Originally Posted by JohnMc82

We still watching the popular vote numbers? They make a nice headline but they don't do much good in predicting outcomes.

Here's why Romney is in big trouble: Obama basically has to win over Ohio or Florida or a handful of smaller states. Romney needs Ohio, and Florida, and North Carolina, and Colorado, and Missouiri, and Arizona, and Iowa, and New Hampshire...

And there's no simple strategy that wins over all of those politically diverse states. NC is very socially conservative, but Colorado sure isn't. Then again, we'll probably see a different "quantum Romney" for every state he visits.

John, Obama is under 50% approval in many of those states. The latest Gay marriage issue wont help in may of these states where Obama's position is unpopular. Of course, Obama's record is the real problem for Obama. He has an awful one. Romney is in a good position to pull out a win at this point, much better in fact than Kerry in 2004. But as I stated earlier, he does face challenges and as the challenger needs to run a good campaign with few mistakes. The economy, the economy, the economy....

Politicians are politicians. They are also human and do evolve. Obama's changing view on gay marriage is likely a combination of political weather-checking and personal thought. I get annoyed with the cries of "flip-flopper!" coming from both sides of the aisle for any candidate. These people are our representatives and must and should represent their constituencies. Lincoln shifted his views from not wanting to expand slavery into the territories to the Emancipation Proclamation. However, for political reasons, he did not extend emancipation to Union-supporting slave states. Was he a flip-flopper? An opportunist? Maybe a bit of the latter, and maybe he listened to people, too. Maybe he "evolved."

Many of my views have changed over the years, as I can testify from reading old journals. I've mellowed in some ways, become more hard-line in others. I hope I keep learning and growing and accepting until I die.

I don't know what goes into Obama's psyche. Growing up as a product of a biracial marriage as a Joneser no doubt has an effect on him. In the late 80s I dated a biracial Boomer (a 1956 cohort?). (I am white) Like Obama, his mother was white, his father black, although K's father was American. His educational background was almost identical. His mother's parents had her arrested when she married his dad. He tried to get into the Black Power movement as a teen, but to paraphrase him, it was a little hard to be angry at whitey when it's your mom. At that time, he was deeply conflicted, still sorting it out.

How much was Romney affected by being the only Morman an Cranbrook Prep School? How affected was he by the scathing his father underwent while running for president when he said he'd been brainwashed about Viet Nam? George Romney was a pretty good governor during a difficult time in MI.

It's hard for me to see that Mitt Romney stands for anything, although I'm glad he was nominated, as he is the least frightening of most of the Republican contenders, except Huntsman.

Originally Posted by Weave

John, Obama is under 50% approval in many of those states. The latest Gay marriage issue wont help in may of these states where Obama's position is unpopular. Of course, Obama's record is the real problem for Obama. He has an awful one. Romney is in a good position to pull out a win at this point, much better in fact than Kerry in 2004. But as I stated earlier, he does face challenges and as the challenger needs to run a good campaign with few mistakes. The economy, the economy, the economy....

"Under 44%" is the threshold at this stage. President Obama is a superb campaigner running against a pol who contradicts himself enough times that one wonders whether he believes anything other than what happens to be convenient at the time. With President Obama, what you see is what you get. With Mitt Romney what do you really know?

Originally Posted by Wes84

Odin, I can't get your link.

Crap, and I lost the original page!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

We still watching the popular vote numbers? They make a nice headline but they don't do much good in predicting outcomes.

Here's why Romney is in big trouble: Obama basically has to win over Ohio or Florida or a handful of smaller states. Romney needs Ohio, and Florida, and North Carolina, and Colorado, and Missouiri, and Arizona, and Iowa, and New Hampshire...

And there's no simple strategy that wins over all of those politically diverse states. NC is very socially conservative, but Colorado sure isn't. Then again, we'll probably see a different "quantum Romney" for every state he visits.

I've seen an Electoral College map put out by KARL ROVE, of all people, that puts SOUTH CAROLINA as a toss-up state. South Carolina!!! If Romney can't even take one of the most right-wing states in the country he is screwed.

