Obama will lose the election
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:23:52 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
  Obama will lose the election
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Obama will lose the election  (Read 23034 times)
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2012, 12:53:05 PM »



Or in other words, no.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2012, 12:55:01 PM »

You know your candidate is bad when you're counting on economic conditions to deteriorate for him to win.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2012, 12:56:32 PM »

You know your candidate is bad when you're counting on economic conditions to deteriorate for him to win.

Just like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2012, 01:02:55 PM »

You know your candidate is bad when you're counting on economic conditions to deteriorate for him to win.

Just like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Unemployment was on its way down in 1992; in 1980, UE and Inflation were on the way down as well. Clinton and Reagan won because they were slick politicians that were able to tap into the national mood (which lagged behind economic indicators). Romney is not a slick campaigner and he has shown himself to be ineffective at being the candidate that "understands the plight of the voters" like Obama has.

The consensus among some Republicans on this forum seems to be counting on (dare I say hoping?) a sharp economic downturn to come out of left-field (Europe most likely) and quickly sink the tepid recovery. The days until the election continue to count down, and the opportunity for an economic catastrophe to occur and sink the economy by November is quickly fleeting.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2012, 01:15:19 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2012, 01:17:21 PM by King »

You know your candidate is bad when you're counting on economic conditions to deteriorate for him to win.

Just like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Considering you're a big follower of finding parallels with the Gallup poll, I'd think you'd know that Reagan and Clinton had double digit leads on their incumbent opponents in the summer of the respective years.  Add in that the third party candidate in both cases like would have/did break for the challenger, and you'll see Obama is doing much stronger than Carter or Bush Sr at this point.



Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2012, 01:32:48 PM »

This election is fools gold for Republicans. It looks within reach, but in the end the core fundamentals favor an Obama re-election, even if it's very narrow. It really is a mirror image to 2004.

What matters the most is the direction of the economy, and a very slow but persistent economic recovery will convince just enough voters to stay the course.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2012, 01:53:30 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2012, 01:56:08 PM by J. J. »



Unemployment was on its way down in 1992; in 1980, UE and Inflation were on the way down as well. Clinton and Reagan won because they were slick politicians that were able to tap into the national mood (which lagged behind economic indicators). Romney is not a slick campaigner and he has shown himself to be ineffective at being the candidate that "understands the plight of the voters" like Obama has.

Unemployment:  Both were up over preceding year and unemployment only had a slight decline in October 1992; it would not have been reported by election day.

Inflation:  It peaked in 1980, but it was still higher on election day than the year before.

We also had a misery index that was higher than any point during the preceding year.

Check here:  http://www.miseryindex.us/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the consensus there is no recovery and that there never was a "summer of recovery."  I'm quoting Joe Biden, from two summers ago.

The waning days of summer are getting shorter; the days for an Obama recovery are getting shorter as well.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2012, 01:55:07 PM »

You know your candidate is bad when you're counting on economic conditions to deteriorate for him to win.

Just like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Considering you're a big follower of finding parallels with the Gallup poll, I'd think you'd know that Reagan and Clinton had double digit leads on their incumbent opponents in the summer of the respective years.  Add in that the third party candidate in both cases like would have/did break for the challenger, and you'll see Obama is doing much stronger than Carter or Bush Sr at this point.





I'm actually looking at approval numbers, as opposed to the horse race number.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2012, 05:19:14 PM »

You know your candidate is bad when you're counting on economic conditions to deteriorate for him to win.

Just like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Considering you're a big follower of finding parallels with the Gallup poll, I'd think you'd know that Reagan and Clinton had double digit leads on their incumbent opponents in the summer of the respective years.  Add in that the third party candidate in both cases like would have/did break for the challenger, and you'll see Obama is doing much stronger than Carter or Bush Sr at this point.





I'm actually looking at approval numbers, as opposed to the horse race number.

Which is cherrypicking.  If your matching of Gallup numbers holds any sort of weight, it needs to show a relationship with the actual election results.  In the case of Obama-Carter and Obama-Bush on approvals, the challenger ran far ahead of the President when approval ratings were at a certain level. 

Your hypothesis is that Romney will win on Obama's unpopularity because Reagan and Clinton did.  Your hypothesis fails because the data suggests Reagan and Clinton did not simply win on incumbent unpopularity and, in fact, ran far ahead of the disapproval rating, even beating the incumbent during times of positive approval, while Romney just muddles along.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2012, 06:00:31 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2012, 06:02:29 PM by "'Oeps!' De blunders van Todd Aiken »

The comparisons to 2004 are entirely too glib. There are several key differences that I see:

1) '04 was a national security election. Several embattled incumbents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR) won with some variation on the "don't change horses in midstream" argument of Bush. Winning with this argument -- or any argument -- is not as easy with a stalled economy.

