Romney versus Obama

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Honest question. Was Clinton a stronger candidate than Romney at this point in the election cycle (Spring '91)? I ended up being surprised by Clinton as president (multiple times) but I thought he was a week candidate during the democratic primaries who had some obvious baggage.

Clinton had a ton of baggage but he was also a brilliant politician. Romney has basically no baggage (except for having a ton of money, which some pundits think is baggage) but he is far from a brilliant politician.

Even with all of that, it took dumbass Ross Perot to deliver the election to him -- but the other thing to consider is whether George Bush was really a weak incumbent. The Cold War ended during his term, he successfully routed Saddam Hussein with a ton of international support and 1992 was actually an expansionary year economically.

I think if 1992 Bill Clinton had gone up against W. in 2004, he probably would have won.

It's interesting examining the conditions under which incumbent presidents have lost. Consider:

1912- Taft loses because Teddy Roosevelt runs as a third party candidate.

1932- Herbert Hoover loses against the backdrop of the Great Depression.

1976- Gerald Ford loses against the backdrop of Watergate.

1980- Jimmy Carter loses because of the bad economy and because he appears to be a weak leader.

1992- George Bush loses because Ross Perot runs a third party campaign.

So, incumbent Presidents basically lose for three reasons -- a bad economy, corruption or a third party candidate gets involved. Another election to mention is 1948, where Thomas Dewey was favored to win over an unpopular Harry Truman and supposedly ran a very safe campaign based on that assumption. Dewey ended up losing because Truman actually had a few accomplishments under his belt (ending WWII, the Marshall Plan).

This campaign will either resemble 1948 or 1980. Obama simply doesn't have any accomplishments to bolster his reelection. Romney may be Thomas Dewey who wasn't a dunce like Mondale or Kerry, but he was supposedly a safe candidate designed to have broad appeal. Romney is clearly a talented, substantive man; however, I don't think he's a particularly gifted politician. But I don't think it always take a gifted politician to win the White House. I don't think either Bush was a gifted politician. Ike certainly wasn't.

[risicam]

I pay taxes. And I deduct very little because I like paying taxes. And I may never make 6 figures since I'll be in academics. Only 10 weeks of residency left.

Risicam: Work hours do not always correlate with salary.

If anyone know that lack of correlation, it's me. Some of us pay far more taxes than others.

[Paperback Writer]

Clinton had a ton of baggage but he was also a brilliant politician. Romney has basically no baggage (except for having a ton of money, which some pundits think is baggage) but he is far from a brilliant politician.

Even with all of that, it took dumbass Ross Perot to deliver the election to him -- but the other thing to consider is whether George Bush was really a weak incumbent. The Cold War ended during his term, he successfully routed Saddam Hussein with a ton of international support and 1992 was actually an expansionary year economically.

I think if 1992 Bill Clinton had gone up against W. in 2004, he probably would have won.

It's interesting examining the conditions under which incumbent presidents have lost. Consider:

1912- Taft loses because Teddy Roosevelt runs as a third party candidate.

1932- Herbert Hoover loses against the backdrop of the Great Depression.

1976- Gerald Ford loses against the backdrop of Watergate.

1980- Jimmy Carter loses because of the bad economy and because he appears to be a weak leader.

1992- George Bush loses because Ross Perot runs a third party campaign.

So, incumbent Presidents basically lose for three reasons -- a bad economy, corruption or a third party candidate gets involved. Another election to mention is 1948, where Thomas Dewey was favored to win over an unpopular Harry Truman and supposedly ran a very safe campaign based on that assumption. Dewey ended up losing because Truman actually had a few accomplishments under his belt (ending WWII, the Marshall Plan).

This campaign will either resemble 1948 or 1980. Obama simply doesn't have any accomplishments to bolster his reelection. Romney may be Thomas Dewey who wasn't a dunce like Mondale or Kerry, but he was supposedly a safe candidate designed to have broad appeal. Romney is clearly a talented, substantive man; however, I don't think he's a particularly gifted politician. But I don't think it always take a gifted politician to win the White House. I don't think either Bush was a gifted politician. Ike certainly wasn't.

My point was that maybe Rommney is being underestimated or it's too early to reach a verdict. Clinton ran against a week Democratic field in the '92 primaries - many didn't enter the ring because Bush the Elder was an incombent and the country appeared to be on solid ground. In my view, Clinton, the brillant politician, didn't emerge until the general election. While Romney may be far from a brillant politician, he may just run the type of campaign that will defeat Obama. While Romney seems to lack the charisma of Obama, voters may have had enough of Obama's charisma and platitudes. Voters may want an executive capable of fixing broken things. If such a scenario plays out, wouldn't Romney then be considered a "brillant politician"? I agree to the similarities of the 1980 election but Romney's climb is steeper. In my calcualtion, Obama > Carter and Reagan > Romney.

[SoonerCoug]

If anyone know that lack of correlation, it's me. Some of us pay far more taxes than others.
And I still highly doubt you won't hit 6 figures. Does that 10 weeks include your vacation?

I'm pretty sure I know how much academicians make in my specialty. It's not like I just make shit up.

[SoCalCoug]

Obama simply doesn't have any accomplishments to bolster his reelection.

You mean aside from killing Osama bin Laden?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You mean aside from killing Osama bin Laden?

You really think that justifies his reelection? He gets credit with me for disregarding Pakistani sovereignty and killing him, but I think it's the type of decision most people in the office would have made. That decision alone doesn't outweigh the overall shittiness of his administration.

[frank ryan]

You mean aside from killing Osama bin Laden?

