Talk Elections

In head-to-head matchups, the poll shows Obama five points up on Romney in Pennsylvania, and up six points on Santorum. Both are at the edges of the survey's margin of error.

The Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll interviewed 492 registered voters from March 23 to April 1, and has a margin of error of plus/minus five percentage points.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-presidential-poll-2012-romney-santorum-20120403,0,3046373.story

This confirms Q's close race In PA.Although Obama Is doing slightly better here.

Obama will carry PA.Romney might(and I stress might) be more competive than Mccain.I suspect
unline the 10 10 spread In 2008 we are lokking at a 4 or 5 point spread here.

Pennsylvania projected to be close in 2008 until Election Day. John McCain campaigned  intensely but by all accounts ineptly. Netting everything on Pennsylvania, McCain  neglected other states that he absolutely had to win. I doubt that that will quite be repeated in 2012.

Finally, they released the real numbers:

Obama beats former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 45 percent to 40 percent and defeats former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum 47 percent to 41 percent.

http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol_ideas/2012/04/monday-morning-coffee-corbetts-approvals-tumble-in-new-mcallmuhlenberg-poll.html

Isn't being at 45 a bad sign for Obama?  It isn't like he doesn't have name recognition.  Undecideds tend to break 75to25 or more against an incumbent in the last several months.   

Yes, I think it is.  Nevertheless, the fools-gold aspect others mention above is a huge factor.. its his best prospect after IN-FL-NC-NH-OH to take something away from Obama08 (yes I think better than CO-NV-IA), and followed by MI, but still, its a risk to attend to PA or MI too much with time and money because those first five states listed are still better prospects. 

Another way to put this is the PA/MI prospect is tantalizing, but difficult to act upon strongly given other pressures.  We may look back in 2013 or so and say 'well had he only focused on PA and MI instead of OH and VA, he could've been president', but from 2012 perspective that would be a hazard whatever the polling.

Exactly how President Kerry won in 2004.

Bush was ahead of were Obama is in most key indicators and everyone keeps acting like Obama is like Clinton (triangulating, moderating, centrist-ish)... he isn't.   

Romney's also behind where Kerry was.

Kerry's primary was over much quicker.  New Hampshire basically ended it.  Obviously the challenger will strengthen now that the general started yesterday. 

 http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/  (http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/)
http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/

 http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/  (http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/)
http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/

Having grown up in a Union+Dem Lawyer household in the rust belt I can say with some authority that ads like this are just devastating to a reelection bid.   

Romney was already in near-record unfavorability territory by the end of January, so you can't entirely blame the primary for that.
Actually, Romney's the one who should be trying to take a page from Clinton's book -- a challenger running against an incumbent in tough economic times, whose unfavorability provides the only precedent for Romney's. Of course, Bill Clinton was unpopular because he slept around, and won the election by feeling people's pain. Romney's unpopular because he's rich and aloof and awkward. "Understanding the problems of people like you" is Romney's Achilles heel.

Unfavorability #'s on Romney are probably soft because many republicans are/were unsold or uncertain on his true social positions and the 'Romneycare vs Obamacare' thing.  That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.     

Actually, his really lethal favorability numbers are with independents.

you mean "people that don't know what they really think and often change their mind" Bush in 1999 wasn't strong with independents either. 

"A new poll from the centrist Democratic group Third Way surveyed 1,000 independent voters in 12 swing states. Obama leads Romney among this group by 44 to 38 percent. But the catch came here: Asked to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on an ideological scale, the group collectively put itself at 5.2, slightly right of center. Meanwhile, respondents put Obama at 3.9 and Romney at 6.1—each of them equidistant (1.1 points) from the center. In other words, they said Obama is exactly as liberal as Romney is conservative, and they said they are a bit closer to Romney."
-daily beast (today)

You think that's a problem for Romney?  back flips and cartwheels are in order.

Database entry: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=4220120401033

Not vs Obama, it isn't. Why would a liberal independent prefer Romney's record on Obamacare to Obama?   

This election is gonna be like Goldwater.

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

HINT: it's not the Republicans.

You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?

Are you saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/index.htm

CW seems to disagree with you.

GOP = passed a serious budget through the house
Dem s = no budget for 3 years


GOP = growing economy, profitable businesses, jobs
Dem s = flat-line economy, demagog business, ZERO jobs

GOP = against failed 800billion stimulus package that created ZERO jobs and exploded debt  
Dem s = In favor of worst government spending package in the history of the country

I think I could create ONE job if I pilled up 5 TRILLION of Debt

"You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?"

Not necessarily, but the dominant element of his party is and he will never stand up to them.  Spending on his watch has certainly been in the realm of "Radical" and spending is a major part of "ideology."

Am I saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

Sort of, baring a new military campaign the deficits will trend toward balanced over 8 to 10 years and the solvency of entitlements will be strengthened.

Both parties have passed serious budgets. They differ on spending priorities and cuts. You're either ignorant or a lying hack. Maybe both?