2) Obama is less popular, marginally, than Bush was. RCP has a feature that allows you to compare Bush's first-term approval with Obama's on any given day. Currently, O's about two points lower than Bush was at this point in '04 -- not a lot but when you consider that Bush only won by 2.5%...

The other thing that strikes me when comparing the two is how consistent Obama's relative unpopularity is. He's been below 50%, though not drastically, the bulk of the time since the end of his first year. Bush, OTOH, was above 50% until about mid-February '04. The afterglow of his most successful period -- just after 9/11 -- was still in place for a lot of Americans, as frustrating as that was for those of us that opposed him. Obama's most popular period -- '08 through early '09 -- is further back and feels like a lifetime ago.

3) Democrats had no momentum coming into '04. We won the pop. vote in 2000 and had various demographic trends in our favor but the '02 elections were a disaster. There was a sense of starting from scratch with the Kerry campaign and the Dem activist groups who hit the swing states that year. The GOP is coming into this race with a big win in 2010, a decent shot at taking the Senate, and a base that is still pretty engaged and active, if you go by things like the WI recall and "enthusiasm" surveys.

4) Romney's not a great candidate, but his weakness can be exaggerated. Absent his war heroism, Kerry embodied a lot of what middle America didn't like about the Democrats, and he didn't expand the map anywhere except neighboring NH. Romney embodies the "rich Republican" stereotype that hurts in places like Ohio, but at the same time, he's not a Southern-fried Bush clone or a Tea Party extremist (in public perception). He's relatively free of geographic anchoring, which gives him some potential that Kerry -- blue-stater to the core -- never had; the selection of Ryan reinforces this. On a superficial level, he's not as weird-looking as JK and doesn't have a wife who comes off as a slightly tipsy Arianna Huffington clone (I liked TH-K, but boy did swing voters not).

Obviously, there are similarities to '04, you'd have to be blind not to notice them, but it's generally the case that the more some bit of conventional wisdom is repeated, the more you have to question it -- like all the "Romney has a 25% ceiling" stuff from the primaries.

Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2012, 06:07:11 PM »

The comparisons to 2004 are entirely too glib. There are several key differences that I see:

1) '04 was a national security election. Several embattled incumbents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR) won with some variation on the "don't change horses in midstream" argument of Bush. Winning with this argument -- or any argument -- is not as easy with a stalled economy.

2) Obama is less popular, marginally, than Bush was. RCP has a feature that allows you to compare Bush's first-term approval with Obama's on any given day. Currently, O's about two points lower than Bush was at this point in '04 -- not a lot but when you consider that Bush only won by 2.5%...

The other thing that strikes me when comparing the two is how consistent Obama's relative unpopularity is. He's been below 50%, though not drastically, the bulk of the time since the end of his first year. Bush, OTOH, was above 50% until about mid-February '04. The afterglow of his most successful period -- just after 9/11 -- was still in place for a lot of Americans, as frustrating as that was for those of us that opposed him. Obama's most popular period -- '08 through early '09 -- is further back and feels like a lifetime ago.

3) Democrats had no momentum coming into '04. We won the pop. vote in 2000 and had various demographic trends in our favor but the '02 elections were a disaster. There was a sense of starting from scratch with the Kerry campaign and the Dem activist groups who hit the swing states that year. The GOP is coming into this race with a big win in 2010, a decent shot at taking the Senate, and a base that is still pretty engaged and active, if you go by things like the WI recall and "enthusiasm" surveys.

4) Romney's not a great candidate, but his weakness can be exaggerated. Absent his war heroism, Kerry embodied a lot of what middle America didn't like about the Democrats, and he didn't expand the map anywhere except neighboring NH. Romney embodies the "rich Republican" stereotype that hurts in places like Ohio, but at the same time, he's not a Southern-fried Bush clone or a Tea Party extremist (in public perception). He's relatively free of geographic anchoring, which gives him some potential that Kerry -- blue-stater to the core -- never had; the selection of Ryan reinforces this. On a superficial level, he's not as weird-looking as JK and doesn't have a wife who comes off as a slightly tipsy Arianna Huffington clone (I liked TH-K, but boy did swing voters not).

