Romney

[Viking]

I agree that things are getting better. I just disagree with you that we will see any huge jump next year. I think the key to the next booming US growth cycle will be fueled by our growing domestic fossil fuel industry. It is my perspective but I think that industry will ignite like a fat bastard blue flame after winning a Texas Chilli Eat Off once there is an administration that is more favorable to economic growth. However, even if Obama wins it will still continue to grow because no unhallowed hand can stop the invisible hand from erecting a standard of truth that he who has the gold makes the rules!

I don't think 4% is a "huge" jump. But going from 2%ish to 4% coupled with lower unemployment is enough to get the man re-elected.

Sorry: i don't know why I'm saying nominal. I mean real GDP. Vacation brain fart.

[oxcoug]

You don't really believe that, do you? Bush wasn't even on the ballot in 2008 when Obama was running. Certainly there was some spillover from Bush's lack of popularity to the Republican field in general, but we have had many unpopular presidents in our history and I can't think of another election where passion was so firmly evidenced in a candidate's following than what we saw with Obama. Are you telling me that this picture is the result of dislike of Bush? Or this one? Or this one?

In a November 2008 poll, 69% of Obama supporters were "enthusiastic" in their support of Obama compared to 44% for McCain. The evidence suggests not just a dislike of Bush but a strong passion for Obama drove his election.

There was widespread arousal over the meaning of the moment, of the historical significance of electing the first black president - and yes, people were excited about Obama. He looked nice on TV, was good at reading soaring speeches with the appropriate soaring inflections and he postured just enough to the center to convince people that's where he'd be.

But that was before they got to know him.

He had no record to speak of then. He does now. And it's the sort of record that has alienated both unaffiliated voters and some of his base.

Also - you must be joking (say you are?) if you are really going to pretend that there was just "spillover" from Bush - there was raging anti-Bush animosity visible on the street corners of Denver when I was there for the entire week of the Dem convention. Anti-Bush sentiment was a galvanizing factor in the election right to the end.

In any event, both the negative and positive passions of the Dem party have cooled in the past four years.

[Goatnapper'96]

You don't really believe that, do you? Bush wasn't even on the ballot in 2008 when Obama was running. Certainly there was some spillover from Bush's lack of popularity to the Republican field in general, but we have had many unpopular presidents in our history and I can't think of another election where passion was so firmly evidenced in a candidate's following than what we saw with Obama. Are you telling me that this picture is the result of dislike of Bush? Or this one? Or this one?

In a November 2008 poll, 69% of Obama supporters were "enthusiastic" in their support of Obama compared to 44% for McCain. The evidence suggests not just a dislike of Bush but a strong passion for Obama drove his election.

Yes, I think the unpopularity of Bush was the driving force. I think the history of the first African-American President was a part of it as well and Obama being an articulate nocturnal emmission of the progressive elite, but much of the intensity gap is explained by the lack of motivation of right wing ideologues.

Obama's problem is that his administration has done more for the intensity of right wing ideologues than any Republican candidate can or will. Further, his campaign was a patchwork of different elecorates who have mutually conflicting goals. It would be impossible for him to satisfy the hard core lefties who favor wacko environmentalism (i.e. the EPA says your water is tainted and our science sucks but it is still your job to disprove our results that are based more on ideology than science but sucks to be you in the world of public opinion...hahahaha) and income redistribution while also satisfying independents who want pragmatic compromise and economic growth. He inherited a perfect storm, which he obviously played very well, but the fundamental key independent variable that put his storm in motion was the overwhelming unpopularity of George Bush and the Republican Party. I listened to Obama campaign enough to know that he was clearly running against George W. Bush.

Now that he has to run on himself I am convinced you will not see similar levels of intensity amongst his supporters. I don't think he has changed a great deal but there is no longer the same intense dislike of a sitting Republican President and his party's performance the past 8 years, six of which they had significant power.

