March 10 Kansas + miscellaneous islands primary/caucus **results thread** (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 04:38:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  March 10 Kansas + miscellaneous islands primary/caucus **results thread** (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: March 10 Kansas + miscellaneous islands primary/caucus **results thread**  (Read 26331 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« on: March 09, 2012, 07:30:42 PM »

Why do we have predictions for Puerto Rico but not Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands?

Probably because Dave only has Puerto Rico in his automatic maps, which makes sense in one respect, since Puerto Rico is the only one of then that has a shot at participating in the November elections anytime soon.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2012, 09:37:27 PM »

Obama has his issues. The gas price thing strikes me as a particularly dangerous specter for him, feeding into the Pub fossil fuels narrative.

ARRRRGH!  Of all the stupid things Republicans are deluding themselves into believing about the coming election, the "If gas prices go up, we must win." is one of the worst.

First off, the available evidence indicates that unless an actual war with Iran breaks out, gas prices have hit a peak and are starting to come down again.  If there is an actual war, that war and how it starts will be far more influential on the election than what happens with gas prices.

Second, not too many people are blaming Obama for the gas price hikes now (18% overall , 5% of Dems, 20% of Inds, 33% of Reps, according to Pew).  This suggests that what is happening is that people who don't like Obama are looking for reasons to ding him and that since gas prices are up, that'll be one of the things to ding him, and that we aren't seeing people enraged by high gas prices then lashing out at Obama even when they hadn't done so before.

Third, remember 2008?  We had rising gas prices then and while McCain and Clinton both endorsed a gimmicky gas tax holiday, Obama dismissed it for the gimmick it was and benefited politically from it.  There are a few voters who will be impressed by gimmicks, such as Newt's promise to being gas down to $2.50/gal.  However, it appears the majority of voters are skeptical of magic wand claims.  Frankly I think Keystone XL so far has been a millstone for the GOP.  The Republican effort to push Obama to make a decision before he wanted to make a decision made them look like a party of gimmicks.

That isn't to say that gas prices won't have an indirect effect on the election.  If they remain high and cause the economy to stall, that stalled economy will help the Republicans come November.  But the direct effect will be minimal unless the Republicans keep pushing plans perceived as gimmicks, in which case it will be negative.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2012, 11:54:52 PM »

I tend to disagree with you on this one Ernest. All else aside, at a minimum, it will truncate economic growth, increase unemployment over what it otherwise would be, slow down retail sales, and so forth. Even if it come down a bit later (how much?), damage will be done, and is being done as we speak, in the interim. It cost me $94 to fill my gas tank today. How many folks can afford that without having to cut back in a rather substantial way somewhere else? I remember listening to a speech by the CEO of Walmart during the last gas spike, and he said gas price increases really hurt Walmart sales. Folks buy gas to get to work and go to the supermarket, and cart the kids around, and cut back on buying underwear and T shirts.

As I acknowledged, high gas prices will have an indirect effect via their effect on the economy.  Indeed, they've already done their part by keeping the recovery so sluggish in 2011,  But 2011-12 is not shaping up to be 2007-08.  Last election cycle, gas prices had been averaging lower than they had been averaging this election cycle.  So far the spike has not been as severe in either absolute terms (the price of gas)  or relative terms (the change in the price of gas.

We're going to have to hit average gas prices of around $5/gallon between now and the election for the current price hikes to have a comparable political and economic impact as what 2008 saw.  Absent a war with Iran or some other externality that severely crimps world oil supplies, I just don't see $5/gallon being reached in that time frame.  We're number to high gas prices than we were four years ago because they've been high for so long.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2012, 11:11:18 AM »

OK Ernest, but there has been quite a spike up, like 80 cents maybe in the past 3-4 months or something, and my guess/instinct, without having really dug into it, is that most of the uptick is not going to be reversed. That kind of hit has to be depressive, from whatever was anticipated before.

Actually the spike has been 50 cents in the past 3 months.  The current spike has come after a period of declining gas prices and is still 25 cents below the level prices were at ten months ago.

The mid 2008 spike was over a dollar and came after a period of steady gas prices.

I just do not see gas prices by themselves as being able to dent Obama's poll numbers sufficiently to prevent his reelection.  It will take a campaign by an opponent who can generate enthusiasm, and that absolutely does not describe Mitt Romney.  His successes to date have come by burying his opponents with negative ads at a rate far beyond their ability to respond.  He won't be able to do that in the general election.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2012, 03:38:43 PM »

Perry just overtook Cain for 5th place!  Oops!
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2012, 04:10:26 PM »

I like the Clark County results:

Santorum 21
Gingrich 15
Romney 9
Paul 2
Perry 2

At least Paul isn't losing to Perry there.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2012, 06:23:49 PM »

The Lane County results could be because of the lack of a caucus in adjacent Scott County.  The LDS does have a ward (their name for a larger church) in Scott City.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.