Forum Dems in denial about 2012

[pbrower2a]

OK -- so how does this translate into a prediction of the 2012 election?
 
The model assumes that the President will do better at winning votes than at satisfying everyone. Assume that he faces a challenger of 'average' electability by prior standards who makes an ordinary number of mistakes. Assume no new catastrophes or scandals unless they actually happen.  That may be asking much, but that is all that we have.

Of course  things change greatly if the incumbent faces an unusually-strong challenger. But we don't see that yet. So far the best candidate that the Republicans have had has been either Mike Huckabee (who has dropped out) or Mitt Romney. So if you use the latest statewide poll, blue for Romney, red for Obama, and white for a tie (I am going to use middle shades for extant polls):

   

So far I have 319 for Obama, 108 for Romney, 20 tied, and 101 with no polls.

Can I take a few chances? Sure. The President isn't going to lose Vermont, Illinois, or Delaware to anyone; he isn't going to win Utah, Oklahoma, or Idaho. I'm going to predict that North Dakota will vote in tandem, and  that Romney has no way of losing Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, or Louisiana. Those are fairly easy. Kentucky is going to vote in tandem with either Tennessee or West Virginia, and I really have no idea about Indiana. 

   

It's now 354 for Obama, 145 for Romney, 20 tied, and 19 best described as "no idea".

Now see what happens when the strongest candidate who isn't Romney is the nominee (Pawlenty?) Pennsylvania is no longer a tie -- it now goes to Obama -- and Arizona, New Hampshire, and Nevada drift into the President's win column:

   

At this point, the President wins 395 electoral votes (which is stronger than his win in 2008) while we are in the dark about Indiana and Kentucky. Remember: the R on the map above this post indicates that Romney wins or ties in the state, but that everyone else loses it against President Obama. 

[milhouse24]

For me, I think Dole and McCain were unelectable because of their age. 
I think John Kerry was unelectable because he was not enough of a leader.
I think Al Gore was unelectable because he was not enough of a leader among other things. 

I think Obama's re-election will be based more on Obama's performance rather than his opponents. 

I actually think Bachmann could have a shot a beating Obama if she had a strong VP.  Plus, she's a woman and I actually think she would get a lot more of the Female vote (from Democratic Females) to beat obama.

Romney is a solid candidate, but may not be seen as conservative enough for Southern Republicans, but I don't think they'll stay home on election day. 

I think any GOP candidate under 60 has a decent chance of beating Obama.  The American people want someone effective, experienced, and relateable.

[nhmagic]

Ah, lets take a look at some polls from the 04 presidential race.  Bush led in many of the national polls - much like Obama does, and sometimes with even better margins than Obama gets.  We're really far from the election and everyone is downing Bachmann's chances.  I think people need to take a fairer view of the candidate (especially the pubbies on this board who are selling her short).  These are some national polls - we all know Bush did around 2.5% better than Kerry in 04.  Youd be amazed at how similar Kerry's leads in Battleground states were compared to Obama and Bachmann.  She was down by what, 7pts in the last polls in NH and PA.  That's quite similar to how President Bush fared in the polls - and we all know both states were much closer than that.  

R/D/NADER
Time (926 LV) 8/31 - 9/2 52% 41% 3% Bush +11
Zogby (1001 LV) 8/30 - 9/2 46% 43% 3% Bush +3
ARG (800 LV) 8/30 - 9/1 47% 47% 3% TIE
ABC News/WP (775 LV) 8/26 - 8/29 48% 48% 1% TIE
Time (835 LV) 8/24 - 8/26 46% 44% 5% Bush +2
FOX News (1,000 LV) 8/24 - 8/25 43% 44% 3% Kerry +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (709 LV) 8/23 - 8/25 48% 46% 4% Bush +2
NBC News/WSJ (806 RV) 8/23 - 8/25 47% 45% 3% Bush +2
NPR - POS/GQR (800 LV) 8/21 - 8/24 43% 47% 3% Kerry +4
LA Times (1,352 RV) 8/21 - 8/24 47% 44% 3% Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (884 RV) 8/17 - 8/23 43% 43% 5% TIE
Battleground Poll (1,000 LV) 8/15 - 8/17 43% 44% 1% Kerry +1
CBS News (835 RV) 8/15 - 8/18 45% 46% 1% Kerry +1
Harris ( LV from 1012 adults) 8/10 - 8/15 47% 47% 3% TIE
Zogby (1,011 LV) 8/12 - 8/14 43% 47% 2% Kerry +4
Gallup (729 LV) 8/9 - 8/11 48% 46% 3% Bush +2
Pew (1,166 RV) 8/5 - 8/10 45% 47% 2% Kerry +2
Time/SRBI (758 LV) 8/3 - 8/5 43% 48% 4% Kerry +5
AP/Ipsos (798 RV) 8/3 - 8/5 45% 48% 3% Kerry +3
Dem Corps**** (1,013 LV) 8/2 - 8/5 44% 49% 4% Kerry +5
IBD/TIPP (841 RV) 8/2 - 8/5 42% 45% 5% Kerry +3
Fox News (775 LV) 8/3 - 8/4 43% 47% 2% Kerry +4
Marist (573 LV) 7/30-8/2 47% 47% 1% TIE
CBS News (991 RV) 7/31-8/1 43% 48% 3% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT (LV) 7/30-8/1 51% 45% 2% Bush +6
ABC News/WP (LV) 7/30-8/1 47% 49% 2% Kerry +2
ARG (776 RV) 7/30-8/1 45% 49% 2% Kerry +4
Newsweek (1,010 RV) 7/29-7/30 42% 49% 3% Kerry +7
 