This will undoubtedly be taken as a biased statement on my part, but it is my actual objective analysis. I'm no fan of Mitt Romney. I strongly opposed him being the Republican nominee, and would have preferred any other candidate. Until recently, I thought he would be weak enough that the election would be close no matter what, and Obama had a good chance of winning. I now think Obama is headed for a loss, with the final result being something like 55-45% in favor of Romney, and Republican control of the Senate. Not because of anything Romney has done, but because of how unpopular Obama is. The economy is slowing, his poll numbers are trending down, and his campaign is starting to show itself to be completely inept and adrift.

Most polls show Romney and Obama tied or one slightly ahead of the other. Romney has taken the lead in several polls for the first time recently, and he hasn't even been nominated yet. But the key factor is that almost none of those polls are using likely voter screens. Obama is actually trailing by a substantial margin when you factor in voter turnout. Romney's favorability and head-to-head numbers with Obama nose-dived in the primaries, and he hasn't had a chance to do anything to correct it. This is all about people's displeasure over the economy, and their belief that Obama's policies have failed and he has no idea what to do about it. It is now clear that the Obama campaign has resorted to a desperate strategy of trying to throw up all kinds of red meat on non-economic issues to get their base motivated, and that is undoubtedly turning off independents who recognize it as a diversion from the fact that a huge number of people are unemployed.

Obviously they are trying and will continue to try to use a lot of negative attacks on Romney. But nobody's listening. Bill Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" line is in full effect. I'm not particularly excited about the idea of President Romney, but I am starting to think it's almost inevitable.

Originally Posted by Weave

John, Obama is under 50% approval in many of those states. The latest Gay marriage issue wont help in may of these states where Obama's position is unpopular. Of course, Obama's record is the real problem for Obama. He has an awful one. Romney is in a good position to pull out a win at this point, much better in fact than Kerry in 2004. But as I stated earlier, he does face challenges and as the challenger needs to run a good campaign with few mistakes. The economy, the economy, the economy....

Wow, just a month ago, you had Obama halfway in the grave over fer-sure skyrocketing gasoline prices. Now it's gay marriage that's the giant killer.

What's the next straw you'll be grasping?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This will undoubtedly be taken as a biased statement on my part, but it is my actual objective analysis. I'm no fan of Mitt Romney. I strongly opposed him being the Republican nominee, and would have preferred any other candidate. Until recently, I thought he would be weak enough that the election would be close no matter what, and Obama had a good chance of winning. I now think Obama is headed for a loss, with the final result being something like 55-45% in favor of Romney, and Republican control of the Senate. Not because of anything Romney has done, but because of how unpopular Obama is. The economy is slowing, his poll numbers are trending down, and his campaign is starting to show itself to be completely inept and adrift.

Much will have to change for the election to go as you think it will. Here is an example of how things look in Iowa, which President Obama won by 9%
in 2008:

Raleigh, N.C. – President Obama has expanded his lead over presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney and now leads the former Massachusettes Governor by 10 points, 51%-41%. When PPP last polled Iowa in October 2011, Obama led by just 4 points, 46-42.

Since last October, Obama has reversed his net-negative approval rating with Iowa voters. In October just 43% of voters approved of his job performance with 52% disapproving. Now he sits at 49% approval and 46% disapproval, including a 52-41 rating with independents.

Gore barely won the state in 2000 and Kerry barely lost the state in 2004 in razor-thin elections. A ten-point difference manifests itself in a 55-45 split in the vote. Iowa suggests that things are more as they were in 2008 than they were in 2000 or 2004. In a 55-45 split of the popular vote for Mitt Romney, Iowa would go about 54-46 for Mitt Romney. Something has to go very wrong for President Obama between now and November 6 to allow a Romney win.

(New Hampshire, same pollster) Obama tops Romney now, 53-41, a 14-point reversal from Romney’s 46-44 lead 10 months ago. With Ayotte on the ticket versus the Obama-Biden slate, that lead would fall but only to 52-42. Similarly, Ayotte’s predecessor, Judd Gregg, would only basically help Romney run in place (52-41).

Gore lost the state in 2000 and Kerry won it in 2004. I don't know whether Iowa or New Hampshire better exemplifies the difference between elections involving Dubya and elections involving Obama.... but if it is New Hampshire, then the President may be headed to a 55-45 split as a winner.

