Originally Posted by herbal tee

For not the first time on this thread I'll point out that the 2012 electorate will as is always true in a presidential election be larger, younger and ethnically more diverse than was the 2010 one. IOW, the 2012 electorate will look a lot more like the 2008 electorate than it will the 2010 one. This means that almost every state will hue bluer in 2012 than it did in 2010.

It will certainly look more like 2008, but how much is a different question. Every group except African-Americans has swung significantly away from Obama since 2008, and the voters who turned out most heavily for Obama in 2008 are the exact ones who have been hardest hit by the recession and unemployment. Obama's strategy for keeping his 2008 voters on his side and winning back ones he's lost will be entirely based on negative attacks against his opponent. He cannot show that his economic policies have made things better. But it without an improving economy, many of those people in his base are likely to refuse to vote at all, and stay home. In addition, states that voted for McCain in 2008 gained a net of 6 electoral votes in the census vs. states that voted for Obama.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Every group except African-Americans has swung significantly away from Obama since 2008

This is not true.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, the price spike in oil is indeed a permanent fact, or at least it will endure until we get off oil. Welcome to the ranks of those who understand Peak Oil.

However, people's attitudes to this and how it reflects in electoral results IS a matter of turnings.

I posted this already, but I'll repost it here:

The international oil market is priced in US Dollars. That means that when the value of the US$ goes down, the price of oil goes up. It's a direct cause and effect. While it's muted for those holding other currencies that are increasing in value against the US$ (which most are), for those holding only US$ (us), we have to deal with the prices we get. It's a good thing for us when the dollar is strong (as it was throughout the 80s and into the 90s, when gas stayed mostly around $1/gallon), and a bad thing when the dollar is weak.

You have the wrong two word phrase. It's not "Peak Oil", it's "Quantitative Easing".

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is not true.

Yes, it is true. Unless you think I meant their approval numbers have gone into negative territory. What I mean is their support has weakened. Where young voters might have gone for him 65-35, they might now go 55-45. (Those numbers are made up, I don't remember the actual ones). He has lost ground with everyone.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You have the wrong two word phrase. It's not "Peak Oil", it's "Quantitative Easing".

Very well, I take it back. You don't get it.

However, the main point is that the impact this will have on the electoral results next year is a matter of Turning. If most voters are still in 3T mode, the fact that oil prices are up will hurt Obama. If not, it won't necessarily. It very much depends on how he's seen to be approaching the problem.

Yes, it is true. Unless you think I meant their approval numbers have gone into negative territory. What I mean is their support has weakened. Where young voters might have gone for him 65-35, they might now go 55-45. (Those numbers are made up, I don't remember the actual ones). He has lost ground with everyone.

Where are you getting this from? Polls (if so, present them, please)? Or last year's exit polls?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It will certainly look more like 2008, but how much is a different question. Every group except African-Americans has swung significantly away from Obama since 2008, and the voters who turned out most heavily for Obama in 2008 are the exact ones who have been hardest hit by the recession and unemployment [snip partisan supposition]... He cannot show that his economic policies have made things better. But it without an improving economy, many of those people in his base are likely to refuse to vote at all, and stay home.

I don't expect a good economy next year.
But I also don't expect a GOP superman to show up.
I may be wrong.
But I just don't see another honest working person as played by a rich Hollywood star stealing the stage next year.

Originally Posted by JPT

In addition, states that voted for McCain in 2008 gained a net of 6 electoral votes in the census vs. states that voted for Obama.

Mathematically this doesnt matter. Obama won 365 EV's in 2008.
He only needs 270 EV's to be reelected in 2012.

365 - 6 = 359
and
359 > 270.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Very well, I take it back. You don't get it.

One of us doesn't get it, that's for sure.

However, the main point is that the impact this will have on the electoral results next year is a matter of Turning. If most voters are still in 3T mode, the fact that oil prices are up will hurt Obama. If not, it won't necessarily. It very much depends on how he's seen to be approaching the problem.

The last poll I remember seeing had 57% of Americans disapproving of Obama's handling of the economy. You are right that it is important whether people (especially those who voted for him in 2008) think his policies have made things better for them. A whole lot of them clearly don't. If that doesn't change, he will lose.

Where are you getting this from? Polls (if so, present them, please)? Or last year's exit polls?

I know from experience that you constantly demand to be spoon-fed basic information as some sort of tactic, and I apologize for not responding to it. The information is out there. It's common knowledge to anyone who follows the polls. You can look it up.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I don't expect a good economy next year.
But I also don't expect a GOP superman to show up.
I may be wrong.
But I just don't see another honest working person as played by a rich Hollywood star stealing the stage next year.