ABC News/WP (909 RV) 7/22-7/25 48% 46% 3% Bush +2
 
IBD/TIPP (883 RV) 7/19-7/24 42% 44% 3% Kerry +2
 
Time/SRBI (1000 RV) 7/20-7/22 43% 46% 5% Kerry +3
 
Quinnipiac Univ. (1551 RV) 7/18-7/22 43% 44% 4% Kerry +1
 
Fox News (767 LV) 7/20-7/21 43% 44% 3% Kerry +1
 
NBC/WSJ (813 RV) 7/19-7/21 47% 45% 2% Bush +2
CNN/Gallup/USAT (709 LV) 7/19-7/21 46% 47% 4% Kerry +1
LA Times (1,529 RV) 7/17-7/21 44% 46% 3% Kerry +2
 
Pew (1,568 RV) 7/8-7/18 44% 46% 3% Kerry +2
 
IBD/TIPP (842 RV) 7/12-7/17 40% 42% 4% Kerry +2
 
Marist (938 RV) 7/12-7/15 44% 45% 2% Kerry +1
 
CBS/NYT (823 RV) 7/11-7/15 42% 45% 5% Kerry +3
 
Dem Corps** (1,010 LV) 7/10-7/13 45% 48% 4% Kerry +3
Wash Post/ABC (721 RV) 7/8-7/11 46% 46% 4% TIE
CNN/Gallup/USAT (706 LV) 7/8-7/11 45% 50% 2% Kerry +5
IBD/TIPP (800 RV) 7/6-7/10 43% 47% 4% Kerry +4
Newsweek (1,001 RV) 7/8-7/9 44% 47% 3% Kerry +3
Time (774 LV) 7/6-7/8 45% 47% 4% Kerry +2
Zogby (1008 LV) 7/6-7/7 45% 47% 2% Kerry +2
AP/Ipsos (804 RV) 7/5-7/7 49% 45% 3% Bush +4
NBC News (504 RV) 7/6 41% 49% 4% Kerry +8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
ARG 7/1-7/3 44% 47% 3% Kerry +3
NBC/WSJ 6/25-6/28 45% 44% 4% Bush +1
CBS News/NY Times 6/23-6/27 43% 42% 5% Bush +1
Fox News 6/22-6/23 47% 40% 3% Bush +7
CNN/Gallup/USAT 6/21-6/23 48% 47% 3% Bush +1
Battleground Poll 6/20-6/23 43% 41% 1% Bush +2
Gallup 6/9-6/30 45% 44% 7% Bush +1
Wash Post/ABC News 6/17-6/20 44% 48% 6% Kerry +4
IBD/TIPP 6/14-6/19 44% 41% 6% Bush +3
Harris 6/8-6/15 51% 41% 6% Bush +10
IBD/TIPP 6/8-6/13 43% 40% 5% Bush +3
Pew Research 6/3-6/13 46% 42% 6% Bush +4
Ipsos-AP 6/7-6/9 46% 45% 6% Bush +1
Fox News 6/8-6/9 42% 42% 3% TIE
LA Times 6/5-6/8 42% 48% 4% Kerry +6
Gallup 6/3-6/6 44% 50% 5% Kerry +6
TIPP/IBD 6/1-6/6 43% 41% 7% Bush +2
Zogby 6/2-6/5 42% 44% 3% Kerry +2
ARG 6/1-6/3 45% 46% 3% Kerry +1
Quinnipiac 5/18-5/24 43% 42% 6% Bush +1
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/21-5/23 46% 47% 4% Kerry +1
Insider Advantage  5/21-5/22 43% 43% 4% TIE
Wash Post/ABC News  5/20-5/23 46% 46% 4% TIE
CBS News  5/20-5/23 41% 47% 5% Kerry +6
Fox News 5/18-5/19 40% 40% 3% TIE
TIPP/IBD 5/12-5/18 42% 41% 7% Bush +1
Newsweek 5/13-5/14 42% 43% 5% Kerry +1
Democracy Corps (D) 5/10-5/13 45% 46% 6% Kerry +1
Zogby 5/10-5/13 42% 47% 3% Kerry +5
CNN/Time 5/12-5/13 44% 49% 6% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/7-5/9 47% 45% 5% Bush +2  
Pew Research 5/3-5/9 43% 46% 6% Kerry +3
Ayres McHenry (R) 5/3-5/6 45% 41% 5% Bush +4
ARG 5/3-6 44% 45% 4% Kerry +1  
TIPP/IBD 5/2-5/8 46% 41% 5% Bush +5
AP/Ipsos 5/3-5/5 46% 43% 7% Bush +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/2-5/4 47% 47% 3% TIE