Note that both states have early primaries... and that several Republican candidates utterly savaged President Obama this winter. That is over. People no longer hear a barrage of Orwellian propaganda against the President in those two states. Both states really must be close for a Republican to have a chance.

New Mexico doesn't have so early and hotly-contested a primary... but it is one of three states that split for Dubya and went decisively for President Obama.

Raleigh, N.C. – New Mexico is not going to be a swing state this year. Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 15 points there in 2008, and the polling so far suggests a similar outcome is likely this fall. PPP's newest poll finds Obama ahead of Mitt Romney 54-40 in the state. That's changed little from when we polled the state in December and found Obama up 53-38.

Obama's overwhelming support from three groups that have received a lot of attention lately- women, Hispanics, and young voters- makes it very hard for Romney to be competitive in New Mexico. Obama's up 61-35 with women, 67-30 with Hispanics, and 56-35 with young voters.

Maybe that reflects a demographic change. But that said, one must wonder why the Republicans are doing so badly among Hispanics. They had been making huge gains while the hope-building real-estate scam was going on. OK, that the state went for Gore in 2000 and Dubya in 2004 by razor-thin margins may no longer matter.

Those three states have gone for the Democratic nominee for President in four of the last five elections.

Now let's try Colorado, a state that has gone for the Democrat only twice in the last five Presidential elections:

Barack Obama's opened up a 13 point lead on Mitt Romney in Colorado at 53-40. He's gained 11 points in the state since December when he led just 47-45.

The formula for Obama's gains is the same in Colorado as it is everywhere. He's getting more popular and Romney's getting less popular. In December only 45% of voters approved of the job Obama was doing to 50% who disapproved. Now he's on positive ground with 50% giving him good marks to 47% who think he's doing a poor job. The main thing that's changed is Democrats really rallying around him. In December he was at 76/18 with them, but now it's 89/8. The party is getting a lot more unified as the election comes closer.

Need I say more? The Republicans can win without Colorado, but they have to pick up much in states that just aren't receptive to reactionaries in high-turnout
elections.

Most polls show Romney and Obama tied or one slightly ahead of the other. Romney has taken the lead in several polls for the first time recently, and he hasn't even been nominated yet. But the key factor is that almost none of those polls are using likely voter screens. Obama is actually trailing by a substantial margin when you factor in voter turnout. Romney's favorability and head-to-head numbers with Obama nose-dived in the primaries, and he hasn't had a chance to do anything to correct it. This is all about people's displeasure over the economy, and their belief that Obama's policies have failed and he has no idea what to do about it. It is now clear that the Obama campaign has resorted to a desperate strategy of trying to throw up all kinds of red meat on non-economic issues to get their base motivated, and that is undoubtedly turning off independents who recognize it as a diversion from the fact that a huge number of people are unemployed.

The Presidential election of 2000 should remind you that the States elect the President and the people don't. Whether President Obama loses Arkansas by 2% or by 50% isn't going to matter. President Obama is way behind in a raft of states that Democrats have not won since the LBJ blowout and in some in which he is the poorest match ever as a Democrat but tied or barely ahead in most swing states.

To be sure, if voter turnout is as it was in 2010 President Obama loses -- big. But remember that liberals got apathetic while right-wingers flooded the campaigns of anyone hostile to liberalism and spewed huge quantities of semi-fascist propaganda while telling the Religious Right that this is the last chance to transform America into a 'godly' country that honors God and corporate power.

Obviously they are trying and will continue to try to use a lot of negative attacks on Romney. But nobody's listening. Bill Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" line is in full effect. I'm not particularly excited about the idea of President Romney, but I am starting to think it's almost inevitable.

Republicans still get the blame for an economic boom that went bust with the destruction of about fifty years of economic progress through economic fraud that devoured incredible amounts of capital. Face it: if I were a conservative I would be promoting thrift, enterprise, and investment even at the expense of Big Business. (If that sounds like an old-fashioned form of conservatism, then you are right. That was the norm when Dwight Eisenhower was President. The 1950s were a great time to be a small-business owner in part because the tax laws allowed a niche for small-business owners that has effectively disappeared).