Mathematically this doesnt matter. Obama won 365 EV's in 2008.
365 - 6 = 359.
and
359 > 270.

Right. But:

1) The Republicans don't need Superman if the economy doesn't improve. They can win with almost anybody.

2) The Democrats did not merely lose, but were annihilated in 2010 in numerous states that Obama carried easily in 2008.

I agree in part with the earlier assessments. If Obama wins, it will be by the narrowest of margins. But as of now, it is more likely than not that he will lose, and without a dramatic improvement in the economy, nothing the left's spin/attack machine can do will save him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

as of now, it is more likely than not that he will lose, and without a dramatic improvement in the economy, nothing the left's spin/attack machine can do will save him.

He's not going to get much spinning from the true left in 2012.
Yes he will have a money machine, perhaps an even bigger money machine than the GOP has in 2012.
But it will be mostly the same transnational conglomerates that fund the GOP funding him.
Those people stay on top by hedging their bets.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The last poll I remember seeing had 57% of Americans disapproving of Obama's handling of the economy. You are right that it is important whether people (especially those who voted for him in 2008) think his policies have made things better for them. A whole lot of them clearly don't. If that doesn't change, he will lose.

Not necessarily. There's more going on, and it's important to know WHY Obama's handling of the economy meets with disapproval. Let's bear in mind what Obama has done most recently, which is pander to the Republicans in Congress.

Bearing that up, here's one datum:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-independents/

Originally Posted by Megan Thee-Brennan

While Mr. Obama’s overall approval rating may be improving with independents, his handling of the economy is near its lowest in Times and CBS polls. Last week’s CBS poll found 35 percent of independents now approve of the president’s handling of the economy and 54 percent disapprove — hovering near their pre-election lows.


Despite their displeasure with his handling of the economy, independents do not blame the Obama administration for the condition of the nation’s economy — one-quarter blame Wall Street and nearly the same number blame the Bush administration, but just 6 percent blame the current administration.

Very well. The voters in this poll blame Wall Street and the Bush administration for the economic mess. They have a low opinion of how Obama has handled it. Put the two together. Obama has pandered excessively to Wall Street and to the Republicans. That being the case, it's unlikely that a Republican will be in any position to capitalize on this loss of confidence -- unless of course he or she does a one-eighty on the current GOP positions and comes out as an anti-Wall Street class warrior. (Hell, if the GOP candidate does that, I might vote for him/her myself!)

Bear in mind as well that an "independent" is simply someone who does not self-label as a Republican or Democrat. Most "independents" are, in terms of voting patterns, either Democrats or Republicans; only a tiny minority are what might be called "true" independents. Thus, although this isn't perfect, independents taken as a whole are a good microcosm of the electorate as a whole.

I know from experience that you constantly demand to be spoon-fed basic information as some sort of tactic, and I apologize for not responding to it.

You answered my question, so no apology is necessary. I needed the clarification in order to know how to respond. I wasn't sure if you were still harping on your misunderstood exit polls or were referring to something more recent and actually germane; clearly, the latter is the case.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

2) The Democrats did not merely lose, but were annihilated in 2010 in numerous states that Obama carried easily in 2008.

In a low turnout election where mostly conservatives voted.

I agree in part with the earlier assessments. If Obama wins, it will be by the narrowest of margins. But as of now, it is more likely than not that he will lose, and without a dramatic improvement in the economy, nothing the left's spin/attack machine can do will save him.

I think it's more likely than not that he will win. I probably won't be voting for him, unless the Republican manages to outdo him in hawkishness (which would be pretty impressive) but he's simply a stronger candidate than the Republicans can muster. Maybe if someone like Chris Christie stepped into the race, but all the Republicans are caricatures of negative stereotypes people have of the party (Romney, Huckabee, Palin), incredibly bland (Pawlenty) or won't win the nomination (Paul).

Obama can, and probably will, convince enough of his base to stay in line against the horrific threat of a slightly more right-of-center candidate, and charm enough independents to win. Especially when the left is being threatened with total annihilation by Republicans in the Midwest.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not necessarily. There's more going on, and it's important to know WHY Obama's handling of the economy meets with disapproval.

Your explanation is that of left wing ideologues. Among independents, and the greater bulk of the Democrat base, it's much simpler: people who voted for him still don't have jobs two years into his term, or have jobs that pay less than what they had before the downturn. End of story.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your explanation is that of left wing ideologues.

Your response is a name-calling cop-out. Try presenting an argument or some evidence to show that my explanation is WRONG. Where it comes from or who believes it is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is true.