[Jacob]

Is the point that the economy is slowly improving? I might agree with that.
Is the point that the economy is humming along? I'll disagree with that.
Is the point that the economy is set for a drastic turnaround that will convince voters that Obama has done a terrific job with the economy as president, causing them to vote for him? I think we can agree that the answer to that question is no.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't think 4% is a "huge" jump. But going from 2%ish to 4% coupled with lower unemployment is enough to get the man re-elected.

Sorry: i don't know why I'm saying nominal. I mean real GDP. Vacation brain fart.

I will be surprised if next year is 4% GDP growth. This year will be around 2 and I think next year will be between 2-3, and that assumes that there isn't collatteral damage from the Euro roller coaster. Serious job growth starts at 3%, correct? I can see some minimal job growth but I am convinced by the election unemployment will still be 8.2 - 8.5

[RobinFinderson]

I have serious doubts about the extent to which any president's leadership will fix/destroy the economy, and I worded my post to reflect that. The economy has turned around under Obama's leadership. I make no claim that this was brought about by Obama's leadership, but that shouldn't stop him from running on it. Goat acts like Obama can't even mention the economy without hurting his prospects. That just isn't the case.

[Goatnapper'96]

There was widespread arousal over the meaning of the moment, of the historical significance of electing the first black president - and yes, people were excited about Obama. He looked nice on TV, was good at reading soaring speeches with the appropriate soaring inflections and he postured just enough to the center to convince people that's where he'd be.

But that was before they got to know him.

He had no record to speak of then. He does now. And it's the sort of record that has alienated both unaffiliated voters and some of his base.

Also - you must be joking (say you are?) if you are really going to pretend that there was just "spillover" from Bush - there was raging anti-Bush animosity visible on the street corners of Denver when I was there for the entire week of the Dem convention. Anti-Bush sentiment was a galvanizing factor in the election right to the end.

In any event, both the negative and positive passions of the Dem party have cooled in the past four years.

To give some credit to Cali and Obama his rhetoric did inspire some of his support. However, he was very vague and allowed the listener to draw any conclusions that they wanted. This was, IMO, fuel on the fire of significant dislike of President Bush. Now that Obama has a record many of his previous supporters now dislike him and many of his current supporters are less motivated as the reality of governing has returned them back to the world of cynicism.

[Goatnapper'96]

I have serious doubts about the extent to which any president's leadership will fix/destroy the economy, and I worded my post to reflect that. The economy has turned around under Obama's leadership. I make no claim that this was brought about by Obama's leadership, but that shouldn't stop him from running on it. Goat acts like Obama can't even mention the economy without hurting his prospects. That just isn't the case.

Do you remember his promises that would follow his stimulus? Unemployment is still, soon to be 3+ years after it was signed, higher than what he promised the peak would be. His administration has experienced more premature ejaculation than the BYU 151st Ward on a Family Home Evening weekend to Bear Lake in Emma Christiansen's dad's cabin over economic recovery. He dumped money into the green industry that has produced like 1 job for every million spent. I know you like his economic perspective, but you are an ideologue. The people that decide elections are not you and I, and overwhelmingly they are not impressed. I am not sure what his strong points are to run on, as I am also an ideologue, but I am convinced that if his braintrust recommends the economy he is going to lose, and likely badly.

I also agree with you that President's get too much credit or blame for economic woes. But this President rode economic woes into the White House and it is a bit late for the "uhhhh maybee Presidential Administrations don't have the control I attributed to them 4 years ago" line.

[byu71]

I have serious doubts about the extent to which any president's leadership will fix/destroy the economy, and I worded my post to reflect that. The economy has turned around under Obama's leadership. I make no claim that this was brought about by Obama's leadership, but that shouldn't stop him from running on it. Goat acts like Obama can't even mention the economy without hurting his prospects. That just isn't the case.

Most people aren't going to realize the economy will doing it's thing over the long haul with or without the government (President and Congress) messing it up, which is what they mainly do.