NBC/WSJ  5/1-5/3 46% 42% 5% Bush +4
Quinnipiac  4/26-5/3 43% 40% 6% Bush +3
Sacred Heart Univ 4/26-5/1 52% 46% 2% Bush +6
CBS News/NYT 4/23-4/27 43% 41% 5% Bush +2
Marist 4/20-4/23 47% 43% 5% Bush +4
Fox News/Op Dyn 4/21-4/22 42% 40% 2% Bush +2
Democracy Corps (D) 4/19-4/22 47% 44% 6% Bush +3
TIPP/IBD 4/14-4/19 44% 40% 4% Bush +4
CNN/Gallup/USAT 4/16-4/18 50% 44% 4% Bush +6
ABC News/WP 4/15-4/18 48% 43% 6% Bush +5
Zogby 4/15-4/17 44.7% 45.3% 3% Kerry +0.6
Harris 4/8-4/15 46% 43% 8% Bush +3
IA/Creators 4/12-4/14 37% 43% 2% Kerry +6
Newsweek 4/8-4/9 42% 46% 4% Kerry +4
ARG 4/6-4/9 43% 48% 2% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT 4/5-4/8 47% 43% 4% Bush +4
Fox News/Op Dyn 4/6-4/7 43% 42% 3% Bush +1
AP/Ipsos 4/5-4/7 45% 44% 6% Bush +1
Zogby 4/1-4/4 46% 45% 3% Bush +1
CBS News 3/30-4/1 43% 48% - Kerry +5
TIPP/IBD 3/29-4/3 43% 45% - Kerry +2
BattleGround 3/28-3/31 43% 39% 1% Bush +4
LA Times 3/27-3/30 44% 47% 4% Kerry +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT 3/26-3/28 49% 45% 4% Bush +4
Pew Research 3/22-3/28 44% 43% 6% Bush +1
Newsweek  3/25-3/26 45% 43% 5% Bush +2
Fox News/Op Dyn 3/23-3/24 43% 42% 3% Bush +1
Quinnipiac 3/16-3/22 46% 40% 6% Bush +6
AP/Ipsos 3/19-3/21 46% 43% 5% Bush +3
Democracy Corps (D) 3/16-3/21 50% 47% - Bush +3
Insider Advantage 3/18-3/19 46% 41% 4% Bush +5
Zogby  3/17-3/19 46% 46% 3% TIE
Newsweek  3/18-3/19 45% 43% 5% Bush +2
CBS News/NYT 3/10-3/14 46% 38% 7% Bush +8
ARG  3/9-3/11 42% 48% 2% Kerry +6
TIPP/IBD 3/8-3/11 45% 40% 6% Bush +5
NBC/WSJ 3/6-3/8 45% 43% 5% Bush +2  
CNN/Gallup/USAT 3/5-3/7 44% 50% 2% Kerry +6
ABC News/WP 3/4-3/7 44% 48% 3% Kerry +4
TIPP/IBD 3/1-3/7 41% 44% 6% Kerry +3  
Fox News/Op Dyn 3/3-3/4 44% 44% - TIE
AP/Ipsos 3/1-3/3 46% 45% 6% Bush +1
NPR 2/26-29,3./1 47% 45% - Bush +2
Pew Research 2/24-2/29 44% 48% - Kerry +4
CBS News 2/24-2/27 46% 47% - Kerry +1  
Newsweek  2/19-2/20 45% 48% - Kerry +3  
Fox News/Op Dyn 2/18-2/19 45% 45% - TIE
ARG 2/17-2/19 46% 48% - Kerry +2
CNN/Gallup/USAT 2/16-2/17 43% 55% - Kerry +12
Rasmussen 2/15-2/17 48% 43% - Bush +5
UConn 2/12-2/16 45% 46% - Kerry +1
Pew Research 2/11-2/16 47% 47% - TIE  
CBS News 2/12-2/15 43% 48% - Kerry +5  
ABC News/WP 2/10-2/11 43% 52% - Kerry +9  
Rasmussen 2/8-2/10 46% 45% - Bush +1
CNN/Gallup/USAT 2/6-2/8 49% 48% - Bush +1
Time/CNN 2/5-2/6 50% 48% - Bush +2
Newsweek 2/5-2/6 45% 50% - Kerry +5  
Fox News/Op Dyn 2/4-2/5 47% 43% - Bush +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT 1/29-2/1 46% 53% - Kerry +7  
Rasmussen 1/29-1/31 43% 46% - Kerry +3
Quinnipiac 1/28-1/31 43% 51% - Kerry +8