Your explanation, on the other hand, pulls us back to that 3T/4T question. If people hold Obama responsible for the fact that they still don't have ideal jobs, that means they are engaged in 3T thinking, expecting him to wave a magic wand and make everything instantly better. Maybe they are. We'll see.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Right. But:

1) The Republicans don't need Superman if the economy doesn't improve. They can win with almost anybody.

Sarah Palin loses about like Landon, Goldwater, McGovern, or Mondale.

Newt Gingrich loses much like Adlai Stevenson.

Mike Huckabee loses much like John McCain.

Mitt Romney makes it closer -- maybe.

Check the Lichtmann test. So far about everything favored Barack Obama going into May 2011. Now that the body of Usama bin Laden has sunk tothe abyss and his soul has gone to an even deeper location, things might be a bit different.

2) The Democrats did not merely lose, but were annihilated in 2010 in numerous states that Obama carried easily in 2008.

Take a good look at the approval ratings for new Republican governors in Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The new Republican governor is treading water politically in Georgia. Jan Brewer is slipping in Arizona, and Chris Christie is slipping in New Jersey. The simple fact is that unpopular governors will be trouble for any Republican nominee.

I agree in part with the earlier assessments. If Obama wins, it will be by the narrowest of margins. But as of now, it is more likely than not that he will lose, and without a dramatic improvement in the economy, nothing the left's spin/attack machine can do will save him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us...onal&seid=auto

Read it and weep if you see anything that suggests that the GOP has cause to believe that the Presidency is in grasp. President Obama just destroyed many doubts about him. The world has suddenly become a much safer place for everyone but terrorists.

The GOP has a huge problem for 2012 and that is they have no single viable candidate that can beat Obama except for the prospect of the single candidate who is hated by large chunks of the zealots who make up the probable primary voters. That would be Mitt Romney.

He is the only Republican figure who looks presidential and is not a cartoon character of the far right. As such, that disqualifies him to many of the True Believers who make up such a major part of the primary process on the right.

Christie, Daneils, Walker, Palin and Bachmann may all get the zealots hearts pumping but they are all certain losers in a national race against Obama.

The death of Bin Laden will only make that GOP hill much steeper to climb.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The GOP has a huge problem for 2012 and that is they have no single viable candidate that can beat Obama except for the prospect of the single candidate who is hated by large chunks of the zealots who make up the probable primary voters. That would be Mitt Romney.

He is the only Republican figure who looks presidential and is not a cartoon character of the far right. As such, that disqualifies him to many of the True Believers who make up such a major part of the primary process on the right.

Christie, Daneils, Walker, Palin and Bachmann may all get the zealots hearts pumping but they are all certain losers in a national race against Obama.

The death of Bin Laden will only make that GOP hill much steeper to climb.

Daniels and Christie would be good candidates as would Romney although Im not a huge fan of his. Palin and Bachman wont win the nomination, walker isnt even in the race. Another name to watch is John Huntsmen. Im still hoping for a Paul Ryan entrance, it'd be cool to see an all Xer election.....

The Republicans will end up nominating someone serviceable, if there is no one who excites the party and seems electable. Just like they did with McCain in 2008. If the economy does not improve substantially from where it is now, that person will beat Obama. It really is that simple.

As for current head-to-head polls, they're meaningless. Once there is a nominee, everything changes.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Republicans will end up nominating someone serviceable, if there is no one who excites the party and seems electable. Just like they did with McCain in 2008. If the economy does not improve substantially from where it is now, that person will beat Obama. It really is that simple.

Nothing's that simple now, neither the nominating process nor the election. Especially the Republican nomination, although in fact I expect we may see some sound and fury on the Dem side, too.

In the 3T it did work like that, and yes, that's how McCain won the nomination, but the 4T is all about polarization at this point in the process. I don't think a McCain can be nominated next year. The party machine has lost a lot of control. The Tea Party has made powerful inroads into the GOP and succeeded in nominating several very unlikely candidates for House and Senate last year, costing the party at least three Senate seats as well as gaining one Senate seat (Rand Paul's) that would have gone to a more "normal" Republican if we weren't in Crisis.

The smart thing for the party to do is to nominate Mitt Romney. It won't happen. Romney would do better against Obama than any other prominent Republican but the radical wing will veto his nomination. The person who does win the nomination will not be a moderate, not an empty suit for whom the statement "if the economy doesn't improve he wins" is true. If I were to guess at who will win the nomination I would say probably Huckabee. He cannot win the general election.

As for the bit about the economy -- magic wands, 3T thinking. We'll see.