Mitt Romney can no more revive the real-estate bubble of Dubya than he can revive disco.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This will undoubtedly be taken as a biased statement on my part, but it is my actual objective analysis. I'm no fan of Mitt Romney. I strongly opposed him being the Republican nominee, and would have preferred any other candidate. Until recently, I thought he would be weak enough that the election would be close no matter what, and Obama had a good chance of winning. I now think Obama is headed for a loss, with the final result being something like 55-45% in favor of Romney, and Republican control of the Senate. Not because of anything Romney has done, but because of how unpopular Obama is. The economy is slowing, his poll numbers are trending down, and his campaign is starting to show itself to be completely inept and adrift.

Most polls show Romney and Obama tied or one slightly ahead of the other. Romney has taken the lead in several polls for the first time recently, and he hasn't even been nominated yet. But the key factor is that almost none of those polls are using likely voter screens. Obama is actually trailing by a substantial margin when you factor in voter turnout. Romney's favorability and head-to-head numbers with Obama nose-dived in the primaries, and he hasn't had a chance to do anything to correct it. This is all about people's displeasure over the economy, and their belief that Obama's policies have failed and he has no idea what to do about it. It is now clear that the Obama campaign has resorted to a desperate strategy of trying to throw up all kinds of red meat on non-economic issues to get their base motivated, and that is undoubtedly turning off independents who recognize it as a diversion from the fact that a huge number of people are unemployed.

Obviously they are trying and will continue to try to use a lot of negative attacks on Romney. But nobody's listening. Bill Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" line is in full effect. I'm not particularly excited about the idea of President Romney, but I am starting to think it's almost inevitable.

Here's my similar "unbiased" assessment/forecast -


The markets will hit bottom here in May and then start an initially slow but gaining momentum movement up. Everyone is thinking Greece is going to be a disaster, but one way or another, it is going to get worked out at least until next year. That alone will get the markets into a big relief rally that will have a wealth effect on the economy. There's just enough left in the reverberation of the Stimulus in the economy to keep things going; combined with the market rally wealth effect, the economy will have one good last gasp for the rest of 2012 and the unemployment rate will dip under 7 by November.

It's the unemployment trend direction that impacts elections and that will be sufficient to re-elect Obama particularly when one looks on a state-by-state electoral college basis as John suggested.

The icing on the cake, however, will be our favorite t-baggers in House going insane again over the debt ceiling. It's due some time between Sept - Dec and Boehner has already single that he cannot control the baggers on taking this on again. If Geithner can get the ceiling needing to be adjusted in the Sept/Oct timeframe, it would allow for a timely unleashing of the House T-baggers' insanity. Their utter stupidity may sufficiently scare the pants off everyone so that even hedge fund managers vote Obama and the country returns the whole Congress over to the Dems - then, we may have a chance to get through what is coming in 2013.

What's really interesting is that if this doesn't come to past, and we get your scenario, then the worst case nightmare does happen - just a few months later. By this time next year, we should be back into the economic contraction ditch you guys drove us into the last time the country was foolish enough to give you nitwits the car keys. Under the nitwits-are-in-charge nightmare scenario, the best we can hope for is the silver lining that maybe the country will finally smartin up and finally exile you all into the political oblivion for several decades - just like the last 4T outcome.

Also, the nitwits-are-in-charge nightmare would come to an end with the 2014 mid-terms with a veto proof Dem Congress and Romney running out the clock on his isolated administration decorating his new home on the beach out in California - letting Hilary's team measure the WH curtains for 2016.

I have my personal views, but I also have the ability to sense what's going on around me and in the country as a whole. I know when things are not going the way I want them to, and I'm able to recognize that when I sense it, as I did in 2008. I'm also not a fan of Romney. But what those who know politics are seeing (including on the left, although they will not publicly acknowledge it) is a convergence of sinking poll numbers for Obama, and big Republican/conservative/Tea Party turnout in various primaries and ballot initiatives that have happened recently. Keep your eye on the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin, if you want one example. The NC marriage vote was another. 2010 was not a fluke. A poll of national adults may show a close race, but the intensity of support/opposition for Obama is massively lopsided against him. That's why the Obama campaign is pandering to its base with social issues. They're getting desperate. They won't let you know that, but they are.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Presidential election of 2000 should remind you that the States elect the President and the people don't. Whether President Obama loses Arkansas by 2% or by 50% isn't going to matter. President Obama is way behind in a raft of states that Democrats have not won since the LBJ blowout and in some in which he is the poorest match ever as a Democrat but tied or barely ahead in most swing states.