[Beet]

I think Obama will lose. I didn't think so until Friday. But I believe Romney would win against Obama.

[The Professor]

Ah, lets take a look at some polls from the 04 presidential race.  Bush led in many of the national polls - much like Obama does, and sometimes with even better margins than Obama gets.  We're really far from the election and everyone is downing Bachmann's chances.  I think people need to take a fairer view of the candidate (especially the pubbies on this board who are selling her short).  These are some national polls - we all know Bush did around 2.5% better than Kerry in 04.  Youd be amazed at how similar Kerry's leads in Battleground states were compared to Obama and Bachmann.  She was down by what, 7pts in the last polls in NH and PA.  That's quite similar to how President Bush fared in the polls - and we all know both states were much closer than that.  

R/D/NADER
Time (926 LV) 8/31 - 9/2 52% 41% 3% Bush +11
Zogby (1001 LV) 8/30 - 9/2 46% 43% 3% Bush +3
ARG (800 LV) 8/30 - 9/1 47% 47% 3% TIE
ABC News/WP (775 LV) 8/26 - 8/29 48% 48% 1% TIE
Time (835 LV) 8/24 - 8/26 46% 44% 5% Bush +2
FOX News (1,000 LV) 8/24 - 8/25 43% 44% 3% Kerry +1
CNN/USAT/Gallup (709 LV) 8/23 - 8/25 48% 46% 4% Bush +2
NBC News/WSJ (806 RV) 8/23 - 8/25 47% 45% 3% Bush +2
NPR - POS/GQR (800 LV) 8/21 - 8/24 43% 47% 3% Kerry +4
LA Times (1,352 RV) 8/21 - 8/24 47% 44% 3% Bush +3
IBD/TIPP (884 RV) 8/17 - 8/23 43% 43% 5% TIE
Battleground Poll (1,000 LV) 8/15 - 8/17 43% 44% 1% Kerry +1
CBS News (835 RV) 8/15 - 8/18 45% 46% 1% Kerry +1
Harris ( LV from 1012 adults) 8/10 - 8/15 47% 47% 3% TIE
Zogby (1,011 LV) 8/12 - 8/14 43% 47% 2% Kerry +4
Gallup (729 LV) 8/9 - 8/11 48% 46% 3% Bush +2
Pew (1,166 RV) 8/5 - 8/10 45% 47% 2% Kerry +2
Time/SRBI (758 LV) 8/3 - 8/5 43% 48% 4% Kerry +5
AP/Ipsos (798 RV) 8/3 - 8/5 45% 48% 3% Kerry +3
Dem Corps**** (1,013 LV) 8/2 - 8/5 44% 49% 4% Kerry +5
IBD/TIPP (841 RV) 8/2 - 8/5 42% 45% 5% Kerry +3
Fox News (775 LV) 8/3 - 8/4 43% 47% 2% Kerry +4
Marist (573 LV) 7/30-8/2 47% 47% 1% TIE
CBS News (991 RV) 7/31-8/1 43% 48% 3% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT (LV) 7/30-8/1 51% 45% 2% Bush +6
ABC News/WP (LV) 7/30-8/1 47% 49% 2% Kerry +2
ARG (776 RV) 7/30-8/1 45% 49% 2% Kerry +4
Newsweek (1,010 RV) 7/29-7/30 42% 49% 3% Kerry +7
 
ABC News/WP (909 RV) 7/22-7/25 48% 46% 3% Bush +2
 
IBD/TIPP (883 RV) 7/19-7/24 42% 44% 3% Kerry +2
 
Time/SRBI (1000 RV) 7/20-7/22 43% 46% 5% Kerry +3
 
Quinnipiac Univ. (1551 RV) 7/18-7/22 43% 44% 4% Kerry +1
 
Fox News (767 LV) 7/20-7/21 43% 44% 3% Kerry +1
 
NBC/WSJ (813 RV) 7/19-7/21 47% 45% 2% Bush +2
CNN/Gallup/USAT (709 LV) 7/19-7/21 46% 47% 4% Kerry +1
LA Times (1,529 RV) 7/17-7/21 44% 46% 3% Kerry +2
 