You know that we've had about two straight years of job creation, right? That GDP is at a record high?




There is a wide consensus among economists that the stimulus propped up GDP and kept unemployment down. The debate is over whether if it was unnecessary and how much it helped. We don't know if it starved off 11.5% UE or 20%.  


If your hackery was inversely proportional to your ability to create jobs, you'd probably destroy millions with that $5 trillion.

I'm talking liberal indies not conservative indies.

Obama's private-sector job creation record at this stage in his presidency is actually better than GWB's was. The overall job numbers are worse because so many public-sector jobs have been eliminated under Obama, whereas Bush II presided over a massive increase in the public-sector workforce.

The Clinton recession and 9/11 was tough to turn into 4% unemployment and 4% GDP growth, but he did manage to make it happen. 

()

[(Clinton era) + (dot com bust)] recession.  More believable? ? ?   

Of course the Bush tax cuts balanced the budget after many years of huge deficits under tax and spend liberal Clinton, as we all know. And Paul Krugman is obviously not a Nobel Laureate.

Sigh, Clinton worked with a R congress (caved into, than took credit for) working toward a balanced budget.  At the height of the dot com bubble the government ran a surplus (1 possibly 2 years depending on if you count the social security raid) Bush inherited the mess from the bubble burst and Clinton's failed foreign policy associated problems and promptly stimulated the economy, which in turn rebounded AND they budgeted a march toward a balanced budget.  You will notice the deficit got smaller every year.  Unfortunately a Real Estate Time bomb caused by old federal laws and regulations exploded at the end of his term.  

It is interesting that Bush probably would have left a surplus nearly identical to the Clinton-GOP 90's had the financial system not been poisoned for over 30 years.      

Paul Krugman obviously IS a Nobel Laureate.  He is also widely regarded as a joke.   

Uh...

Niall Ferguson, historian and Harvard Business School professor, explained why he doesn't agree with New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman and mentions his declining reputation among serious people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHPwYgkjU8k&feature=related

If that's to complicated for you, this is much simpler
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OXBwrOofPM

Niall Ferguson...


widely regarded as a joke...


Niall Ferguson...





Hmmmmmmm.

I don't really need to defend Ferguson (his seats at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford speak pretty well for him.)  He is at least a serious person.  Krugman has become a prop of a failed administration.   

Lay off the Kool-Aid and stop slandering someone who clearly knows what he's talking about.

ALSO (just as a side note) Princeton Econ department >>>> Harvard Econ department

Pual Krugman obviously has become a political prop and his reputation has suffered as a result.  Not sure how you get "Slander" out of public knowledge. 

ALSO (just as a side note) Your note is irrelevant because Niall teaches in the History department and at the business school at Harvard... you know the top school in the country (tied with Wharton).  You also left out the cow schools Oxford and Stanford.   

I mean if you get "public knowledge" from Faux News then...LOL...

BTW the merging of public policy AND economics (which is what we are discussing) is probably best by Krugman and Krueger who work in places like WWS...

Spending isn't the problem, its unfunded spending. Deficit = the shortfall between spending as a % of GDP & revenues as a % of GDP. And, ultimately, only a balanced approach involving spending cuts and tax increases, especially on the primary beneficiaries of the supply-side tax cuts which added trillions to the gross federal debt (and that ain't the middle class, given that median US incomes declined under the stewardship of GWB), would be the responsible path to take. Bill Clinton - by far the most economically successful post-1981 - proved that much and, at least, George W Bush rode into the Oval Office, he was able to prevent the GOP in Congress from cutting taxes too recklessly

Ever occurred to you Republicans that had it not been for US median incomes declining :( during the 'Noughties', there may not have been a sub-prime crisis, which as events unfolded proved nothing short of near catastrophic for both the US and wider global economy?

Prosperity needs to be broad-based, which is why capitalism needs to be fundamentally different coming out of the 'Great Recession' then it was going in

I'm not adverse to some tax cuts as a counter-cyclical measure but with that must come an understanding that a day will come when they have to be raised. My point being if the answer was to cut, cut, cut and cut taxes each and every time a downturn came along, where would it end .... ? :(

Indeed, "The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad -- one that benefits the prosperous classes" - David Stockman [Director of the Office of Management and Budget, (1981–1985)]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

For all the Bush 43 tax cuts ($3 trillion added to the gross federal debt), the US economy yielded the fewest number of jobs of any presidential term this side of Herbert Hoover; while a modest, by comparison, $800 bn ARRA has countered the effects of a much more severe downturn; indeed, some economists consider that the ARRA was too conservative a response but mindful of deficits, I suspect, is why Obama opted for it

TARP, meanwhile, was George W's one saving grace. I'll give him that. Because its clear to me were it not for the actions of government, central bankers and policy makers in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008', a reprisal of the Great Depression would have been inevitable :(

I said prosperity needs to be more :) broad-based not less :(. The 'Crash of 2008' has, totally and utterly, discredited the neoliberal mantra espoused by Friedrich von Hayek

How? The experience of this problem, which was started by government FORCING banks to lend to people they HAD always judged (correctly) to not be creditworthy bolsters my argument (or one Hayek would make), not undermines it.  A big government+crony-ist time bomb goes off and you side with them? why? 
Also,
Is Obama pro big government?... yes
Is Obama a crony-ist?... yes
Don't support the problem you claim to care about solving. 