Electoral votes are distributed according to population. In order for the outcome of the popular vote and the electoral vote to go in opposite directions, you have to have an incredibly close election, which is what happened in 2000. If the popular votes goes against Obama by more than 1%, he loses, period, without question. I don't think it's going to be that close.

To be sure, if voter turnout is as it was in 2010 President Obama loses -- big.

That's exactly what's starting to show up in polls and voting.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...ks_romney.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...r-mitt-romney/

Originally Posted by ABC News

Mitt Romney has the support of George W. Bush.



“I’m for Mitt Romney,” Bush told ABC News this morning as the doors of an elevator closed on him, after he gave a speech on human rights a block from his old home — the White House.

Bush’s endorsement isn’t a surprise, given that Romney is virtually the Republican Party’s nominee. But the 43rd president has been absent from the 2012 campaign and hasn’t made any public comments showing his support for Romney.

Romney did get the formal backing of Bush’s parents, President George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush, in March.

People who worked in the Bush administration say they doubt the former president will be campaigning for Romney this year. Even in his post-presidential life, Bush still gets a lot of the blame for the poor economy, according to polls, though he has become more popular since leaving office.

Bush was speaking today at an event to promote the George W. Bush Presidential Center’s campaign for human rights activists around the world.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Also, the nitwits-are-in-charge nightmare would come to an end with the 2014 mid-terms with a veto proof Dem Congress and Romney running out the clock on his isolated administration decorating his new home on the beach out in California - letting Hilary's team measure the WH curtains for 2016.

By that time Hillary will have just turned 69 - the same age Ronald Reagan was when he took office.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have my personal views, but I also have the ability to sense what's going on around me and in the country as a whole. I know when things are not going the way I want them to, and I'm able to recognize that when I sense it, as I did in 2008. I'm also not a fan of Romney. But what those who know politics are seeing (including on the left, although they will not publicly acknowledge it) is a convergence of sinking poll numbers for Obama, and big Republican/conservative/Tea Party turnout in various primaries and ballot initiatives that have happened recently. Keep your eye on the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin, if you want one example. The NC marriage vote was another. 2010 was not a fluke. A poll of national adults may show a close race, but the intensity of support/opposition for Obama is massively lopsided against him. That's why the Obama campaign is pandering to its base with social issues. They're getting desperate. They won't let you know that, but they are.

That is your bias and your guess based on your bias. The historical record shows that barring a political catastrophe for incumbents -- typically a huge scandal, a military or diplomatic debacle, or an economic meltdown, midterm and off-year elections have low turnouts. Presidential elections typically have large turnouts.

Conventional polling suggests that Scott Walker isn't doing too badly... but conventional polling in an off-year election typically fits "likely voter" models of people who vote in every possible election. Scott Walker was barely elected in 2010 and is wildly unpopular. Huge infusions of out-of-state money into the recall election will have a high cost-to-benefit ratio for him. The corporate money is firmly behind Scott Walker, who stands for the transformation of Wisconsin into a low-wage, low-service state with a gutted public sector; big companies may be telling employees that if they want to keep their jobs they had better hope for a Walker win. Walker has a well-funded, well-organized campaign for his political survival, but that might not be enough. Powerful ad campaigns could not sell the Edsel... which wasn't a really-bad car.

If anything, the next election that can resemble 2010 will be 2014. But don't fool yourself. Obama voters who stayed home in 2010 because they didn't realize how important Congress and state governments are have been getting a harsh lesson. The heavily-Boom Religious Right is going to show a slow erosion of support as it loses Boomers to deaths that shrink a politically-powerful generation... and it isn't winning over pragmatic X or secularist Millennial adults. Ideologues who practice the economic doctrine that no economic suffering is excessive if it churns out a profit for the super-rich will need to exploit fear of such things as terrorism and eternal damnation, if not employ threats of job losses to those who 'vote wrong'.

Need I tell you that the President's endorsement of same-sex rights has no direct political effect yet? The American public has been getting more sympathetic to LGBT rights as it becomes increasingly intolerant of wife-beating and child sexual abuse. But homosexuals have been cleaning up their act -- enough to join in the defense of children against sexual abuse.

