Romney

[Viking]

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.

4% nominal GDP is nothing to get excited about, esp w 2% core CPI but if we get some construction upside, look out above.

The great wildcard really is a macro shock from Europe. The Germans have masterminded a total take over of Europe without a single drop of blood shed. I presume that they will redefine the rules to enable some amount of money printing. Otherwise, the DM comes back and their economy goes into the shitter for a long time as their export economy will collapse.

So while we may see another August-like scary moment (downgrade of France?) in 2012, get ready to crank up the EUR printing press.

This means the only clear and present danger to the US economy gets put to bed and Obama-rama is back.

[Jacob]

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

As much as I'd like to believe that, all you need to know about that poll is that last week it had Romney losing to Obama.

Useless.

But I still think Romney would beat Obama.

[RobinFinderson]

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.

Goat, you act like Obama can't run on the economy, but that isn't the case. As Viking points out, things are improving. Obama inherited an economy in free fall, and it turned around under his leadership. He can run on that. Romney can argue that the economy would improve faster under his leadership, and then the American voters would have to choose between the leader whose tenure saw the economy turn around after ten years of Republican rule, and the possibility that Republican ideas will improve the economy at a faster rate. It will come down to presentation, but it is hardly a forgone conclusion that Romney has the upper hand here.

[Viking]

Goat, you act like Obama can't run on the economy, but that isn't the case. As Viking points out, things are improving. Obama inherited an economy in free fall, and it turned around under his leadership. He can run on that. Romney can argue that the economy would improve faster under his leadership, and then the American voters would have to choose between the leader whose tenure saw the economy turn around after ten years of Republican rule, and the possibility that Republican ideas will improve the economy at a faster rate. It will come down to presentation, but it is hardly a forgone conclusion that Romney has the upper hand here.

Robin, I'm a liberal, blue-state man but let me be clear: the economy is improving IN SPITE of Obama. The porkulus bill in 2009 is the great tragedy of Obama's term. Instead of seeking 8 years of liberal retribution against Republicans, if he'd taken a Bill Clinton-centrist approach, we'd be talking about the S&P 500 at 1450, unemployment at 7.5% and the term "Occupy Wall Street" would be reserved for landlords seeking high rent-paying tenants.

The man our family voted for has been nothing short of a total economic disaster as measured against what he could have done and instead chose to pay special interests.

[Goatnapper'96]

Goat, you act like Obama can't run on the economy, but that isn't the case. As Viking points out, things are improving. Obama inherited an economy in free fall, and it turned around under his leadership. He can run on that. Romney can argue that the economy would improve faster under his leadership, and then the American voters would have to choose between the leader whose tenure saw the economy turn around after ten years of Republican rule, and the possibility that Republican ideas will improve the economy at a faster rate. It will come down to presentation, but it is hardly a forgone conclusion that Romney has the upper hand here.

LOL! It isn't a foregone conclusion but it is getting real close to one. Do you have anything other than Viking's post on an internet board that there is widespread opinion that things are turning around? Obviously things are not continuing to get worse but growth has been anemic and his critics can paint his governing ideas as antagonistic to economic growth.

I agree he can run on his economic record. I just think he is smart enough not to do so, but I still think he can win despite that. I just don't think it is likely.

[Jacob]

Goat, you act like Obama can't run on the economy, but that isn't the case. As Viking points out, things are improving. Obama inherited an economy in free fall, and it turned around under his leadership. He can run on that. Romney can argue that the economy would improve faster under his leadership, and then the American voters would have to choose between the leader whose tenure saw the economy turn around after ten years of Republican rule, and the possibility that Republican ideas will improve the economy at a faster rate. It will come down to presentation, but it is hardly a forgone conclusion that Romney has the upper hand here.

That seems to contradict what everybody else thinks, and by everybody else, I guess I mean the news media.

But the bolded section strikes me as a huge leap to a conclusion that is totally unwarranted and that will be a hard sell to an electorate who is living in the economy with unemployment above 8% and very little growth. I don't think there is any evidence that a large portions of Americans see the economy as much improving and certainly not as having turned around.

If there is a big economic turnaround, it won't be quick, and it won't happen before the election.

[Goatnapper'96]

Robin, I'm a liberal, blue-state man but let me be clear: the economy is improving IN SPITE of Obama. The porkulus bill in 2009 is the great tragedy of Obama's term. Instead of seeking 8 years of liberal retribution against Republicans, if he'd taken a Bill Clinton-centrist approach, we'd be talking about the S&P 500 at 1450, unemployment at 7.5% and the term "Occupy Wall Street" would be reserved for landlords seeking high rent-paying tenants.

The man our family voted for has been nothing short of a total economic disaster as measured against what he could have done and instead chose to pay special interests.

Note to Robin: Viking might no longer be the expert economist you were looking for.

[oxcoug]

As much as I'd like to believe that, all you need to know about that poll is that last week it had Romney losing to Obama.

Useless.

But I still think Romney would beat Obama.

Well of course these numbers are soft but that doesn't make them "useless" - it's useful in confirming that there is a fluid center in this election that is up for grabs and that Obama doesn't have nearly enough voters locked up to feel comfortable in 2012 and that Romney is viewed as a viable alternative.

To that extent the numbers are useful.

[Jacob]

LOL! It isn't a foregone conclusion but it is getting real close to one. Do you have anything other than Viking's post on an internet board that there is widespread opinion that things are turning around?

Viking has been in this country for like 3 weeks, and he got a sense. Don't doubt him.

[Goatnapper'96]

As much as I'd like to believe that, all you need to know about that poll is that last week it had Romney losing to Obama.

Useless.

But I still think Romney would beat Obama.

And it was by telephone. Telephone polls only use land lines. While land lines are in humble but highly accurate opinion superior to mobile phones, the poor have disproportionately cut their landlines and the upper middle class hipsters are second. I think any telephone poll is no longer particularly reliable no matter how hard it makes my nipples. But I do think that folks with landlines will be more motivated to vote in 2012.

[Viking]

LOL! It isn't a foregone conclusion but it is getting real close to one. Do you have anything other than Viking's post on an internet board that there is widespread opinion that things are turning around? Obviously things are not continuing to get worse but growth has been anemic and his critics can paint his governing ideas as antagonistic to economic growth.

I agree he can run on his economic record. I just think he is smart enough not to do so, but I still think he can win despite that. I just don't think it is likely.

Spend some time going through the economic data releases comparing expectations vs. actual. Generally speaking, PMI, unemployment and sentiment measures have come in very solidly ahead of expectations for a few months now. Today was a continuation of that theme. Even housing measures are improving, though that's more like a glimmer in one's eye right now.

Earnings last Q were solid. Things in the US are fine. China? No. Europe? No. But Obama isn't running for re-election there, at least not yet.

Here's a decent link: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/economic-calendar/

[Goatnapper'96]

Viking has been in this country for like 3 weeks, and he got a sense. Don't doubt him.

I thought it was 2 weeks. That extra seven days of rubbing shoulders with his upper middle class family gives him the clout I was dismissing.

[Viking]

[calicoug]

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.

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.

[Goatnapper'96]

Spend some time going through the economic data releases comparing expectations vs. actual. Generally speaking, PMI, unemployment and sentiment measures have come in very solidly ahead of expectations for a few months now. Today was a continuation of that theme. Even housing measures are improving, though that's more like a glimmer in one's eye right now.

Earnings last Q were solid. Things in the US are fine. China? No. Europe? No. But Obama isn't running for re-election there, at least not yet.

Here's a decent link: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/economic-calendar/

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!