Pew (1,568 RV) 7/8-7/18 44% 46% 3% Kerry +2
 
IBD/TIPP (842 RV) 7/12-7/17 40% 42% 4% Kerry +2
 
Marist (938 RV) 7/12-7/15 44% 45% 2% Kerry +1
 
CBS/NYT (823 RV) 7/11-7/15 42% 45% 5% Kerry +3
 
Dem Corps** (1,010 LV) 7/10-7/13 45% 48% 4% Kerry +3
Wash Post/ABC (721 RV) 7/8-7/11 46% 46% 4% TIE
CNN/Gallup/USAT (706 LV) 7/8-7/11 45% 50% 2% Kerry +5
IBD/TIPP (800 RV) 7/6-7/10 43% 47% 4% Kerry +4
Newsweek (1,001 RV) 7/8-7/9 44% 47% 3% Kerry +3
Time (774 LV) 7/6-7/8 45% 47% 4% Kerry +2
Zogby (1008 LV) 7/6-7/7 45% 47% 2% Kerry +2
AP/Ipsos (804 RV) 7/5-7/7 49% 45% 3% Bush +4
NBC News (504 RV) 7/6 41% 49% 4% Kerry +8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
ARG 7/1-7/3 44% 47% 3% Kerry +3
NBC/WSJ 6/25-6/28 45% 44% 4% Bush +1
CBS News/NY Times 6/23-6/27 43% 42% 5% Bush +1
Fox News 6/22-6/23 47% 40% 3% Bush +7
CNN/Gallup/USAT 6/21-6/23 48% 47% 3% Bush +1
Battleground Poll 6/20-6/23 43% 41% 1% Bush +2
Gallup 6/9-6/30 45% 44% 7% Bush +1
Wash Post/ABC News 6/17-6/20 44% 48% 6% Kerry +4
IBD/TIPP 6/14-6/19 44% 41% 6% Bush +3
Harris 6/8-6/15 51% 41% 6% Bush +10
IBD/TIPP 6/8-6/13 43% 40% 5% Bush +3
Pew Research 6/3-6/13 46% 42% 6% Bush +4
Ipsos-AP 6/7-6/9 46% 45% 6% Bush +1
Fox News 6/8-6/9 42% 42% 3% TIE
LA Times 6/5-6/8 42% 48% 4% Kerry +6
Gallup 6/3-6/6 44% 50% 5% Kerry +6
TIPP/IBD 6/1-6/6 43% 41% 7% Bush +2
Zogby 6/2-6/5 42% 44% 3% Kerry +2
ARG 6/1-6/3 45% 46% 3% Kerry +1
Quinnipiac 5/18-5/24 43% 42% 6% Bush +1
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/21-5/23 46% 47% 4% Kerry +1
Insider Advantage  5/21-5/22 43% 43% 4% TIE
Wash Post/ABC News  5/20-5/23 46% 46% 4% TIE
CBS News  5/20-5/23 41% 47% 5% Kerry +6
Fox News 5/18-5/19 40% 40% 3% TIE
TIPP/IBD 5/12-5/18 42% 41% 7% Bush +1
Newsweek 5/13-5/14 42% 43% 5% Kerry +1
Democracy Corps (D) 5/10-5/13 45% 46% 6% Kerry +1
Zogby 5/10-5/13 42% 47% 3% Kerry +5
CNN/Time 5/12-5/13 44% 49% 6% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/7-5/9 47% 45% 5% Bush +2  
Pew Research 5/3-5/9 43% 46% 6% Kerry +3
Ayres McHenry (R) 5/3-5/6 45% 41% 5% Bush +4
ARG 5/3-6 44% 45% 4% Kerry +1  
TIPP/IBD 5/2-5/8 46% 41% 5% Bush +5
AP/Ipsos 5/3-5/5 46% 43% 7% Bush +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/2-5/4 47% 47% 3% TIE
NBC/WSJ  5/1-5/3 46% 42% 5% Bush +4
Quinnipiac  4/26-5/3 43% 40% 6% Bush +3
Sacred Heart Univ 4/26-5/1 52% 46% 2% Bush +6
CBS News/NYT 4/23-4/27 43% 41% 5% Bush +2
Marist 4/20-4/23 47% 43% 5% Bush +4
Fox News/Op Dyn 4/21-4/22 42% 40% 2% Bush +2
Democracy Corps (D) 4/19-4/22 47% 44% 6% Bush +3
TIPP/IBD 4/14-4/19 44% 40% 4% Bush +4
CNN/Gallup/USAT 4/16-4/18 50% 44% 4% Bush +6
ABC News/WP 4/15-4/18 48% 43% 6% Bush +5
Zogby 4/15-4/17 44.7% 45.3% 3% Kerry +0.6
Harris 4/8-4/15 46% 43% 8% Bush +3
IA/Creators 4/12-4/14 37% 43% 2% Kerry +6
Newsweek 4/8-4/9 42% 46% 4% Kerry +4
