Talk Elections

Suddenly the tide appears to be turning drastically against Barack Obama. From Bill Clinton to bad economic news to stupid gaffes...these last few weeks appear to be a disaster.

When my left-leaning political website is full of anti-Obama news, you know it's bad. Today's headlines:

Poll Shows Romney Ahead in Wisconsin
Global Opinion of Obama Slips
Adelson Gives $10 Million to Romney Super PAC
Is It Time for Democrats to Panic?
Obama Loses Both Liberal and Centrist Donors
Romney Nearly Catches Obama Nationally

http://politicalwire.com/

()

I think Obama's problem is this: The more he campaigns, the more transparent he looks.

This election, if you ask me, boils down to leadership. Obama had the leg up when he wasn't campaigning. But now that he's out there, he's becoming a typical politician--he was able to seem above the fray in 2008, and that was part of hisappeal. After four years though, he can't do that anymore. And now he looks like he's trying to manipulate his record.

The Republicans picked the right primary candidate, is what happened. (Well, that and a couple of disappointing jobs reports). But no, sometimes what feels bad in politics is good, and what feels good is bad. Mitt Romney isn't the most exciting candidate, but elections are about maximizing a quantitative variable, and Romney has always been the best positioned to help the GOP on that score. He was always more formidable than he seemed in the Spring during the primary, as I pointed out at the time. I should add that he's also been focusing on the right issues (economic issues). Obama has talked a lot about economics too but he's deviated off into the 'war on women' and gay marriage, which doesn't help him electorally. I hope someone up there has the memory of the Creigh Deeds campaign in mind. Obama needs to focus on economic issues, even if the economy disappoints. It's his only hope. Unfortunately the GOP as a whole is still so extreme (and getting moreso) that giving them control of all three branches of government would be a major problem.

2 months of post-primary bounce, 2 months of bad jobs reports.

Romney's winning the media battle, for now. Polling also used to show Obama doing very well in the state's that mattered, but that is slipping away.

Based on the most recent polling, not guesses, I think the map today looks something like this:

()

Tried to use gray as little as possible. 259-244 Romney. So he'd need to win either Wisconsin or Michigan...or Wisconsin and Colorado.

The firewall doesn't look quite as strong now - Romney has potential in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Virginia. And who know's what is going on in NH and OR.

I'm more interested in guesses than polls.  Show your erudition!  Any mechanic can give us a map of the polls.

Lol @ Michigan, that one is absolutely not based on reality. Hint: The unions are still strong there.

()

90% colors are safe for either candidate; 70% are likely but not safe for either (those that would flip in a landslide election; OR, MT, AZ, MO, WI, IN, PA, ME-02, NE-02); 50% are leaning towards either (FL, NC, VA, NH, NV); and 30% are purely swing (though shaded for the candidate who I think has the greater chance of winning them; OH, IA, CO).

Apparently you can't read my post, in which it says ONLY based off the most recent polling.

()

()   
253-244 Romney.  16 EV's gets him to 269 with 64 likely up for grabs.

()

Obama just can't stop all of those combinations.  Maybe through some miracle he holds NH, NV, CO, MI, and WI. 
IA and VA make Romney President.     

()   
How does Romney lose with Wisconsin in his column?  ...He doesn't.   

It's a bit of a stretch to say it would take a miracle for Obama to take MI, WI, and NH, and I think OH is still a swing state as of now..

Two weeks of a bad news cycle. Such happens and often reverses.  Of course if the bad news keeps getting worse, President Obama loses.

 

Like former president Kerry in 2004, Romney's tie in polling with Obama ensures a landslide victory in November.

What's happening in this election cycle is the typical ebb and flow of good news and bad news for both candidates.

Obama had a very good winter and early Spring. The jobs numbers were great and the GOP sideshow made him look Godly by comparison. Then Romney secured the nomination, the jobs reports got weaker, and Obama said a few dumb things.

This actually parallels what has happened in many previous presidential elections. The summer seems to be typically bad for the incumbent or favored candidate.

Remember in 2008 Obama only had a slim lead against McCain and actually trailed him for a bit after the Republican convention. A CNN poll from June 2008 showed them neck and neck

I just stumbled upon a Fox News poll from June 2004 that showed Kerry leading Bush by 2 points

A CNN poll from June 2000 showed Bush leading Gore 50 to 38!

So it appears that the incumbent or favored candidate always seems to slip in the summer. I really don't know why but the pattern is there. We all know what happened in 2008. Bush took the lead in fall 2004 and Gore came from behind in the fall and won the popular vote.

My guess is that by the summer, the challenger is in full campaign mode, while the incumbent who is already in office (whether it's Obama, Bush or Gore) can't campaign at the same magnitude. But then by the fall, the incumbent comes out in full force and changes the dynamics.