However, I would argue until I was blue in the face that no matter what gains the economy makes over the next 12 months, it would be doing better if Obama and the dems weren't there.

I know of quite a few folks who aren't "investing", but are sitting on their money mainly because they fear Obama and his attitude toward economics.

Just had a client call up yesterday and say he wants to put $200,000 a month away until he has $2,000,000 in 5 year or less CD's. He has borrowed money in the past to expand his company. He and his partners are now putting money away earning nothing instead of expanding.

OBAMA is the reason.

[Viking]

I will be surprised if next year is 4% GDP growth. This year will be around 2 and I think next year will be between 2-3, and that assumes that there isn't collatteral damage from the Euro roller coaster. Serious job growth starts at 3%, correct? I can see some minimal job growth but I am convinced by the election unemployment will still be 8.2 - 8.5

I just looked (telling, the US is not my primary market) and US is at 3.03% LTM. Not a big stretch to assume 4%.

[Viking]

Most people aren't going to realize the economy will doing it's thing over the long haul with or without the government (President and Congress) messing it up, which is what they mainly do.

However, I would argue until I was blue in the face that no matter what gains the economy makes over the next 12 months, it would be doing better if Obama and the dems weren't there.

I know of quite a few folks who aren't "investing", but are sitting on their money mainly because they fear Obama and his attitude toward economics.

Just had a client call up yesterday and say he wants to put $200,000 a month away until he has $2,000,000 in 5 year or less CD's. He has borrowed money in the past to expand his company. He and his partners are now putting money away earning nothing instead of expanding.

OBAMA is the reason.

Agreed. The man should be nicknamed Barack "Multiple Contraction" Obama.

[Goatnapper'96]

Most people aren't going to realize the economy will doing it's thing over the long haul with or without the government (President and Congress) messing it up, which is what they mainly do.

However, I would argue until I was blue in the face that no matter what gains the economy makes over the next 12 months, it would be doing better if Obama and the dems weren't there.

I know of quite a few folks who aren't "investing", but are sitting on their money mainly because they fear Obama and his attitude toward economics.

Just had a client call up yesterday and say he wants to put $200,000 a month away until he has $2,000,000 in 5 year or less CD's. He has borrowed money in the past to expand his company. He and his partners are now putting money away earning nothing instead of expanding.

OBAMA is the reason.

Is it the tax policy or the ideological chrony capitalism such as his green jobs revolution?

Because if it is the tax policy, inasmuch as the rich having to pay more, they have to realize that everyone is going to eventually have to pay more and everyone includes them. Now if it is class warfare "fair share" rhetoric certainly they can't believe that is going to kead anywhere. Republicans won't allow it, but unfortunately when they have had some opportunities to bend to fix the debt issue they have shown to be just as inflexible.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Krauthammer had a pretty good point -- and I think Clark Addison made a similar point several months ago. Basically as the economy improves many people will jump back in and start looking for a job, this will actually cause the unemployment rate to increase.

The increasing unemployment rate leading up to the 2010 midterms turned what would have been a 30-40 seat gain into the absolute ass-pounding the Democrats received. That unemployment number more than anything else is going to shape everyone's impression of the state of the economy.

The other thing to consider is that Obama can't talk himself out of a paper bag at this point. What have been the low points of his presidency? BP? Solyndra? The debt ceiling fight? The more that guy talks, the more people dislike him. He's already said too much and he's increasingly regarded as a phony.

Finally, is Romney going to lose any of the McCain states? No, absolutely not. What states will Romney definitely capture from Obama that Bush won in 2004? Does anyone realistically think that Romney won't get Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina and that one vote from Nebraska back? Add in the net +5 electoral votes going to the solid red states and that alone is 218 electoral votes.