...You seem to obsess over the pathological narcissism of the Boom Left. On that you are correct about the Awakening-era leftists who had everything going well for them before they started reading the Little Red Book of Mao Zedong, adopting the 'revolutionary chic' of Che Guevara, and shouting "Ho, Ho, HO Chi Minh", :Hey, hey, LBJ! How many boys did you kill today!" and finally as people were fleeing the Commie takeover of Indochina and the certainty of broken lives, "Bring the Victory home!" That was ugly -- and it was a long time ago.

It may be hard to believe that the Boomer Right could be as vile, let alone destructive... but the Boomer Left was very small and had little lasting effect other than to create enmity for itself. The Boomer Left achieved no institutional power and thus could never influence much. Former members of the Boomer Left had to downplay themselves to get employment. An ex-radical might get a chance to teach, but it would be something with comparatively slight political influence -- like mathematics or science. The Reagan era, one consequence of the extremism of the Boomer Left, was not a good one for pushing left-wing ideology anywhere.

At this point I can safely say that organized crime (as conventionally understood as Mafia-like organizations) has more power in American political life than does any "Boomer Left".

The Boomer Right has been no less narcissistic than the Boomer Left. Some of it participated in counter-demonstrations. It made itself cozy with institutional power, recognizing that if one couldn't stop a giant corporation from manufacturing napalm it might as well make a career in such a company. It found its way into business schools that taught only one morality -- get what you can while you can and milk it for what it is worth. Unlike the Boomer Left it gained bureaucratic and economic power, and became more rapacious and heartless than the GI executives that retired as Boomer corporatists advanced in Big Business. The GI executives could still relate to the common man; the Boomer executives could see the common man only as a disposable object. The Boomers who founded churches of the Religious Right acceded to this view but sugar-coated the economic harshness of the New Class (that is a term from Yugoslav commie-turned-dissident Milovan Djilas, but it fits) of economic managers by offering gross superstition and promises of Heaven only to the obedient followers who did nothing to challenge corporate power. Like slave masters in colonial and early America they had the arrogance to believe that they were benefactors to those that they exploited, humiliated, and cast off; such is as pure an expression of narcissism as is possible.

The Boomer Right got its way. It outsourced jobs, turning manufacturing companies into importers. It managed to keep American wages from rising despite rising productivity. It squeezed out the competition small business until giant corporations that became perfect places for narcissistic (if not sociopathic, as at Enron Corporation) game-players. It sponsored the Religious Right and the demise of populism in the South, transforming Southern states mostly into dominant-party dictatorships in all but name. It got more abundance, mostly for tycoons, but also for itself. It tried to create a new political culture, one of people best described as sheepish in obedience to much-glorified political and economic leaders but hyena-like toward any challenge to those much-glorified political and economic leaders.

Not all Boomers are pathological narcissists... those who have had to adopt humility just to survive in jobs that they hate can no longer lord it over others except as directed from On High and Afar. Nobody becomes humble unless threatened or brutalized into submission. Humility is not good for getting rich (it is good for surviving as a dependent pauper, a role that people accept only under duress) or even finding enjoyment in life. But people who spend huge chunks of their lives as retail store clerks, waitresses, farm laborers, and domestic servants almost never become leaders. Arrogant b@stards who have never faced a humiliating challenge tend to slip by into the highest levels of power. Thus George W. Bush.

The last act of the Boom Generation is far from over. But the Boomer generation is no longer so large and powerful that it can overpower X pragmatism and Millennial rationalism. The Boomers that will successfully get America through this Crisis Era will be the ones with visions that economically-materialist and philosophically-materialist Millennial young adults cannot supply for themselves. America will get through this Crisis badly if Boomers fail at that either by failing to come up with someone with a vision other than "Suffer for MY greed". Nobody wants to become cannon fodder in wars for the enrichment of elites and the glorification of leaders. Nobody wants his children to starve for some cruel dream.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Electoral votes are distributed according to population. In order for the outcome of the popular vote and the electoral vote to go in opposite directions, you have to have an incredibly close election, which is what happened in 2000. If the popular votes goes against Obama by more than 1%, he loses, period, without question. I don't think it's going to be that close.

