Probably too bad for Obama, since the chances of him being reelected seem as if they will continue to drop as the economy continues to get worse.Ian wrote:Too bad the election isn't being held tomorrow morning.
That is too bad. I have a hope that some meaningful candidate will come forward from the Republicans. They are, alas, a caricature now, with candidates like Palin and Bachmann getting play. The GOP needs someone to step forward that is a serious, and competent, person.Ian wrote: It's also too bad that "Republican Candidate" won't be the one taking the GOP nomination next year.
Well, the thread is about the 2012 election, and we can't put every single piece of information in every post. You're free to post the information you think is relevant. The latest polls are certainly not irrelevant, and they become more relevant as we follow the trends over time.Ian wrote:
Seeing as how the election is 16 months away, maybe we could talk about the future and some other numbers a bit, rather than cherry-picking the latest polls and snidely partisan pieces about why Obama is another Carter.
Yeah - that's because at the time of the polls, the economy was starting its upswing and there was not anything close to the economic meltdown that we're currently having - not even close.Ian wrote:
Such as:
Or maybe this one, which helps illustrate the real reason why Obama will not only win in 2012, he'll quite possibly win an electoral landslide: the Republicans will beat themselves.Obama Losing His Base? Here Are 552,000 Reasons Why That's Wrong
President Obama's 2012 campaign and the Democratic National Committee together raised a staggering $86 million in April, May, and June of this year to re-elect the president. Broken down, more than $47 million of that was raised by the "Obama for America" committee, which surpasses the fundraising totals of the entire Republican field combined. (Note, though, that GOP presidential money-leader Mitt Romney's $18.6 million take in the second quarter didn't include Republican National Committee money, so it's not accurate to compare Obama and the DNC to GOPers, only because we don't know what the RNC has raised.)
So, Obama can rake in the big bucks—no surprise there. The real story is the 552,000 donors who gave to the Obama 2012 effort, "more grassroots support at this point in the process than any campaign in political history," said campaign manager Jim Messina in a video message to supporters. Messina said that 98 percent of donations last quarter were under $250, and that the average donation was $69.
That haul throws a huge bucket of cold water on claims that Obama is losing his liberal/Democratic base. Pollster James Zogby wrote in September 2009 that Democrats were souring on Obama after the health-insurance-reform fight and for his policies on the war in Afghanistan. Liberal TV host Ed Schultz told former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last year that "you're losing your base." If Obama's donor rolls are any indication, the left appears to be just as motivated in the 2012 race as they were in 2008.
Of course, reams of polling data have been reinforcing this for months. According to Gallup polling, Obama's approval rating among Democrats has held steady at around 80 percent, give or take a few percentage points, since September of last year. Among liberals, Obama's doing almost as well, with approval ratings hovering around 70 percent; it's currently 76 percent.
So all that talk of Democrats and liberals sloughing off Obama? Nothing to it. Today's fundraising numbers prove Obama's still hugely popular, and that whomever the GOP picks to run against him will face the major undertaking of matching the powerful Obama fundraising machine.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/oba ... raise-2012
Or, if polls and economic numbers this far out mean so much to an election, maybe we could infer some predictive value by looking at some past ones...The Committee to Reelect Barack Obama?
The trends we saw in GOP presidential polls a few weeks ago continue. Mitt Romney remains the front-runner, but Michele Bachmann continues to gain support and hold second place nationally (and she's currently beating Romney in Iowa). The most interesting thing about this latest Quinnapiac poll is that undeclared right-wingers like Sarah Palin and Texas Gov. Rick Perry are running right behind Bachmann, while also-rans including Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum remain in low single digits (Ron Paul hangs on to his 5 percent). That Romney is creaming Huntsman right now even in his home state of Utah would seem to suggest that the man the Beltway loves is never going to catch fire with the GOP base.
All of this could mean one of two things: Romney's dead, because of all the energy on the Tea Party side, or Romney's alive, because of all the energy on the Tea Party side. In this latest poll, Romney's the candidate of 25 percent of likely GOP voters. Bachmann trails him with 14 percent; Palin has 12 and Rick Perry 10. Behind them, Herman Cain gets 6 percent and Ron Paul 5 percent. So that means 47 percent of GOP voters polled like the folks on the far right. If the Tea Partyers coalesce around one of those five, or someone else, Romney's toast.
But it's also possible they won't coalesce. Bachmann has made a surprising surge, but I think these numbers are actually bad for Bachmann. It shows there's a fairly broad base for an extremist candidate, but at 14 percent, she's supported by roughly 30 percent of that base. If other Tea Party favorites look at those numbers and jump in, Bachmann's in trouble.
I still doubt Palin will run; she's having too much fun being an unaccountable wealthy celebrity. That bus tour thing was hard. But she's also a narcissist, and she might look at those numbers and say, "Why not?" Rick Perry is even more likely to say, "Why not?" In fact, the latest buzz is that Perry is making calls to GOP leaders and donors to test the waters, and getting encouragement. On "Hardball" with me Wednesday Politico's Jonathan Martin said he's hearing from GOP insiders that Perry's in, although Perry's people downplay the idea. Martin also floated the notion that Perry might not merely be the Tea Party candidate; he might be the electable guy the party needs, the hybrid of the Tea Party and the "establishment" GOP elders dream of.
Dream on. It's true Perry has a 10-year record as Texas governor (with time as lieutenant governor before that), which makes him a "serious" candidate. But that record is distinguished by his courting the far right with talk of secession, ostentatious prayer breakfasts, and coziness with Texas Confederate stalwarts. Justin Elliott revealed Perry's popularity with groups trying to preserve the memory of Texas's allegiance with the Confederacy. The neo-Confederate, still-secessionist League of the South endorsed Perry in his 1998 race for lieutenant governor, praising him as a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that's regularly torn apart by infighting between those who want to honor their heritage and those who want to return to the days of white supremacy. We couldn't confirm Perry was ever a member of the group, but without openly embracing them he's regularly validated their quest for redemption. Perry has honored leaders of the Sons of Confederate Veterans at ceremonies in Austin, and he's resisted efforts to remove Confederate symbols from state buildings. "Although this is an emotional issue," he wrote, "I want you to know that I oppose efforts to remove Confederate monuments, plaques, and memorials from public property. I also believe that communities should decide whether statues or other memorials are appropriate for their community." Perry regularly enjoys adoring profiles in Confederate magazines...
http://www.salon.com/news/2012_election ... rack_obama
July 1983
Reagan's approval rating: 43%.
Unemployment rate: 9.4%
States won by Reagan in 1984: 49
The economy right now is headed deeper into the toilet....no, maybe the sewer is more like it. The average duration of unemployment now is about 37 weeks. In 1983 it was about 20 weeks or so. That's a disturbing number. Moreover the economy in 1983 had the capacity to absorb the unemployed worker, as they were in the 1990s because of the new industries that burgeoned in that time. We don't have that now.
The misery index, right now - the combo of unemployment and inflation - is on the rise:

At a recent 12.7, the misery index is at its highest level since 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president and the great bull markets in stocks and bonds were in their infancy. Yet as always, it's worth recalling that things can be (and have been) worse.
The 1983 peak was 14.1, which looks terrifyingly high now but at the time was the lowest reading in five years. http://www.miseryindex.us/raw_data.asp
So - that demonstrates the huge difference between today and 28 years ago. Now we're at the worst we've seen in 5, 10, and 20+ years. Then, the picture was turning rosier -- the economy was demonstrably improving.
The games that we are seeing in Washington at this time are embarrassing, both from Democrats and Republicans. I think we've just reached a point where none of them knows what to do, or has the courage to do what's right even if they could.