who said they would vote for Romney would only vote for him because he's the parties nominee. No real enthusiasm for the Mittster.

But, the enthusiasm to get rid of Obama is palpable.That's what the polls show. I know you don't get it. You think spending us into oblivion is great. Most Americans don't agree. I know you think the Democrats can demagogue Medicare into reelection. Maybe they can. However, an articulate man like Romney ought to be able to point out the truth: no one is proposing eliminating Medicare. In fact, the one cutting Medicare is Obama under Obamacare.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/November_Poll.pdf

As for your poll, it is "adults." If there is a less meaningful poll, I can't imagine what it is--maybe a poll of "foreigners?"

The poll also has 9% 18-24 and 6% 65-69. Wanna bet the electorate in 2012 will not have 50% more 18-24 year-old than those 65-69?

The poll also shows 32% neutral on Romney and 12% "Don't Know Name/Not Sure."

Meanwhile, Obama has 15% neutral and zero "Don't Know Name/Not Sure."

I think that goes to my point on name ID.

Furthermore, we have yet to begin to have ads showing Obama calling America "lazy," etc. There are a string of things Obama has said about this country that are negative. Think that will help him with swing voters?

I cannot say Obama is toast. I can say he faces an uphill battle. He himself is trying to take on the mantle of underdog. Maybe he knows something you don't?

In State by State analysis, do you think Obama wins NC, VA, FL? I don't. So, he's got to win Ohio. How will that go? I don't know, but Obamacare just went down 2:1 so if I were the GOP nominee, I would run endless ads on that in Ohio. I think that will make it really tough. Nevada and Colorado aren't easy holds for Obama either.

If I had to bet right now, I'd put Obama at about 33 to 40% chance of winning. That's not good.

Btw, if anyone doesn't think Obamacare is a big fat negative for the President, I would ask you to consider a few things:

1. The cost, especially with the CLASS portion proving to be untenable. This goes against the trend of the electorate toward cutting the deficit.

2. Polls have consistently shown support for repealing it.

3. Obamacare itself has actually changed the perception of nationalized health care. (same link, scroll down)



It's gone from an overwhelming majority thinking the government should do it to about a 50/50 proposition since Obamacare was being debated in Congress. That's pretty amazing.

Again, this does not portend well for Obama. If it is declared unconstitutional, his name is on the biggest power grab in American history. If it is found constitutional, it may well tip the scales against him.

So, liberals say, "What about Romney? After all, his plan was the template for Obamacare!"

Well, yes, and no. I agree with his thin argument on the 10th Amendment. On the bigger issue, he's promising to get rid of it and Obama will have to defend it. I don't care how you slice it, that is advantage Romney. Plus, he has a record of fixing ailing financially failing concerns. Obama's record is taking a bad situation and making it worse.

Democrats are sharpening their knives and going after . . . the President.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off

Obama cannot run on his record. He has to run a slash and burn campaign. The argument Caddell and Schoen make is that is not good for the country.

When has Obama cared about that? He will do everything he can to win. That's why I will do all I can to stop him.

Yeah, I read that one too ... it does make some sense. BTW, they are both former Clintonians, although they do confirm in the article that it is their own idea and they don't expect economic advantage in another Clinton administration. (sure).

I did think that Obama would be more like Bill Clinton than Carter in terms of economic policy including government waste, free trade, regulation, working with the other side. I was wrong.

Newt is the GOP contender at the moment, so I can hardly imagine Obama having to do much other than let Newt spiral into oblivion with the media.

If it's Romney you just aren't going to have a motivated base. You know the angry crowd rallying behind Newt at the moment.

Neal Anderth wrote:Newt is the GOP contender at the moment, so I can hardly imagine Obama having to do much other than let Newt spiral into oblivion

I completely agree. I was going to say I couldn't think of a worse candidate, but then I thought about Cain, and then Perry, and then Bachmann, and its pretty stunning how poor the current Republican field is.

Interesting point made Sunday on Meet the Press, this year the all candidates will get proportional delegates, so people like Ron Paul, will be accruing delegates in proportion to their vote, which probably means they're not as likely to drop out as early as they did in the past. This could be a very long campaign season.

Geo:

This could be a very long campaign season.

It already is. ;)

Neal Anderth wrote:Newt is the GOP contender at the moment, so I can hardly imagine Obama having to do much other than let Newt spiral into oblivion with the media.

If it's Romney you just aren't going to have a motivated base. You know the angry crowd rallying behind Newt at the moment.

Sorry, I just can't believe how wrong you are. Even if it's Romney, it's not "the lesser of two evils." Romney may not be the most conservative person running or the person I would most like to vote for, but compared to Obama he's not a "lesser evil," but a very acceptable antidote to the illness plaguing this country--overspending and over-promising by government.

geoganes wrote:I completely agree. I was going to say I couldn't think of a worse candidate, but then I thought about Cain, and then Perry, and then Bachmann, and its pretty stunning how poor the current Republican field is.

How short is your memory? How great was the guy who finished 3rd in 2008 for the Democratic nomination? Isn't he now facing jail time? How about Kucinich? Biden? Dodd (an unconvicted crook)? Gravel?

Worse, whoever the nominee is, Obama is not going to have an easy time. It is a State by State race. Think Obama's winning Florida? Virginia? North Carolina?

He's going to have his hands full and, actually, he will be lucky if he wins. His strategy is something that could not work if there weren't a large stripe of the electorate who know nothing. Blaming Congress when he has blatantly failed to lead is pathetic. He is the worst President since Carter and that may be an insult to Carter.

Congress (both sides, both houses) are pretty much failing to get things done, aren't they? Obama can 'lead', but do you seriously expect that the House would follow?

Take the Super Committee and it's 1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts over the next 10 years. You've been running 1.6 trillion annual shortfalls. How does it even matter who's captain of that ship?

And I'll say it again, if you are under 65 the federal government doesn't even provide anything you need anyways.