I don't think that the 2012 Presidential election is going to be that close, and for different reasons to the opposite effect. By objective standards Barack Obama has been at least an adequate President. So far as I can tell the people who thought that he was the wrong person to be President still believe that, and he has largely fulfilled his promises to his backers of 2008, which is good for a near-replay of the 2012 election. Such would have fit 2004, 1996, and 1984 as well. If you see a replay of 1980... Carter in 1976 snookered a lot of Southerners into believing that he was a "Good Ol' Boy" and needed to find a new constituency to replace that constituency, and being a sub-par President who presided over a hostage crisis in Iran with no obvious solution... we know how that worked out. People who despised Ronald Reagan in 1980 still despised him in 1984 no less, and I can say the same of Clinton in 1996 and Dubya in 2004.

That's exactly what's starting to show up in polls and voting.

1. It depends upon which poll you believe, and (2) the voting hasn't started in 2012 except in primaries.

2. If you see Mitt Romney as flawed... so do many others.

3. Do not expect a repeat of the electorate of 2010. The election of 2012 is a high-profile election.

4. I will be watching the Walker recall closely as will many others. I do not know what will happen in Wisconsin, and it all hinges on turnout.

5. Mitt Romney has no record of military service. President Obama can win or lose on military policy among veterans.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This will undoubtedly be taken as a biased statement on my part

Yes, and:

Until recently, I thought he would be weak enough that the election would be close no matter what, and Obama had a good chance of winning.

This proves it. If your baseline is that Obama is in trouble, and that the election would be "close" giving him a "good chance of winning" only because Romney was, in your opinion, the worst GOP candidate possible, then your grasp of electoral reality this year utterly sucks.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Carter in 1976 snookered a lot of Southerners into believing that he was a "Good Ol' Boy" and needed to find a new constituency to replace that constituency

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I believe you're right. If you look at the electoral map for 1976:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...ollege1976.svg

you find that Carter won almost a classic pre-Civil Rights Act Democratic victory. A little off from that because he won New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he won a hybrid victory. But the South, which had voted Republican in 1964 and 1972, was not yet comfortable doing so (witness the third-party vote for George Wallace in 1968) and was still looking for a chance to come home to the Democrats. They thought they'd found it in Carter, because he was a Southerner (from Georgia), but he proved otherwise during his term. Add the dismal economy, the Iran hostage crisis, and Reagan's charisma, and Carter was toast.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, just a month ago, you had Obama halfway in the grave over fer-sure skyrocketing gasoline prices. Now it's gay marriage that's the giant killer.

What's the next straw you'll be grasping?

The economy, gas prices and the national deficit and debt ate obviously more important issues. The point i was making is that Gay marriage is a smaller issue that will help Romney in swing states where is is unpopular like we now see in Norht Carolina, a state theat Obama had a chance in and now he's losing http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...lina_president

Support for Gay marriage is low in may other swing states.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have my personal views, but I also have the ability to sense what's going on around me and in the country as a whole. I know when things are not going the way I want them to, and I'm able to recognize that when I sense it, as I did in 2008. I'm also not a fan of Romney. But what those who know politics are seeing (including on the left, although they will not publicly acknowledge it) is a convergence of sinking poll numbers for Obama, and big Republican/conservative/Tea Party turnout in various primaries and ballot initiatives that have happened recently. Keep your eye on the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin, if you want one example. The NC marriage vote was another. 2010 was not a fluke. A poll of national adults may show a close race, but the intensity of support/opposition for Obama is massively lopsided against him. That's why the Obama campaign is pandering to its base with social issues. They're getting desperate. They won't let you know that, but they are.

One thing is clear, is that Republican turnout in primaries has been way down. Romney is not inspiring support. That will help Obama.

Obama's stance on gay marriage isn't going to help Romney, it's going to help Obama. The liberal position on this issue commands majority support nationwide. The voters who will see it as a reason to vote against Obama had plenty of other reasons and would have done so anyway.