Romney at this point is 52 electoral votes away. I'll just say this -- Obama beat McCain 50.1% to 48.1% in 2008 in Florida. The gloss is off Obama and he's going to have to have a damn good economic upswing to perform as well in Florida. Florida alone is 29 electoral votes. All of a sudden Romney is 23 electoral votes away.

We're left with the remainder of states that Bush carried in 2000 and 2004:

Ohio 18

Colorado 9

Nevada 6

Total 33

And the states that Bush carried in one of those elections:

New Mexico 5

New Hampshire 4

Iowa 6

Total 15

I think New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado are likely pickups for someone like Romney, that's 19 electoral votes. I think Iowa is a very unlikely pickup for Romney. 23 votes remain between New Mexico and Ohio, Romney needs 4 votes at that point...

...but here's what Romney brings to the table that George W. Bush couldn't bring to the table simply because of who he was and that John McCain couldn't bring because of the terrible circumstances that destroyed his campaign in the Fall of 2008 -- Romney isn't regarded as a social conservative ideologue, he's a big tent Republican and Obama has royally effed up any economic cred the Democrats earned between Bill Clinton's administration and whatever cred the Republicans lost during W.'s administration. The single biggest reason people in the upper midwest have refused to go GOP in awhile is because of the social conservatism combined with a lack of an economic edge the GOP was perceived to hold over the Democrats. The Democrats don't have an economic edge anymore over the GOP that was made abundantly clear in 2010. In addition, they're not only running a candidate who's not running on a social conservatism platform, but he's a guy who has some economic chops. So, I think, Romney puts the following states in play:

Michigan 16

Pennsylvania 20

Wisconsin 10

The summary here is that Romney would really only be 23 votes away from getting the election. Between Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire New Mexico, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there are 84 votes up in the air. Unless there is a fairly dramatic turnaround in the economy, I think it's a tall order for Obama to defend more than 61 of those votes given his record.

[calicoug]

Do you remember his promises that would follow his stimulus? Unemployment is still, soon to be 3+ years after it was signed, higher than what he promised the peak would be. His administration has experienced more premature ejaculation than the BYU 151st Ward on a Family Home Evening weekend to Bear Lake in Emma Christiansen's dad's cabin over economic recovery. He dumped money into the green industry that has produced like 1 job for every million spent. I know you like his economic perspective, but you are an ideologue. The people that decide elections are not you and I, and overwhelmingly they are not impressed. I am not sure what his strong points are to run on, as I am also an ideologue, but I am convinced that if his braintrust recommends the economy he is going to lose, and likely badly.

I also agree with you that President's get too much credit or blame for economic woes. But this President rode economic woes into the White House and it is a bit late for the "uhhhh maybee Presidential Administrations don't have the control I attributed to them 4 years ago" line.

I think most smart people knew this wouldn't likely be all fixed in 4 years. It's a bit late for those smart people to pretend they thought it would be and blame Obama for not having made it all better!

Expectations were certainly very high for the man and he has clearly not lived up to those expectations. That's in part his fault and in part the fault of Congress.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Is it the tax policy or the ideological chrony capitalism such as his green jobs revolution?

Because if it is the tax policy, inasmuch as the rich having to pay more, they have to realize that everyone is going to eventually have to pay more and everyone includes them. Now if it is class warfare "fair share" rhetoric certainly they can't believe that is going to kead anywhere. Republicans won't allow it, but unfortunately when they have had some opportunities to bend to fix the debt issue they have shown to be just as inflexible.

I would imagine they may think that he's going to do something else to eff things up. They probably think Obamacare is likely to be a significant drag on the economy and they're holding onto their money to see how things develop.

Realistically, Obama is simply not going to be able to do what he did in his first two years. The GOP has captured the House and they will at least capture the Senate next year. But at least in the case of Obamacare, the damage is waiting to be done and that can't change with him in office.

I don't think guys like BYU 71 is describing are ideologues, they just don't want to lose money by expanding their business in an uncertain and toxic economic environment. Obama and the Democrats have played a large role in creating that environment.