You're complaining about a stopped-up toilet on the Titanic, Mister.

The 'Crash of 2008' has for me, at least, laid bare the dangers of wealth becoming increasingly concentrated at the very top

I'm not adverse to a liberal economy providing it comes with 1) extensive positive rights and 2) a strong welfare safety net. As a left-leaning Christian Democrat, I've always been of those convictions - and, among developed nations, the US and UK are among the most unequal in terms of wealth distribution. That is why prosperity needs to be more broad-based

Classical liberalism is no more relevant in the 21st century than Jeffersonian small-producer populism

The connection between "distribution of wealth" and the crash of 2008 and/or macroeconomic conditions is entirely subjective based upon one's own biases and beliefs. I do agree that it might be indicative of something else that could be a drag on the economy, like problems in the education system. The best ideas for solving those problems are a combination of ideas offered from both sides. I would say there is a higher concentration of good ideas on the Republican side then the Democrats, though. :P But that too is a subjective opinion. ;)

I guess I am just not one to buy into the "emense impact" of a slightly more progressive tax code under Clinton being the cause of the 1990's expansion versus the 2000's stagnation. Many other factors were at play to create the 1990's, most of which were far beyond the goverment's control.

What do you mean by "positive rights"?

If we have populist protectionists, on the left, neoliberals, on the right and welfare-state liberals in the center, the president's record, if anything, is moderately center-right

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not radical (certainly not at a cost of $800bn); the Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act is not radical. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which - shock horror - raises revenues to pay for it) is not radical

If there's any radicalism around, right now, its on the right (i.e. the Tea Party, which seems oblvious to the fact that its the 21st century, not the 18th); the US doesn't have a meaningful "left", so any socialism (left) - conservatism (right) dichotomy is a false one

I'd be minded to agree if the the eve of the 'Crash of 2008', which begat the Great Recession, did not correlate with that of the 'Crash of 1929', which begat the Great Depression, in that respect


I don't dispute there are factors far beyond the government's control but the 1990s was one of prosperity, relative to the 'Eighties' (the only great achievement being slaying the inflation dragon but that came at significant social cost) and 'Noughties'


Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living

Of course, liberals [be they classical (Smith), new liberal (Keynes) or neoliberal (Hayek)] will disagree on the extent to which the state and market should play in securing those

Apparently, according to Pew's typology, I'm a 'New Coalition Democrat' and we tend to favor proative government, be pro-business and be pro-labor. But then as a left-leaning Christian Democrat, I've never believed that the interests of capital and labor are necessarily irreconciliable. Such a position could be considered neo-corporatist. And in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008', I've become somewhat enamored with the German social market model (its their variant of the 'Third Way'); indeed, Northern Europe, in general, seems to be , fiscally, well-managed. Southern Europe, on the other hand, ... well

I'm wary of austerity, certainly in the UK, given unemployment is running at 8.4%, though had we a more 'social democratic' (Nordic) or 'Christian Democratic/conservative' (social market) welfare safety net it wouldn't concern me as much. Its pretty impressive that Austria has reduced its budget deficit to 2.6% of GDP, with 4.2% unemployment (the lowest in the EU)

If I was ever to do research it would be on the welfare state

I can honestly say that never in my life have I cast a vote on the promise of tax cuts and the Conservative Party has been dead to me since the reintroduction of mass unemployment in early 1980s

That's mostly because politicians here are passing austerity measures that are not impacting the economy or the labor market or the middle class.


For example, in the latest budget consolidation package that went into effect on April 1, the government just recently negotiated a deal with the Swiss government to tax the money that Austrians have in Swiss banks.

That will balance the budget by 1 Bio. € more by 2016 (by which the government thinks Austria will have a balanced budget and 70% debt). Read more here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=107855.msg3189010#msg3189010
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=107855.msg3195055#msg3195055

and:

"Austria, Switzerland Ink Landmark Tax Deal" (http://www.tax-news.com/news/Austria_Switzerland_Ink_Landmark_Tax_Deal____54988.html)

To be fair I should think that for most sentient people the instability and problematic nature of liberal/neo-liberal oppression has been apparent since about 1890 or at least 1929.  The fact that we took another deep drink of the poison since 1980 is testimony to how little


Means privileges.  In fact of course a realistic person understands all 'rights' as privileges.  In our current society the rich have all the rights, the rest none.

I'm just pretty concerned at the extent to which, among developed nations, both the UK and US are among the most "unequal"so I'm kind of left-wondering, what if not ...

My left-leaning Christian Democratic convictions, however, are well-established; indeed, it was the reintroduction of mass unemployment during the 'Monetarist Recession' which poisoned any chance of being a Conservative