Right now, there's a debate happening on left-leaning blogs and discussion sites about Obama's motives for coming out for gay marriage. The growing consensus is that it doesn't really matter, that his coming around on this issue shows he can be relied on with the right pressure. So this is going to help him with the constituency that let the Democrats lose in 2010, which is exactly what he needs. He would be better served IMO by moving sharply left on economic issues, but this will help him some.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I believe you're right. If you look at the electoral map for 1976:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...ollege1976.svg

you find that Carter won almost a classic pre-Civil Rights Act Democratic victory. A little off from that because he won New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he won a hybrid victory. But the South, which had voted Republican in 1964 and 1972, was not yet comfortable doing so (witness the third-party vote for George Wallace in 1968) and was still looking for a chance to come home to the Democrats. They thought they'd found it in Carter, because he was a Southerner (from Georgia), but he proved otherwise during his term. Add the dismal economy, the Iran hostage crisis, and Reagan's charisma, and Carter was toast.

As one who lived in the south and was old enough to see the transition in white southern attitudes towards Carter from 1976 to 1980 I have to agree.
1976 was undoubtibly the last year a successful "bowl weevil" Democratic campaign could be successful. In 1992 we saw another southern Democratic governor fashion a new winning coalition which was possible largely because of demographic changes in the generally populous and electorial vote rich northeastern, midwestern and pacific coast states. The bicoastal majority first emerged in 1992. Its solidification in the elections since then is the reason why the Democrats have won the popular vote in every presidential election since then , save the post 911 election of 2004. And barring a serious downturn in the economy between now and November, it will re-elect President Obama.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...ks_romney.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...r-mitt-romney/

Obama's going to win by a landslide, now. W's support is the political kiss of death

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama's going to win by a landslide, now. W's support is the political kiss of death

-I'm sure evryone has the same antipathy to the 43rd POTUS as you do.

Anyway, is it time to stick a fork in Warren?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51491

It’s official: Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren isn’t even 3 percent Cherokee. Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com counts coup:

...Based on a review of the original marriage records found in the files of the Logan County, Oklahoma Court Clerk’s office in Guthrie, Oklahoma, and the statements of ReJeania Zmek, the Court Clerk of Logan County, Oklahoma, it is likely that the ephemeral 1894 marriage license application never existed.

“In modern times we keep marriage license applications,” she said. “The way they’re issued now, you do the application, then you do the license. We currently do keep records of marriage license applications,” she said, explaining that this practice didn’t begin until around 1950...

The only other evidence the Warren campaign’s mad scramble for documentation has produced is a cookbook edited in 1984 by Warren’s first cousin, and entitled Pow Wow Chow...

I hear that SNL still exists. The parody should be amusing...

Bad historian! Bad:

The collapse of the “3 percent Cherokee” claim... led blogger William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection to ask some pointed questions about the professional genealogist who initially supported her:

I reached out to Christopher Child, the well-known genealogist who was the source of the claim, and his employer, the prestigious New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS), but they have gone silent, refusing to comment on, defend or correct their claim that Warren was 1/32 Cherokee... The fallout from Elizabeth Warren’s claim to Native American status threatens to drag down not only her campaign, but also the credibility one of the premier genealogical societies...

...and bad MSM journalists:

Besides the entertainment value of watching a preening moralist get her comeuppance, the Fauxcahontas incident is fascinating because it illustrates just how lazy so many of our government and quasi-official systems are. The detective work performed by the bloggers who tore Warren’s claims to pieces could have been undertaken by Harvard University, or skeptical journalists, at any time...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I have my personal views, but I also have the ability to sense what's going on around me and in the country as a whole.

You may as well not bother saying things like this. Anything you say will be judged on its own merit, not because you're saying it.

But what those who know politics are seeing (including on the left, although they will not publicly acknowledge it)

If they won't publicly acknowledge it, then you have no way of knowing that they're saying it, which makes this claim a lie.

is a convergence of sinking poll numbers for Obama, and big Republican/conservative/Tea Party turnout in various primaries and ballot initiatives that have happened recently.

Both of these statements are factually false. Obama's poll numbers are rising, not sinking, and the turnout in the primaries was not big, it was pathetic. If you are basing your optimism on these two things, you are basing them on false beliefs of fact.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...Both of these statements are factually false. Obama's poll numbers are rising, not sinking, and the turnout in the primaries was not big, it was pathetic. If you are basing your optimism on these two things, you are basing them on false beliefs of fact.

-Obama one up:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1871.html

...in Wisconsin.