As for current head-to-head polls, they're meaningless. Once there is a nominee, everything changes.

Current head-to-head polls aren't entirely meaningless. They can tell us how the various possible nominees stand with respect to one another. They can't tell us whether any given candidate would beat Obama, but they can tell us which of them has the best chance. The problem the GOP faces is that those who do have the best chance can't win the nomination.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nothing's that simple now, neither the nominating process nor the election. Especially the Republican nomination, although in fact I expect we may see some sound and fury on the Dem side, too.

In the 3T it did work like that, and yes, that's how McCain won the nomination, but the 4T is all about polarization at this point in the process. I don't think a McCain can be nominated next year. The party machine has lost a lot of control. The Tea Party has made powerful inroads into the GOP and succeeded in nominating several very unlikely candidates for House and Senate last year, costing the party at least three Senate seats as well as gaining one Senate seat (Rand Paul's) that would have gone to a more "normal" Republican if we weren't in Crisis.

The smart thing for the party to do is to nominate Mitt Romney. It won't happen. Romney would do better against Obama than any other prominent Republican but the radical wing will veto his nomination. The person who does win the nomination will not be a moderate, not an empty suit for whom the statement "if the economy doesn't improve he wins" is true. If I were to guess at who will win the nomination I would say probably Huckabee. He cannot win the general election.

As for the bit about the economy -- magic wands, 3T thinking. We'll see.



Current head-to-head polls aren't entirely meaningless. They can tell us how the various possible nominees stand with respect to one another. They can't tell us whether any given candidate would beat Obama, but they can tell us which of them has the best chance. The problem the GOP faces is that those who do have the best chance can't win the nomination.

Would a governor like Pallenty or Mitch Daniels be acceptable to both the tea party and mainstream wings of the GOP? If the economy is in the dumps in November 2012, such a "bridge" Republican could win in November.

For my part, I'm hoping that the economic recovery gains steam.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Nothing's that simple now, neither the nominating process nor the election. Especially the Republican nomination, although in fact I expect we may see some sound and fury on the Dem side, too.

In the 3T it did work like that, and yes, that's how McCain won the nomination, but the 4T is all about polarization at this point in the process. I don't think a McCain can be nominated next year. The party machine has lost a lot of control. The Tea Party has made powerful inroads into the GOP and succeeded in nominating several very unlikely candidates for House and Senate last year, costing the party at least three Senate seats as well as gaining one Senate seat (Rand Paul's) that would have gone to a more "normal" Republican if we weren't in Crisis.

The smart thing for the party to do is to nominate Mitt Romney. It won't happen. Romney would do better against Obama than any other prominent Republican but the radical wing will veto his nomination. The person who does win the nomination will not be a moderate, not an empty suit for whom the statement "if the economy doesn't improve he wins" is true. If I were to guess at who will win the nomination I would say probably Huckabee. He cannot win the general election.

As for the bit about the economy -- magic wands, 3T thinking. We'll see.



Current head-to-head polls aren't entirely meaningless. They can tell us how the various possible nominees stand with respect to one another. They can't tell us whether any given candidate would beat Obama, but they can tell us which of them has the best chance. The problem the GOP faces is that those who do have the best chance can't win the nomination.

Bryan the Republican party does have the tradition of giving the nomination to the next guy in line which is Romney. Occasionally a dark horse can emerge like Wilkie in '40 or Goldwater in '64. If Obama looks weak I would say that increases a chance for a more standard candidate. The more he looks unbeatable then I see a chance for a dark horse. The perfect candidate will serve as Reagan did, someone who can unite all the factions of the Republican party, Tea partiers, evangelicals, business, neo-cons etc.

Obama is challlenged in that in '08 he pealed off a small but significant chunk of Republicans which he has lost completely now. He'll really need to push for the moderates and somehow please his far left nutty base.

As far as Tea party senate candidates go, you forgot to include Marco Rubio who was a tea party guy.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Would a governor like Pallenty or Mitch Daniels be acceptable to both the tea party and mainstream wings of the GOP? If the economy is in the dumps in November 2012, such a "bridge" Republican could win in November.

I have a feeling Daniels may have some baggage with respect to being a Bush crony. Unless public opinion about the Bush presidency changes to something more favorable among swing voters, I think tying Bush to "My Man Mitch" could hurt his electability.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Current head-to-head polls aren't entirely meaningless.

Poll taken after Bin Laden's death shows nice bump for Obama, but on ability to handle the economy, his number is the lowest ever for Obama.