Obviously, there are similarities to '04, you'd have to be blind not to notice them, but it's generally the case that the more some bit of conventional wisdom is repeated, the more you have to question it -- like all the "Romney has a 25% ceiling" stuff from the primaries.

I pretty much agree with almost all of this, especially how Romney is not as weak of a candidate as people think he is. Obviously, it's easy to tar the candidate of the other side on how they are a weak candidate because you don't like them, but it doesn't make it that accurate. Dukakis wasn't that bad of a candidate either.

I don't think the economy is as damaging to Obama as people think. A lot of the economic indicators (gdp growth, inflation, consumer confidence, personal income growth), they're not even close to 1980. Not to mention 1980 was a very steep drop, while our current economy is practically a "new normal". The idea that Obama should be behind by double-digits is just not true. It's somewhere between 2004 and 1992, not somewhere between 1992 and 1980. And polling gives us exactly what we would normally expect: an incumbent who is unusually vulnerable but not yet beaten.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2012, 07:14:51 PM »



Which is cherrypicking.  If your matching of Gallup numbers holds any sort of weight, it needs to show a relationship with the actual election results.  In the case of Obama-Carter and Obama-Bush on approvals, the challenger ran far ahead of the President when approval ratings were at a certain level. 

Well, we do know the election results.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only hypothesis that I have put forward regarding approval numbers was that Obama's numbers would slide, hit a bottom point, and then rebound.  They did in the fall of last year.

Here, I simply make a comparison of the relative strength of Obama, versus presidents that were re-elected.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2012, 08:52:58 PM »

This election is fools gold for Republicans. It looks within reach, but in the end the core fundamentals favor an Obama re-election, even if it's very narrow. It really is a mirror image to 2004.

What matters the most is the direction of the economy, and a very slow but persistent economic recovery will convince just enough voters to stay the course.

The CBO is saying the economy will be in recession at the start of 13' if (Obama is re-elected) we allow the tax bomb to go off.  How is he going to win advocating a recession?     
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2012, 08:57:17 PM »

This election is fools gold for Republicans. It looks within reach, but in the end the core fundamentals favor an Obama re-election, even if it's very narrow. It really is a mirror image to 2004.

What matters the most is the direction of the economy, and a very slow but persistent economic recovery will convince just enough voters to stay the course.

The CBO is saying the economy will be in recession at the start of 13' if (Obama is re-elected) we allow the tax bomb to go off.  How is he going to win advocating a recession?     
I agree for the most part, Obama is gonna have to convince ALOT of people to reelect him if we're ALMOST guaranteed for another recession.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2012, 09:04:46 PM »

This election is fools gold for Republicans. It looks within reach, but in the end the core fundamentals favor an Obama re-election, even if it's very narrow. It really is a mirror image to 2004.

What matters the most is the direction of the economy, and a very slow but persistent economic recovery will convince just enough voters to stay the course.

The CBO is saying the economy will be in recession at the start of 13' if (Obama is re-elected) we allow the tax bomb to go off.  How is he going to win advocating a recession?     
I agree for the most part, Obama is gonna have to convince ALOT of people to reelect him if we're ALMOST guaranteed for another recession.
That's id ALL spending cuts and tax increases happen. He's advocating keeping the tax cuts for the people making less than 250,000. That wont send us into recession.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2012, 09:18:43 PM »

This election is fools gold for Republicans. It looks within reach, but in the end the core fundamentals favor an Obama re-election, even if it's very narrow. It really is a mirror image to 2004.

What matters the most is the direction of the economy, and a very slow but persistent economic recovery will convince just enough voters to stay the course.

The CBO is saying the economy will be in recession at the start of 13' if (Obama is re-elected) we allow the tax bomb to go off.  How is he going to win advocating a recession?     
I agree for the most part, Obama is gonna have to convince ALOT of people to reelect him if we're ALMOST guaranteed for another recession.
That's id ALL spending cuts and tax increases happen. He's advocating keeping the tax cuts for the people making less than 250,000. That wont send us into recession.
actually it will, but even if you were right, that position is so arbitrary and baseless to begin with that it shows Obama will sacrifice the economy for some personal /political reason.  So how do you win proclaiming you're incompetent?
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2012, 09:24:16 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's generally believed that we're much more likely to go over the fiscal cliff if the Democrats win. The fiscal cliff is much worse for Republicans than Democrats. If we go over the fiscal cliff, we lose the bush tax cuts as well as a huge amount of defense spending. Sure, Dems lose on part of the bush tax cuts they like, but they win on most of the things they want. That's a policy victory for the Democrats.
Logged
RosettaStoned
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,154
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.45, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2012, 11:25:46 PM »

The party isn't getting whiter. There are more important faces of color at this convention than ever before (ie not just tokens).

