Talk Elections

Today Gallup showed a spike in Romney's favorability from 39 to 50.

()

This trend is apparent in other polls as well. What has caused it to spike?

*No partisan hackery about how Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire or BS like that. I'm looking for a level headed, statistical, analysis.

Gay marriage.

Republicans rallying around their nominee.

Worth pointing out that Gallup last polled his favorability in February.

Combination of
and an outlier.  RealClear has him at 40% favorable, 41% unfavorable.

Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire.

Trololol

And he's going to be the nominee is a 2nd thought.

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government on which to build not destroy

^^^ this.

Romney won't be dealt such by Obama. He's not complaining.

Not that the Reactionary Party knows anything about that. 'Reaganomics' delivered middle class stagnation; 'Bushonomics' delivered middle class decline

I don't see Mitt Romney channelling Bill Clinton do you and raising taxes, especially on the primary beneficiaries of the supply-side tax cuts which fuel $1.4 trillion deficits?

Indeed, the post-war era has proven that its Democrats who own 1) economic growth; 2) job creation and 3) broad-based prosperity whether during the Golden Age of Capitalism or the Washington Consensus

Of course, the 'Crash of 2008' has discredited the neoliberal Road to Serfdom making it as dated as revolutionary socialism ::)

RRTN from fellow Elephants and Elephant-leaning Indies.

The valueless cipher who stands for little >:( save his own advancement and enrichment isn't there yet? ;) I'd be sticking with the center-right option because Obama will do the necessary and channel Bill Clinton on taxes. Remember 'Clintonomics' and marginally more progressive :) rates of taxation?

Logic dictates, then, that the public doesn't agree with you as they have witnessed Obama doing the opposite of Clinton on a lot of things in reality, such as, of course, taxes and government spending and job creation. As opposed to your hypothetical and baseless mental fiction.

It starts with the letter P and ends with artisans.

What pray do you think was the road out of the 'Great Recession' like? Austerity ::). The cost of the primary response to it - the ARRA - being a conservative, and far from radical, $800 bn. Mindful of deficits, President Obama was never going to propose trillions of 'new' supply side tax cuts

Indeed, the US public sector has contracted, as a result of the 'Great Recession', by 600,000, which is quite a drop in demand for private sector goods and services

Its a myth that the private sector can only expand if the public sector contracts

Backlash against the past few months of anti-mormon bigotry.

But no seriously it's because the GOP is rallying around Mitt Romney and all the Republicans who were unfavorable towards him during the primaries are beginning to have a change of heart.

No, their views evolved.

Actually that is precisely what has been happening.  The problem is the private sector hasn't expanded fast enough to deal with both the effects of the 2008-9 crisis and the contraction of the public sector since then.

Co-evolution?

Emphasis on only Ernest. Maybe the private sector would have expanded more had demand for its goods and services not been reduced by public sector contraction?

Given that the 'liberal' welfare model is weak, I'm loathe to culling the public sector until such time as unemployment is sub-5%. The transition from employment :) to unemployment :( in the UK is a most horrifying fate indeed, and the FEAR of losing your livelihood could be suppressing consumer spending
 
'Liberal' welfarism worked during the Golden Age of Capitalism (aka the post-war economic expansion) when UK unemployment averaged 1.6% but it has averaged 7.4% during the Washington Consensus, while I suspect the more downside impact of globalisation may have contributed to an 'expanded' public sector in many developed economies

And 4) Blind partisan hackery.

Hate to break it to you, but your party sucks just as much testicle soufflé as the other option. Just letting you know.

They learned from the master.

I couldn't agree more.

His campaign is no longer spewing negative ads at the other Republican nominees, so the Republicans who wanted someone else as the nominee have decided to forgive him his trespasses.

Bill Clinton only lucked out because of the Dot-com bubble.

Local government employment rolls expanded by 57% in the 1960s, 38% in the 1970s, and and 11% in the 1980s. After such massive excess, rather than do any culling in the 1990s, rolls were expanded by 21% again, and again by another 11% through 2008.

Then of course they scream and moan and groan and holler over a roughly 3% cut after all of the above.

Of course, liberals were never serious about cutting spending 'later' or doing any culling this entire time. they're about as serious as the Harlem Globetrotters.

Romney is focusing heavily on creating jobs for the average American.

Obama is hobnobbing and money grubbing with out of touch Hollywood multi millionaire lefties in Lalaland.

I truly hope you're just playing up... otherwise I would advise some sort of therapy.