ARG 4/6-4/9 43% 48% 2% Kerry +5
CNN/Gallup/USAT 4/5-4/8 47% 43% 4% Bush +4
Fox News/Op Dyn 4/6-4/7 43% 42% 3% Bush +1
AP/Ipsos 4/5-4/7 45% 44% 6% Bush +1
Zogby 4/1-4/4 46% 45% 3% Bush +1
CBS News 3/30-4/1 43% 48% - Kerry +5
TIPP/IBD 3/29-4/3 43% 45% - Kerry +2
BattleGround 3/28-3/31 43% 39% 1% Bush +4
LA Times 3/27-3/30 44% 47% 4% Kerry +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT 3/26-3/28 49% 45% 4% Bush +4
Pew Research 3/22-3/28 44% 43% 6% Bush +1
Newsweek  3/25-3/26 45% 43% 5% Bush +2
Fox News/Op Dyn 3/23-3/24 43% 42% 3% Bush +1
Quinnipiac 3/16-3/22 46% 40% 6% Bush +6
AP/Ipsos 3/19-3/21 46% 43% 5% Bush +3
Democracy Corps (D) 3/16-3/21 50% 47% - Bush +3
Insider Advantage 3/18-3/19 46% 41% 4% Bush +5
Zogby  3/17-3/19 46% 46% 3% TIE
Newsweek  3/18-3/19 45% 43% 5% Bush +2
CBS News/NYT 3/10-3/14 46% 38% 7% Bush +8
ARG  3/9-3/11 42% 48% 2% Kerry +6
TIPP/IBD 3/8-3/11 45% 40% 6% Bush +5
NBC/WSJ 3/6-3/8 45% 43% 5% Bush +2  
CNN/Gallup/USAT 3/5-3/7 44% 50% 2% Kerry +6
ABC News/WP 3/4-3/7 44% 48% 3% Kerry +4
TIPP/IBD 3/1-3/7 41% 44% 6% Kerry +3  
Fox News/Op Dyn 3/3-3/4 44% 44% - TIE
AP/Ipsos 3/1-3/3 46% 45% 6% Bush +1
NPR 2/26-29,3./1 47% 45% - Bush +2
Pew Research 2/24-2/29 44% 48% - Kerry +4
CBS News 2/24-2/27 46% 47% - Kerry +1  
Newsweek  2/19-2/20 45% 48% - Kerry +3  
Fox News/Op Dyn 2/18-2/19 45% 45% - TIE
ARG 2/17-2/19 46% 48% - Kerry +2
CNN/Gallup/USAT 2/16-2/17 43% 55% - Kerry +12
Rasmussen 2/15-2/17 48% 43% - Bush +5
UConn 2/12-2/16 45% 46% - Kerry +1
Pew Research 2/11-2/16 47% 47% - TIE  
CBS News 2/12-2/15 43% 48% - Kerry +5  
ABC News/WP 2/10-2/11 43% 52% - Kerry +9  
Rasmussen 2/8-2/10 46% 45% - Bush +1
CNN/Gallup/USAT 2/6-2/8 49% 48% - Bush +1
Time/CNN 2/5-2/6 50% 48% - Bush +2
Newsweek 2/5-2/6 45% 50% - Kerry +5  
Fox News/Op Dyn 2/4-2/5 47% 43% - Bush +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT 1/29-2/1 46% 53% - Kerry +7  
Rasmussen 1/29-1/31 43% 46% - Kerry +3
Quinnipiac 1/28-1/31 43% 51% - Kerry +8

My students often have a limit on how long their essays can be. Typically about 2 pages. Mostly because I'm lazy but also because my students need to learn how to condense what they want to say without fluff running rampant. You would not last 1 day in my classroom because you are an advocate for fluff running rampant. This is your final warning. No more fluff running rampant in your future posts.

[pbrower2a]

For me, I think Dole and McCain were unelectable because of their age. 
I think John Kerry was unelectable because he was not enough of a leader.
I think Al Gore was unelectable because he was not enough of a leader among other things. 

Possible interpretations on Dole and McCain -- but Clinton was strong enough to win against almost anyone in 1996. and the GOP brand was toxic in 2008.