The country is getting less white though so the party that has always been the racist party in the modern era will lose some ground.

And the economy is deteriorated. And why should Romney be ahead after all the reasons you listed suggesting why he shouldn't? 

  Would a "racist party" as you put it free the slaves?
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2012, 11:31:03 PM »

The party isn't getting whiter. There are more important faces of color at this convention than ever before (ie not just tokens).

The country is getting less white though so the party that has always been the racist party in the modern era will lose some ground.

And the economy is deteriorated. And why should Romney be ahead after all the reasons you listed suggesting why he shouldn't? 

  Would a "racist party" as you put it free the slaves?
He's defining the "modern era" as every year the GOP has won in the south.  It's a Logical Fallacy, but not a crazy one-- just wrong.   
Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2012, 11:32:07 PM »

The party isn't getting whiter. There are more important faces of color at this convention than ever before (ie not just tokens).

The country is getting less white though so the party that has always been the racist party in the modern era will lose some ground.

And the economy is deteriorated. And why should Romney be ahead after all the reasons you listed suggesting why he shouldn't? 

  Would a "racist party" as you put it free the slaves?

Uh, I mean his point is complete bullsh*t, but he did specify the modern era. Us claiming Lincoln is as asinine as well, them trying to claim Thomas Jefferson.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2012, 11:34:40 PM »

The party isn't getting whiter. There are more important faces of color at this convention than ever before (ie not just tokens).

The country is getting less white though so the party that has always been the racist party in the modern era will lose some ground.

And the economy is deteriorated. And why should Romney be ahead after all the reasons you listed suggesting why he shouldn't? 

  Would a "racist party" as you put it free the slaves?

Nooooooo, please don't do that....
Logged
JFK-Democrat
Rookie
**
Posts: 193
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2012, 11:44:05 PM »

Romney cannot win this election...Obama could lose it but if everything remains the way they are Obama wins by 3 - 4 points. Actually it's only going to be this close because of the voter ID laws and the fact that some Obama supporters will stay home...they won't vote for Romney.

Romney has NO natural base in the Republican party...a lot of the people who hate Obama despise people like Romney they are going to be stuck in the proverbial paradox - should i vote for the Moron that shipped my job overseas and won't show his tax returns, they can't vote for the black guy obviously so they just stay home. The zombies will come out but some are going to stay home. If Romney was Bush he could win, but he is not so he won't.

Logged
後援会
koenkai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,265


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2012, 11:45:16 PM »

Romney cannot win this election...Obama could lose it but if everything remains the way they are Obama wins by 3 - 4 points. Actually it's only going to be this close because of the voter ID laws and the fact that some Obama supporters will stay home...they won't vote for Romney.

Romney has NO natural base in the Republican party...a lot of the people who hate Obama despise people like Romney they are going to be stuck in the proverbial paradox - should i vote for the Moron that shipped my job overseas and won't show his tax returns, they can't vote for the black guy obviously so they just stay home. The zombies will come out but some are going to stay home. If Romney was Bush he could win, but he is not so he won't.

I don't even know where to begin.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2012, 11:47:54 PM »

Romney cannot win this election...Obama could lose it but if everything remains the way they are Obama wins by 3 - 4 points. Actually it's only going to be this close because of the voter ID laws and the fact that some Obama supporters will stay home...they won't vote for Romney.

Romney has NO natural base in the Republican party...a lot of the people who hate Obama despise people like Romney they are going to be stuck in the proverbial paradox - should i vote for the Moron that shipped my job overseas and won't show his tax returns, they can't vote for the black guy obviously so they just stay home. The zombies will come out but some are going to stay home. If Romney was Bush he could win, but he is not so he won't.


You have those hack goggles fused so hard onto your eyes, you couldn't see through them even on a bright sunny 110F day in Arizona in the middle of July.
Logged
JFK-Democrat
Rookie
**
Posts: 193
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2012, 12:10:07 AM »


[/quote]
You have those hack goggles fused so hard onto your eyes, you couldn't see through them even on a bright sunny 110F day in Arizona in the middle of July.
[/quote]

Yawn...who cares what you think? Certainly not me. Do yourself a favor and *calm down* pal.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
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 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.