Right here, buried in the new NYT/CBS poll, is the picture of how Barack Obama's poll bounce will fade. How big is the approval surge from the capture of OBL? Big. Obama rises from a 46-45 approval rating in April to a 57-37 approval rating post-OBL. It's his highest number since the summer of 2009.

But keep reading. The pollster asked whether voters "approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy." That number has fallen since April, from 38 percent to 34 percent. Disapproval has fallen, too, from 57 percent to 55 percent, as the number of people with no opinion -- possibly dazzled by the OBL news -- has doubled.

The poll was entirely conducted after the OBL news, and included 532 interviews.

Here.

James50

Originally Posted by Weave

Bryan the Republican party does have the tradition of giving the nomination to the next guy in line which is Romney.

I know. What I'm saying is that all of this reasoning depends on the party establishment remaining in control of the nominating process. Essentially, what you're saying is that if it looks like a Republican can win, the party will nominate someone serious, but if it looks like a loser for sure, they won't waste that nomination and will instead let someone off the wall take the slot. That would certainly be the smart way to play it. I just think the establishment has lost control to the degree they won't be able to make it happen.

Obama is challlenged in that in '08 he pealed off a small but significant chunk of Republicans which he has lost completely now. He'll really need to push for the moderates and somehow please his far left nutty base.

See, this is something that just isn't borne out by the polling data. Here's the way I see '08 having happened.

1) The Republican base was not happy with McCain and also pretty disgruntled with Bush, and didn't get excited about the election. However, not many Republicans actually voted for Obama. Most of those affected by all this simply didn't vote.

2) The Democratic base, in contrast, was hyped. They had a chance to vote for someone who seemed like a genuine progressive, for the first time since 1972. There were a lot of first-time voters who voted for Obama. Black turnout was high. Hispanic turnout was high.

3) The Millennials voted overwhelmingly for Obama and, for young voters, they voted in large numbers.

In the popular vote, Obama won by almost 10 million votes (69.5 million to 59.9 million). There is no way that ten million Republicans switched sides and voted for him. I just don't believe that. So his margin of victory lay elsewhere. I think it lay in the groups noted above, especially the second one, the people you are calling the "far left nutty base," who apparently constitute anywhere from a large minority to an actual majority of the electorate, depending on the issue.

Obama's problem at this time is that he has failed to live up to the promise of his campaign, and by that I do NOT mean that he has failed to magically and instantly revive the economy to its full former glory with a wave of his hand. I mean that he has failed to stand up to Wall Street (and, by extension, to the Republicans) the way he promised. To some degree I can see that this is due to parliamentary compromise, but it's obvious that in some measure he never actually intended to do it. Increasingly, he's regarded these days as Clinton Term 3, and that's not what people want.

As far as Tea party senate candidates go, you forgot to include Marco Rubio who was a tea party guy.

I didn't mention him but I didn't forget him. My list wasn't inclusive. But yes, Rubio is another example. The establishment Republican candidate was Crist. There again, the party establishment lost control. Unlike in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado, they didn't lose the election as a result.

Originally Posted by James50

Poll taken after Bin Laden's death shows nice bump for Obama, but on ability to handle the economy, his number is the lowest ever for Obama.

Translation, IMO: Unless the jobs return and the middle class stops falling farther behind, he may have peaked too early.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Translation, IMO: Unless the jobs return and the middle class stops falling farther behind, he may have peaked too early.

Once again, that depends on whether the voters have a 3T or 4T mindset. If they have a 3T mindset, then yes, they pay no serious attention and vote their pocketbooks as if the president had magical powers. If they have a 4T mindset, then they support the president based on whether he is seen to be taking the right action to solve the problems -- whether or not immediate results accrue. Immediate results are not expected in that case, but "being on our side" -- which implies not on THEIR side -- is.

It's my contention here that the voters are in a 4T mindset and are upset with Obama, not because 1990s prosperity hasn't been instantly and magically restored with a word and a smile, but because he's seen these days as being too much on their side and not enough on ours. Whether that gets fixed by election day isn't dependent on whether the economy goes into a magical and impossible instant recovery. It's dependent on what Obama does between now and then.

EDIT: I believe that partisan Republicans here and elsewhere want to believe that it all comes down to what the economy does, precisely because they know I'm right in this: the economy is beyond Obama's power to rapidly fix. If it all depends on what the economy does, therefore, then it's not Obama's election to lose. In fact, if it all hinges willy-nilly on what the economy does, then odds are he can't win, because the economy isn't going to go into a magical recovery and there's nothing Obama can do to make it do so, particularly with Republicans in control of the House.

I prefer to believe that the voters aren't quite that stupid. I could be wrong, though.