Kerry ran when the Religious Right was strong enough to decide such states as Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia; when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq hadn't become travesties, and when people basked on the warm mountain under which a volcano of economic disaster from corrupt lending and an unsustainable bubble in housing had yet to erupt.

In 2000 many people failed to recognize how horrible a leader Dubya was.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The biggest form of denial here is that "anyone can beat Obama". See my last two posts in this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Women can vote against women that they consider extreme, reckless, or nuts. A strong VP candidate was not enough to rescue Mike Dukakis in 1988. I look at the insane attacks of Michelle Bonkers upon civil liberties,  and I see a fascist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Republicans can be linked to the Ryan proposal to basically give away Medicare to profiteering monopolists, then many white Southerners who had misgivings about President Obama might return to their populist roots and vote for Obama -- and lots of Democrats for House seats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Obama is effective; he now has more experience as President eligible for the Presidency than anyone other than two people who will turn 88 in 2012; he has solved a huge problem that America had as decisively (if lethally) as possible.  

[nhmagic]

My students often have a limit on how long their essays can be. Typically about 2 pages. Mostly because I'm lazy but also because my students need to learn how to condense what they want to say without fluff running rampant. You would not last 1 day in my classroom because you are an advocate for fluff running rampant. This is your final warning. No more fluff running rampant in your future posts.

Actually, you'd be amazed.  I do pretty well in my classes and on my papers - minus the fluff.

[The Mikado]

Saying that either Al Gore or John Kerry were unelectable when they both came very, very close to winning (2% of the vote in Ohio for Kerry, a literal handful of votes in Gore's case) is pretty damn dumb, IMO.  Same with McCain, who would've had a real shot at winning had the election been a month earlier.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Saying that either Al Gore or John Kerry were unelectable when they both came very, very close to winning (2% of the vote in Ohio for Kerry, a literal handful of votes in Gore's case) is pretty damn dumb, IMO.  Same with McCain, who would've had a real shot at winning had the election been a month earlier.

Actually, McCain's low point in the polls was a month before the election. He had a good chance of winning before his reaction to the financial crisis showed that he didn't understand economics while at the same time his running mate was turning into an embarrassment.

[Jacobtm]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be simmilar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

[DS0816]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be simmilar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

He had nowhere to go but up. He missed the popular vote by –0.52% in 2000. It's not like he was going to get –0.51% in 2004.

[DS0816]

However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Yes he did.

Well my mistake but he did lose alot ground in many places in comparison to 92.

So have Republicans who performed better in their first election than re-election in some bellwether and interior mountain states. Go look at 1984 and 2004.

[pbrower2a]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

[J. J.]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be simmilar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

I think this is a good example of denial.

I'm old enough to remember the "too old" "right wing nut" who "would start World War III" that the GOP nominated in 1980.

I would also point out the inexperienced (by the standards of the day), "too young," "womanizing," "damaged goods" that the Democrats nominated in 1992.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Reagan and Clinton also had track records, Reagan as governor of the largest state in the country, Clinton as governor for nearly a decade. Bachmann is just a nutso 2 1/2-term backbencher from Minnesota. It's really disingenuous to compare her to Clinton or Reagan.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I actually think Bachmann could have a shot a beating Obama if she had a strong VP.  Plus, she's a woman and I actually think she would get a lot more of the Female vote (from Democratic Females) to beat obama.

President Mondale's campaign was certainly saved by Ferraro.

[milhouse24]

Saying that either Al Gore or John Kerry were unelectable when they both came very, very close to winning (2% of the vote in Ohio for Kerry, a literal handful of votes in Gore's case) is pretty damn dumb, IMO.  Same with McCain, who would've had a real shot at winning had the election been a month earlier.

They were close, but Dubya was simply better at being a "feel good compassionate" candidate for suburban voters.  For all his faults, Dubya tries very hard to be a likeable and personable guy who cares about winning your vote.  He was a hand-shaking campaigning machine.

McCain might have had a shot, but he was very wrong on focusing his campaign on supporting the Iraq War when most Americans had given up on it.  His choice of Palin re-inforced his desperate senility and he was never an authority on domestic issues.

[milhouse24]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be similar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

Precisely.

The Republicans fail to understand that the 2010 election was a Pyrrhic victory. Some real turkeys won, and the ones remaining have gotten to show what they would do if they got real power.  It isn't pretty.

President Obama is a far stronger politician than George W. Bush. He has made far fewer,  and less serious, mistakes. He is a stickler for legal and diplomatic niceties and he knows American history well, much unlike his predecessor -- probably the explanations for the fewer blunders. If he is not doing as well in the polls now in contrast to Dubya at this point it is because he isn't getting away with a war predicated upon folly and dishonesty and a boom that was sure to go bust.

