Obama up 7 against Romney in Ohio

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I think they will have the White House in 2016, they have a very good field while the Democrats would be a bit weaker.

Who does the GOP have who's any good?

Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, among others, are considered 'good' for reasons that elude me but which polling seems to bear out.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Chris Christie and Marco Rubio

I don't think the Democrats have anything to fear then.

[King]

President will always be about person not policy.  Congressional control is a better indicator of public opinion.  The second the Democrats nominate another Gore the Bore or Kerrybot, they'll lose to a more charismatic choice like Rubio.

[Lief 🗽]

Chris Christie is basically unelectable nationally for the same reasons that Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich were/are. But yeah, Marco Rubio would be a terrific candidate.

[NHI]

"One caveat: in March of 2008 we polled Ohio when the current situation was reversed- the Republicans knew who their nominee was, while Democrats were still engaged in a bloody fight to determine theirs. We found John McCain leading Obama 49-41 at that point and of course in the end Obama won the state by 4 points in the fall. So while this is a good place for Obama to be it could change quite a bit once Republicans all get on the same page."

True.

[pbrower2a]

Yeah, I don't see any chance for victory. Obama has been a successful president, and the electoral map has simply moved away from the Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP doesn't win anymore presidential elections. I think Romney would really be an amazing president, but it looks like we won't get a chance to see. I just hate to see pbrower win.

It is far too early for the Republican party to be written off like the Federalists or Whigs. To win any later Presidential election it will need a new coalition much broader than what it now relies upon. The acid test for the Republican Party will be in 2016 when it has a raft of Senate seats to defend -- most of the winners of 2010 and maybe some that old guys (most likely Grassley and McCain) vacate. Even if a Republican (let us say Bob McDonnell) wins in 2016 he will have a difficult time pushing a "conservative" agenda whenhe gets little cooperation from a large D majority in the Senate.

The Republicans survived the FDR era after losing control of Congress in 1930 and the Presidency in 1932... but it took them until 1946 to win back Congress and until 1948 to have a real chance at the Presidency.  No way is Barack Obama quite up to the level of FDR as President, and no way is he getting any Third Term. But remember -- the Democrats and Republicans  were long very similar on the whole. The Democrats had John Stennis and the Republicans had Jacob Javits in the Senate at one time. In the early 1960s the Democrats were a liberal Party in the North but a semi-fascist Party in most of the South while the Republicans were a conservative Party in the North and irrelevant in most of the South.

If the Republicans can't broaden their coalition they are doomed. Most likely the Democratic party does what it did  after it became the only major Party with the demise of the Federalists and Whigs: it will split. Single parties are almost always too unwieldy in a democracy.  (I predict that the ANC in South Africa will eventually rift). The Whigs initiated as a rift from the Democratic Party of Jefferson, and the "Free-Soil" Republicans rifted from Jacksonian Democrats.    

Ideological extremism is not good for winning more than a couple of elections. The Democrats would be in deep trouble, for instance, if they adopted a Marxist agenda. But that said, the Republicans could still win the Presidency in 2016 -- but they will need a much broader coalition with which to win. Part of that coalition might be a segment that the Democrats serve less than well.

[Eraserhead]

I'm almost surprised that it's as close as it is given Romney's disastrous favorability numbers. Almost.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yeah, I don't see any chance for victory. Obama has been a successful president, and the electoral map has simply moved away from the Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP doesn't win anymore presidential elections. I think Romney would really be an amazing president, but it looks like we won't get a chance to see. I just hate to see pbrower win.

It is far too early for the Republican party to be written off like the Federalists or Whigs. To win any later Presidential election it will need a new coalition much broader than what it now relies upon. The acid test for the Republican Party will be in 2016 when it has a raft of Senate seats to defend -- most of the winners of 2010 and maybe some that old guys (most likely Grassley and McCain) vacate. Even if a Republican (let us say Bob McDonnell) wins in 2016 he will have a difficult time pushing a "conservative" agenda whenhe gets little cooperation from a large D majority in the Senate.