Please people, save your grand predictions for the fall. The ball game hasn't even started.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-05/politics/campaign.wrap_1_obama-mccain-money-from-federal-lobbyists-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-06-26/politics/cnn.poll_1_al-gore-sampling-error-george-w-bush?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122378,00.html

The media has yet to turn on romney

obama i think can pull it out. Wisconsin will stay with obama and 2016 the republicans will try to take back the white house

Kerry had a bounce in May 2004, that was reverted in June 2004. Then Kerry took a reasonable lead in July/August of 2004 that permanently revered in September 2004. Bush led the rest of the way.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_vs_kerry_historical.html



May 2004: Average Kerry lead of .15%

June 2004: Average Bush lead of .84%

I just thought of the phrasing for this today. 
The WiscoGOP is now the leadership of like a third of the Republican party.  The Ryan-Walker-Pribus-Johnson WING of the GOP is probably about a fourth to a third of the core ideology.  No other state (Texas maybe) is single-handedly responsible for that much of the platform/appeal.  That is a game changer in electoral college politics.     

Unless President Obama completely collapses as a leader the 2012 election is likely to show why President Obama won in 2008. After all, he remains as slick a communicator as Ronald Reagan. If he can have as effective a campaign apparatus in 2012 as in 2008 (which will depend upon keeping the political base intact) he wins.

    

To be honest, I remember hearing Obama's speeches and genuinely being impressed. Since then, he kinda seems flat. Perhaps it's age.

With Kerry, I think he actually could have beaten Bush with a few more votes in Ohio.  I think if he selected General Clark as his VP, he would have been able to get more military voters; and also defend himself against those vietnam swift boat attacks.  But Bush was also a mediocre candidate, who did just enough to win. 

I think there are a lot of things about Obama that are mediocre.  I think that Romney has a strong opening.  I think that if Romney picks a good VP and a strong VP he can make up the difference and beat Obama. 

Its going to be a very close election that will be decided by Ohio and Virginia.  More than anything, it will be how main street voters in those states perceive the election. 

I think it has to do with idealistic naivety and then learning the depressing realism of government.  Reagan was an actor (professional liars) so he could sell anything with a positive attitude. 

1)Obama did a ton of stuff his first two years and the public rejected his actions. 
2)Obama doubled down after the historic rejection of the midterms. He has shown zero ability to adapt to CHANGE-ing conditions.   
3) He is running a shockingly empty and shallow campaign(and before that his rhetoric).  Most people who pay attention are turned off by him.  He has basically been sliding downward continuously for 2-3 years now.  I can't picture him turning it around because he has never turned it around. 
4) Fast-Furious and the National Security leaks are equivalent to Watergate and Iran-contra, respectively.  That is a lot of scandal to have going on simultaneously.     

Yes, because Obama has clearly orchestrated a massive cover-up and subverted the Constitution.

Yea on one hand it is a worse scandal than Watergate, but on the other hand it probably doesn't go directly to Obama.  Holder is so so so close to the president though. 
The National Security scandal probably does go straight to Obama and Holder is probably covering on that as well, so the equivalency overall stands.     

How are a few lost guns worse than subverting democracy?

1)Nobody died in Watergate.
2)The cover up is worse than the crime.  You can't have the Justice department completely subverting justice.  The Attorney General (or the President) is not above the law. 
3) By a "few lost guns" you must mean a few thousand guns purposely given to drug cartels that have since been used to kill a border agent and other American citizens.     

Wasn't Nixon's cover up worse than Holder's? And even then, Obama didn't personally mastermind the whole thing.

Please tell me you're joking or trolling...

Just chiming in to respond to the poster who called Obama a slick communicator.

The man knows how to gve an exciting speech, I'lll give you that. But communication has probably been Obama's biggest weakness as president. While I'm not a fan of Obamacare, the man could have done a way better job communicating to Americans what it actually did.

It's been more than just two weeks of bad news.

I read an article a few weeks ago, I can't seem to find it, but it noted a list of negative things that have occurred regarding the President literally on a week by week basis pretty much the last three months.

The Secret Service Scandal - No impliction of the President, but it still shines a negative light on Government institutions

Surpreme Court ripping apart Obamacare

The "Open Mic Indicident" with the Russian President, making Obama seem presumptous

The unemployment rate going UP during the Obama "recovery"

Obama's support for gay marriage which instantly helps Mitt Romney

Scott Walker decisively wins Wisconsin recall

Bill Clinton on Romney's "sterling" business career, undercutting Obama's line of attack on Romney

Bill Clinton on Bush tax cut, undercutting Obama again

Sarah Jessica Parker goofy ad and Hollywood bigwigs

This whole "leak" situation

Now we have this ridiculous illegal immigration stance. That's 11 things off the top of my head which have systematically been bringing the President down. It's not just two weeks of bad news.

A lot of people in this country actually like Hollywood and the glitz that's why magazines like People survive. This is the same argument that was used against Obama when he appeared on Oprah four years ago and it had no impact. Urbanites and suburbanites like the paparazzi and while the rurals maybe not, they frankly don't matter...because there are fewer and fewer of them.

As to the immigration stance, I predict that it will have negligible affects among the aforementioned demographics and who cares what it does to the rurals.