Americans are rightly fussier about government than they were a short time ago. When times get bad they realize how important government is -- sometimes as the only  entity that can save their (choose part of the human anatomy).  Dubya got away with much that nobody else will get away with, and the current President has the responsibility to rebuild trust. This President at the least is cautious, conscientious, and honest.

If you think the President's approval ratings dismal, then just look at the approval ratings for Congress as a whole and for many State governors. Americans don't seem to trust Big Business, either.

I'm just surprised that for all the excuses for Obama, the fact of the matter is how do you feel when you get up, walk out your front door and talk to your neighbors and walk around your neighborhood and city.  Are people working, do they have any money? 

Now think about this, Obama had the huge support of recent college graduates, but guess what, most college graduates can't find jobs and more people have been laid off the past 4 years than ever.  Are these 20 and 30 year olds who are unemployed going to have time to enthusiastically support Obama for re-election?  Is the grassroots youth movement going to deliver for Obama?  For Obama, relying on 20 and 30 year old voters is just not a stable strategy. 

He may win in a theoretical fantasy land, but the truth is the support he has from 20 and 30 year olds and independent voters is dissipating.  If they don't vote GOP, they might stay home rather than vote for Obama, they are disenchanted.  Obama won't have the numbers to win.

[Kevin]

Obama will face a terrible Republican challenger. It will be simmilar to Bush's re-election. Things weren't going great for Bush in '04, but the Democrats picked a terrible candidate that let Bush actually improve on his pop vote

Republicans have no good candidate, and presidential elections are very personal

I think this is a good example of denial.

I'm old enough to remember the "too old" "right wing nut" who "would start World War III" that the GOP nominated in 1980.

I would also point out the inexperienced (by the standards of the day), "too young," "womanizing," "damaged goods" that the Democrats nominated in 1992.

Not to mention the far-left wing "corrupt Chicago Machine politician"  "closeted Islamist" "Son of a Marxist" "Who kept very odd company" that was nominated by the Democrats in 2008.

[Reaganfan]

Look, I'll shoot you straight. These were my predictions for the previous two Presidential elections:

2008:

Obama: 278
McCain: 260

I did not foresee Obama's final weekend polling strength in the states of Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina. Virginia I was concerned about but was truly surprised. So I missed five states, but accurately predicted McCain's wins in Missouri and Arizona and Obama's strength in the west which I long stated would be McCain's final downfall.

2004:

Bush: 296
Kerry: 242

My final map was 100% correct with the only exception being that I had Bush winning Wisconsin. Polling showed Bush very strong there, and I was debating whether or not to put Bush at 286 or 296 with Wisconsin. Other than that, I knew Bush would win Florida (beyond 537 votes), would win Ohio (outside of Cuyahoga County it's Bush Country in the Fall of 04) and Kerry would win Pennsylvania albeit not as strong as Gore 2000.

So, I think I've been pretty objectionable despite years of people calling me a "hackish" Republican. I've correctly predicted the winner in the last three Presidential elections.

With that, let me state that Obama may very well win re-election, but facts and facts and the battle is an uphill one, regardless of who the Republicans nominate. If Republicans nominate Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain, the odds favor Obama better. If Republicans nominate Romney, Huntsman or Perry, he has an uphill battle.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

So, I think I've been pretty objectionable despite years of people calling me a "hackish" Republican. I've correctly predicted the winner in the last three Presidential elections.

At last we agree on something.

[The Dowager Mod]

So, I think I've been pretty objectionable despite years of people calling me a "hackish" Republican. I've correctly predicted the winner in the last three Presidential elections.

At last we agree on something.

HA!

[izixs]

So, I think I've been pretty objectionable despite years of people calling me a "hackish" Republican. I've correctly predicted the winner in the last three Presidential elections.

It should be noted that your 2004 prediction was the one you had in October. Earlier in the year you had:



and before that:



You don't have a prediction listed for 2008 so I can't comment on that. But it does suggest that way out before an election (as we are right now), your predictions were far from accurate. Your predictions closer in can easily be influenced by polling. But earlier predictions can show bias in how one thinks things will evolve. I'm guilty of that m'self a little to often for me to like.

[© tweed]

what makes Romney a weak candidate?  he's a white male, smart, has money, all the essentials.  what are the tick marks?  that he's a Mormon, that he'd be vulnerable to certain negative attacks?  true enough, but nobody is perfect and it's hard to imagine those issues overshadowing 9% unemployment and the general misery of American life for any decisive length of time.

[Paul Kemp]

It should be noted that your 2004 prediction was the one you had in October. Earlier in the year you had:

Classic.