Romney is TALKING about creating jobs, but also wants to re-instate the fiscal plan that assisted in bringing down the economy AND to help those Americans by installing the Ryan Budget which would gut entitlements and undermine medicare and social security...

No amount platitudinous bs will change that...

You are free to express your self righteous idignation all you like, and throw around personal insults.

That in no way alters the factual accuracy of my statement.

The difference is, I'm talking about his policies... you're the one talking without reference to facts.

I hate that this is a little known fact.  It is SO obvious. 
He also lucked out on:
1) "The peace  dividend"
2) having a republican congress he could steal credit from

Clinton wasn't a good president, but he might be the best democrat president.  I can't really evaluate Kennedy's half term.

You never address my point that at local levels (where complete political control can be compared) Republican areas "OWN" growth and job creation and democrat areas "OWN" decline and job loss. 

Also, what IS the democrat economic philosophy?

They pretend to be Keynesian and only use stuff they can twist into quasi socialist policies. 

Republicans at least study and apply classical, Keynesian, or NeoLiberal economics.       

well, this thread has veered WILDLY off course...

This might be my favorite post in the history of this forum.

;)

If only that was true.  The unemployment rate in South Carolina has been higher than the national rate for close to a decade now.  The last governor we had who enjoyed an average unemployment rate during his term that was lower than the national average was Jim Hodges, our last Democratic governor.

Romney is trying to win by Default - that is he will be the "generic faceless non-offensive Republican" that voters will prefer.  He won the primary by being the last man standing.  Now he's just waiting for Obama to hurt himself. 

I was talking about local not state level.  Areas where you have 25 years or more of party control, so as to mitigate many cyclical and external factors.  Basically the only way to study somewhat scientifically. 

This isn't an open election. In 2008, any democrat would have won by not being Bush. Romney has yet to provide any vision for his presidency. And if he doesn't, he will most certainly lose.

Fact:  Romney has a very comprehensive job creation plan that will put America back to work, a plan he is communicating to the nation.

Fact:  Obama goes to George Clooney's house to meet with leftist multi millionaire lalaland B grade actors at $40,000,00 a ticket.

I speak facts.  You are simply unwilling, for whatever reason, to admit it. 

A combo of the following: Republicans coming together + President Obama's announcement of support for gay marriage (and its continuing reverberations) + continued weak economy would be my guess.  

No mystery, really.  

If you want wild, out of the box, radical vision, then pick Obama.  Obama wants to make gay marriage the focus of his campaign.  That is his vision.  Maybe he'll get 51% of the country to vote for him because of it.  If liberals want radical society changing vision, then that is Obama's dreams for the country. 

Romney doesn't have to make radical promises.  Some people may think that Obama's changes are radical and unstable for the country.  Romney can just promises of recreating a stable economy, a stable government, and a stable society that's not fighting culture wars. 

Wednesday, November 7th, they'll finally realize what we see. Just wait.

I hope you're right. The thing is... he's a poor campaigner. But he'd be a great president. The opposite is true of Obama. Unfortunately, campaigning is how you win elections.

Doesn't it seem like Obama is getting worse at campaigning and Romney(or team Romney) is getting better?

Romney has to study how Bill Clinton defeated Bush, and how Reagan defeated Carter. 

Granted GHW Bush was an extremely poor politician, and Carter wasn't much better. 

Obama is a good politician and campaigner but I think he has run out of steam. 

Clinton was a very good politician and campaigner, probably one of the best ever.  Romney is not as good as Clinton. 

Romney isn't as good as Reagan, but his vision will have to be similar to Reagan, in terms of speaking to the country and gaining the confidence of swing voters. 

Romney can study Clinton's 1992 campaign all he wants, but he's not going to be as exciting as Bill Clinton was. Plus, this is a different election. In 1992, the recession was still pretty fresh. in 2012, this isn't a recession, but a slow recovery. It's not booming, but it's far better than it was.

If it continutes to get a little better throughout the year, Obama can play up the whole "We're better off than we were, and Romney would take us back to the failed policies that got us into this mess". Obama is more likeable and charismatic than Romney, too. That certainly helps in presidential elections.

Yes.

I don't know that their abilities are changing. I just think Obama is becoming easier to see through.

Yea, but i see it more like he was a one trick Pony/phony and he can't do the trick anymore, so it is like he doesn't have(or is allowed to use) the ability.   Plus his rate of mistakes is increasing. 

Not being seen around several conservatives on a regular basis (Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, etc) is probably helping a bit.