You haven't watched Fox enough. Bush really did it and in no way did he pull back from Tora Bora when the prick was cornered.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

My point was that maybe Rommney is being underestimated or it's too early to reach a verdict. Clinton ran against a week Democratic field in the '92 primaries - many didn't enter the ring because Bush the Elder was an incombent and the country appeared to be on solid ground. In my view, Clinton, the brillant politician, didn't emerge until the general election. While Romney may be far from a brillant politician, he may just run the type of campaign that will defeat Obama. While Romney seems to lack the charisma of Obama, voters may have had enough of Obama's charisma and platitudes. Voters may want an executive capable of fixing broken things. If such a scenario plays out, wouldn't Romney then be considered a "brillant politician"? I agree to the similarities of the 1980 election but Romney's climb is steeper. In my calcualtion, Obama > Carter and Reagan > Romney.

Someone that actually remembers 1980 would have to comment on whether there was more malaise in 1980 than in 2012. I think the country's feeling about its place in the world was probably worse in 1980 due to the Soviet threat and the Iranian hostage crisis. But even though 1980 was bad economically, was it really worse than right now? I don't think so. 1980 had an inflation problem, but it didn't have an asset deflation problem.

Secondly, I don't think Obama is viewed as being as weak as Carter, which is good. But I think Obama is viewed as being more liberal and being more destructive than Carter.

So the economy may be perceptively worse but the United States' situation internationally is more secure in 2012 than in 1980. We've also got a President with more spine than Jimmy Carter but he's more out of the mainstream than Carter and his policies may be more damaging in the long term.

Overall, I agree that Obama > Carter but Reagan ended up winning with relative ease. If Romney wins, it won't be by the same margin.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You haven't watched Fox enough. Bush really did it and in no way did he pull back from Tora Bora when the prick was cornered.

You guys were saying that Obama punched his ticket to reelection when Bin Laden got killed. Then a couple months later, Obama's approval ratings were right back to where they were before.

Hell, the Soviet Union fell and the Berlin Wall came down during Bush 41's presidency and all that got him was a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and a third party candidate that got some traction in the general election. Do you really think killing Bin Laden is a bigger event than the disintegration of Communism? How many people at the voting booth are really going to countenance this event when they're making their decision?

"Well, he pissed away $800 billion dollars and gave most of it to a bunch of unionized, overpaid state employee assholes, spent his remaining political capital on an unconstitutional law, he wants to get rid of our missile defense for nothing in return from the Russians, my paycheck and overall financial prospects have not improved in the past four years, but he did kill Osama Bin Laden so I better vote for him" lol, yeah right

[Portland Ute]

You guys were saying that Obama punched his ticket to reelection when Bin Laden got killed. Then a couple months later, Obama's approval ratings were right back to where they were before.

Hell, the Soviet Union fell and the Berlin Wall came down during Bush 41's presidency and all that got him was a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and a third party candidate that got some traction in the general election. Do you really think killing Bin Laden is a bigger event than the disintegration of Communism? How many people at the voting booth are really going to countenance this event when they're making their decision?

"Well, he pissed away $800 billion dollars and gave most of it to a bunch of unionized, overpaid state employee assholes, spent his remaining political capital on an unconstitutional law, he wants to get rid of our missile defense for nothing in return from the Russians, my paycheck and overall financial prospects have not improved in the past four years, but he did kill Osama Bin Laden so I better vote for him" lol, yeah right

:box:

[frank ryan]

You guys were saying that Obama punched his ticket to reelection when Bin Laden got killed. Then a couple months later, Obama's approval ratings were right back to where they were before.

Hell, the Soviet Union fell and the Berlin Wall came down during Bush 41's presidency and all that got him was a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and a third party candidate that got some traction in the general election. Do you really think killing Bin Laden is a bigger event than the disintegration of Communism? How many people at the voting booth are really going to countenance this event when they're making their decision?

"Well, he pissed away $800 billion dollars and gave most of it to a bunch of unionized, overpaid state employee assholes, spent his remaining political capital on an unconstitutional law, he wants to get rid of our missile defense for nothing in return from the Russians, my paycheck and overall financial prospects have not improved in the past four years, but he did kill Osama
Bin Laden so I better vote for him" lol, yeah right

Way the fuck out of line bashing state workers and calling them assholes.

[San Juan Sun]

Way the fuck out of line bashing state workers and calling them assholes.

Your outrage aside, it's pretty much a fact that the stimulus only stimulated government workers, crony corporations, and unions. It will be hard for Obama to run on that record.

Here in Michigan, there were tons of signs promoting freeway improvements as a result of the American Reinvestment Act. The pothole-filled roads still stink, but the signmakers must have gotten some of that "stimulus".

[San Juan Sun]

You mean aside from killing Osama bin Laden?

Honestly, Obama should get credit for giving the order to take out Osama. But let's not get too carried away. That was not a tough decision showing significant forethought and leadership. It was a pretty easy call that 99% of Americans would have made if they were in Obama's shoes.

[creekster]

Honestly, Obama should get credit for giving the order to take out Osama. But let's not get too carried away. That was not a tough decision showing significant forethought and leadership. It was a pretty easy call that 99% of Americans would have made if they were in Obama's shoes.

99% of the ocuntry would haev wnaetd to do so, but I am not sure 99% of the poepl who might be commander in chief would have done so. I suspect he was greatly concerned it would turn out like Carter's hostage rescue mission.

[San Juan Sun]

99% of the ocuntry would haev wnaetd to do so, but I am not sure 99% of the poepl who might be commander in chief would have done so. I suspect he was greatly concerned it would turn out like Carter's hostage rescue mission.

"Like anyone can know that, Napoleon."

Whatever the number is, the argument stands: Obama taking out Osama was a good call but not a particularly courageous one.