The Republicans survived the FDR era after losing control of Congress in 1930 and the Presidency in 1932... but it took them until 1946 to win back Congress and until 1948 to have a real chance at the Presidency.  No way is Barack Obama quite up to the level of FDR as President, and no way is he getting any Third Term. But remember -- the Democrats and Republicans  were long very similar on the whole. The Democrats had John Stennis and the Republicans had Jacob Javits in the Senate at one time. In the early 1960s the Democrats were a liberal Party in the North but a semi-fascist Party in most of the South while the Republicans were a conservative Party in the North and irrelevant in most of the South.

If the Republicans can't broaden their coalition they are doomed. Most likely the Democratic party does what it did  after it became the only major Party with the demise of the Federalists and Whigs: it will split. Single parties are almost always too unwieldy in a democracy.  (I predict that the ANC in South Africa will eventually rift). The Whigs initiated as a rift from the Democratic Party of Jefferson, and the "Free-Soil" Republicans rifted from Jacksonian Democrats.    

Ideological extremism is not good for winning more than a couple of elections. The Democrats would be in deep trouble, for instance, if they adopted a Marxist agenda. But that said, the Republicans could still win the Presidency in 2016 -- but they will need a much broader coalition with which to win. Part of that coalition might be a segment that the Democrats serve less than well.

But that's just it, where is a new coalition going to come from? The tea party movement is hijacking the party, and they represent the views of the America that is slowly fading away. Their nonsense has scared off all the moderates, I'm fairly right-leaning and I wouldn't vote for Gingrich or anyone else spewing that rhetoric. It tells me they are either pandering trolls or insane. I suspect lots of other Americans feel the same way.

The country isn't going to get more socially conservative, Obama being the face of the Democratic party has destroyed any chance of the GOP making inroads into the African American community, and as much as I like Romney I think he could really damage the GOP with Hispanics this year. And younger voters, the ones who care, see them as the war/homophobic/fascist party and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

I do think the GOP could come back, but they are looking at having a minority party status for a long time. If and when they re-emerge, the party will almost certainly have changed drastically.

[colincb]

I'm not surprised. Romney is not a midwestern candidate. That said, if the economy doesn't get worse, the GOP isn't winning regardless of who they nominate just like the GOP wasn't winning in 2008 regardless of who they nominated. McCain would've won the election had the economy not collapsed in September.

I'd have to disagree.  McCain led for as long as his post-convention bounce lasted.  The Dems led most of the time until then and thereafter because off an economy that was declining for almost two years before the markets crashed and because Bush was by and large judged a failure.  McCain didn't help himself with his grandstanding during the crash and Palin was a high risk choice that didn't pan out.  IMO, if Hilary Clinton had been the nominee, she would have won by an even larger margin because race appears to have played a part in paring Obama's victory margin.

[colincb]

Parties have changed their stripes before.  However, the GOP faces a demographic problem particularly with Hispanic voters that the GOP has managed to exacerbate despite Hispanics being socially conservative.  I don't see that changing in the near future. 

Any illegal immigration solution that allows a path to citizenship creates more Democratic voters proportionally.  Any illegal immigration solution that does not allow a path to citizenship creates additional legal Hispanic resistance to the GOP which combined with the Hispanics' higher birth rate damns the GOP either way. 

That leaves the GOP relegated toward voter suppression efforts which will likely to be self-defeating in the long run by creating more resentment especially if those efforts work in the short run.

[Ljube]

It seems Romney won't win Ohio, so he is going to have to win Pennsylvania or lose the election.

[Mr.Phips]

I'm not surprised. Romney is not a midwestern candidate. That said, if the economy doesn't get worse, the GOP isn't winning regardless of who they nominate just like the GOP wasn't winning in 2008 regardless of who they nominated. McCain would've won the election had the economy not collapsed in September.

I doubt McCain would have won even if the economy hadnt collapsed in September.  The economy had been in recession since December 2007 and the unemployment rate increased by almost two percentage points since fall 2007. 

The Bush people and the Republicans higher up got nervous in September when it looked like McCain might win and crashed the economy just to make sure he didnt by pushing Lehman into bankruptcy. 

[pbrower2a]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/brown-up-11-on-mandel.html

In general, Ohio looks like a disaster for Republicans beyond the Presidency in November.