Romney

[YOhio]

Republicans overestimate the "Romney can beat Obama" meme- precisely for the reason unintentionally identified by that author and by Color Me Badd. Everyone is lukewarm on Romney. That's not a path to victory- but it is a path to avoiding a complete and total electoral catastrophe which appears to be the only other available alternative offered by Republicans right now.

You're about as credible on GOP politics as SU is on BYU sports.

[il Padrino Ute]

You're about as credible on GOP politics as SU is on BYU sports.

Some people so blindly fellate Obama that they are incapable of thinking that he could do anything wrong or lose an election.

[calicoug]

You're about as credible on GOP politics as SU is on BYU sports.

That sounds like some misdirected frustration. But I am quick to forgive.

[LA Ute]

That sounds like some misdirected frustration. But I am quick to forgive.

YOhio provides many opportunities for forgiveness. We Republicans here also forgive you. It's all in the spirit of Festivus.

[YOhio]

That sounds like some misdirected frustration. But I am quick to forgive.

Very frustrated.

[Goatnapper'96]

You're about as credible on GOP politics as SU is on BYU sports.

I appreciate the insight that CaliCoug provided. Before his post I was not aware that favorability was a crucial ingredient to winning a Presidential election. Luckily for Romney he is running against a sitting President who also seems to have struggled with this for some time!

I think everyone should be kind to Cali, he might also provide insight that other ingredients, such as the unemployment rate, might have some influence on Presidential elections.

Let him speak!

[YOhio]

I appreciate the insight that CaliCoug provided. Before his post I was not aware that favorability was a crucial ingredient to winning a Presidential election. Luckily for Romney he is running against a sitting President who also seems to have struggled with this for some time!

I think everyone should be kind to Cali, he might also provide insight that other ingredients, such as the unemployment rate, might have some influence on Presidential elections.

Let him speak!

Alas, all us poor GOPers can hope for is avoiding complete and total electoral catastrophe.

[oxcoug]

Romney 45
Obama 39

Today's Rasmussen.

Cali's argument goes poof. (not that there's anything wrong w/ that)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ntial_matchups

[Goatnapper'96]

Romney 45
Obama 39

Today's Rasmussen.

Cali's argument goes poof. (not that there's anything wrong w/ that)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ntial_matchups

Thanks Dayton!

[calicoug]

I appreciate the insight that CaliCoug provided. Before his post I was not aware that favorability was a crucial ingredient to winning a Presidential election. Luckily for Romney he is running against a sitting President who also seems to have struggled with this for some time!

I think everyone should be kind to Cali, he might also provide insight that other ingredients, such as the unemployment rate, might have some influence on Presidential elections.

Let him speak!

You are welcome for the insight, but you misstate the lesson. The issue isn't "favorability" for Romney (although his favorability numbers are also dropping- not unusual as primaries get closer due to the increase in negative ads). The issue is passion of supporters. There is a reason Obama won the last election- his supporters were very passionate and the electoral turnout was enormous. Obama is obviously struggling to generate that same passion today which is one of the primary reasons people view him as vulnerable. I'm merely pointing out what should be obvious to everyone but clearly isn't- Romney has the exact same problem.

Sure, Romney could win and I didn't dispute that (I just said the probability of a Romney victory is overstated). If someone other than Romney takes the nomination, the odds of a Republican victory plummet. This should also be obvious but clearly YOhio and others are not gifted at noting the obvious.

The Republican field is a disaster. Let me restate that- the Republican party is a disaster. The only two electable candidates in the current field are both Mormon- a fact that may prove disqualifying in the party the faith almost unanimously supports (or as Il Pad would say, "blindly fellates").

[calicoug]

Romney 45
Obama 39

Today's Rasmussen.

Cali's argument goes poof. (not that there's anything wrong w/ that)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ntial_matchups

An argument about a candidate's difficulty in turning out voters on election day goes poof because they were asked at home who they might support one year before election day?

You must have been crushed when these two polls for McCain v Obama from December/January 2007/08 didn't pan out.

Rasmussen 1/4 - 1/6 800 LV -- 43 46 McCain +3
FOX News 12/18 - 12/19 900 RV -- 40 44 McCain +4

[Goatnapper'96]

You are welcome for the insight, but you misstate the lesson. The issue isn't "favorability" for Romney (although his favorability numbers are also dropping- not unusual as primaries get closer due to the increase in negative ads). The issue is passion of supporters. There is a reason Obama won the last election- his supporters were very passionate and the electoral turnout was enormous. Obama is obviously struggling to generate that same passion today which is one of the primary reasons people view him as vulnerable. I'm merely pointing out what should be obvious to everyone but clearly isn't- Romney has the exact same problem.

Sure, Romney could win and I didn't dispute that (I just said the probability of a Romney victory is overstated). If someone other than Romney takes the nomination, the odds of a Republican victory plummet. This should also be obvious but clearly YOhio and others are not gifted at noting the obvious.

The Republican field is a disaster. Let me restate that- the Republican party is a disaster. The only two electable candidates in the current field are both Mormon- a fact that may prove disqualifying in the party the faith almost unanimously supports (or as Il Pad would say, "blindly fellates").

Perhaps you are not aware of what really drives passion in our current electorate. Obama did not drive the passion, dislike of President Bush drove it. Obama did a good job of exploiting it but that exploitation is part of his problem for re-election.

Quite honestly, Obama was a disaster of a candidate. But nobody really cared that much about the candidate they tended to care more about what they perceived the were voting against. I think the next election will have similar dynamics because the perceived disasters afflicting this country go way beyond the current crop of Republican candidates. Romney just needs to keep it simple and about the economy. Obama can't talk about it, he can't campaign about it. He can just say "President Bush drove it into a ditch that every year I keep realizing was bigger than the year before." Do you think that is going to lead him to a victory?

That is not to say that I think Romney is a sure-bet to win but given how angry right wingers are with Obama, it is my perspective that Romney will be the recipient of a very intense core electorate.

[calicoug]

You're about as credible on GOP politics as SU is on BYU sports.

Maybe I can look to you for guidance.

[Viking]

From a "market" perspective, I think Obama could pull this out. The US is incontrovertibly improving. I have been in the states for a few weeks now, having visited three different states and I've not sensed this sort economic recovery in a while. The data are all improving, from housing, to PMI indexes, to unemployment.

We've gone through a real economic supercycle that I'd argue began in 1998. That cycle has seen very few REAL economic gains (the stock market is almost precisely where it was in 1998, to wit), if any. Our perceived economic gains in the mid 2000s were really just taking from one pocket and putting it in the other (from equity into debt).

2012 will begin year 14 of this cycle. Maybe we are Japan and two lost decades, but I don't think so.

I suspect that Europe will not result in a disaster as it's truly M.A.D. if they do, the economy will put up a 4%ish nominal growth year with steady employment gains, housing starts to feel 5-10% away from the true bottom (which the market will anticipate) and by the time we get to August, the economy, stupid, will feel like a mini-boom.

Get ready for four more years of Obama, is my prediction.

[Goatnapper'96]

From a "market" perspective, I think Obama could pull this out. The US is incontrovertibly improving. I have been in the states for a few weeks now, having visited three different states and I've not sensed this sort economic recovery in a while. The data are all improving, from housing, to PMI indexes, to unemployment.

We've gone through a real economic supercycle that I'd argue began in 1998. That cycle has seen very few REAL economic gains (the stock market is almost precisely where it was in 1998, to wit), if any. Our perceived economic gains in the mid 2000s were really just taking from one pocket and putting it in the other (from equity into debt).

2012 will begin year 14 of this cycle. Maybe we are Japan and two lost decades, but I don't think so.

I suspect that Europe will not result in a disaster as it's truly M.A.D. if they do, the economy will put up a 4%ish nominal growth year with steady employment gains, housing starts to feel 5-10% away from the true bottom (which the market will anticipate) and by the time we get to August, the economy, stupid, will feel like a mini-boom.

Get ready for four more years of Obama, is my prediction.

I don't think it will happen that quick. Still too much deleveraging going on but I think things are improving slowly. Especially in comparison to the rest of the world that are all hitting their own hiccups. I do think the fossil fuel boom is going to result in a very good decade or two of growth once the collective debt situation gets to a more manageable level.