Romney beating Obama in one poll...

[Leaper]

This one.

Of course, one could argue that it's an outlier (IIRC, it's the only poll that has such a state at this point) and that such polls are meaningless so far out from the election.

OTOH, one could also claim that it's an interesting factor in the Republican nomination process, and that, if you're not expecting the economy to get any better in a year and change, that it's a pretty clear sign of bad times to come for the incumbent.

What say you?

[Oakminster]

I think it's one and done for Obama. Ineffective, and unwise in how he spent his political capital. But that depends a lot on Sarah Palin. The earlier she is eliminated, the better for the GoP. If she runs as a third party candidate, Obama wins easily.

The linked article talked about the "frustration index", and says it is at about 72% among independents...that's the folks that put Obama over the top in '08. Without them, he's toast. He'd better make with some bread and circuses quick, or he's done in '12.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Leaper

... that such polls are meaningless so far out from the election.

This.

That said, Obama's running out of time for the economy to improve. Should it not improve, and should the Republicans nominate a half-sane candidate, the election will be competitive.

[BobLibDem]

Every Republican from the presidential candidate down is going to run in 2012 on the platform of the destruction of Medicare. Unless unemployment is 15% I don't see a competitive race.

[Farmer Jane]

If Democrats weren't concerned re: competitive race, they wouldn't be conducting outreach and trying to raise billions.

[Marley23]

No, I don't think one poll means anything at this stage. We know people are frustrated about the economy, and Romney is going to have a hard time winning over conservatives (and then winning independents and moderates if he does that).

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

If Democrats weren't concerned re: competitive race, they wouldn't be conducting outreach and trying to raise billions.

That would be their job regardless. Both campaigns spent a lot of money last time and it will be more this time, and then there's the matter of Citizens United. They're never going to leave money on the table.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Marley23

No, I don't think one poll means anything at this stage. We know people are frustrated about the economy, and Romney is going to have a hard time winning over conservatives

The argument was made for McCain and he seemed to do a fine job before that Palin monster came aboard.

That would be their job regardless. Both campaigns spent a lot of money last time and it will be more this time, and then there's the matter of Citizens United. They're never going to leave money on the table.

Sorry; party operatives will always make like they aren't nervous, but the Republicans can certainly put forth a viable candidate.

[Jophiel]

From this morning's Political Wire:

A new Quinnipiac poll finds Mitt Romney leads in the race for the Republican nomination with 25%, followed by Sarah Palin at 15%, Herman Cain at 9%, Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul at 8%, Rep. Michele Bachmann at 6% and Tim Pawlenty at 5%.
[...]
However, in trial heats against President Obama, Romney still trails by six points, 47% to 41%, while every other candidate trails by double-digits.

Obviously, it's all over for Romney now.

Seriously, it's probably good for Romney in that his electability is so much higher than that of Palin or Pawlenty but I wouldn't assume the general election numbers mean much yet.

[Farmer Jane]

I'm still waiting for that dude from Utah to make headlines. He's likeable for a conservative fart.

At any rate, its far too early in the election to know what will happen. The GOP primaries still have a ways to go . Kerry was a favorite before he slumped and Dean surged but Kerry ended up getting the nomination, anyway.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

The argument was made for McCain and he seemed to do a fine job before that Palin monster came aboard.

McCain was pretty much behind the whole campaign, and the GOP is more divided now than it was in 2008.

Sorry; party operatives will always make like they aren't nervous, but the Republicans can certainly put forth a viable candidate.

Yes, they can. But no matter how bad the candidates were, the Democrats would still try to raise as much money as possible.

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

I'm still waiting for that dude from Utah to make headlines. He's likeable for a conservative fart.

I'm not sure he's really ramped up his campaign, but he's going to have a hard time tapping into the right wing's dislike for Obama when he spent a couple of years working for him. And even some conservatives don't like the idea that he was considering a presidential run while serving as ambassador.

[Chronos]

The linked article talked about the "frustration index", and says it is at about 72% among independents...that's the folks that put Obama over the top in '08. Without them, he's toast. He'd better make with some bread and circuses quick, or he's done in '12.

The independents of 2011 aren't the same people as the independents of 2008. An awful lot of extreme-wing Republicans started calling themselves "independents" with the whole Tea Party thing, and they're by and large the sort of folks who would express "frustration" with Obama if he calmed storms and cured lepers. What's important is not Obama's performance with nebulously-defined "independents", but with moderates.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Exactly. Teabaggers are calling themselves independents now. They're not. They're Republicans.

Obama is going to win re-election in a walk, by the way. He's made no significant mistakes, had no scandals, saved the economy from free fall and killed bin Laden. There's no good reason to replace him, and the Republicans don't have a better option even if there was.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Marley23

McCain was pretty much behind the whole campaign, and the GOP is more divided now than it was in 2008.


Yes, they can. But no matter how bad the candidates were, the Democrats would still try to raise as much money as possible.


I'm not sure he's really ramped up his campaign, but he's going to have a hard time tapping into the right wing's dislike for Obama when he spent a couple of years working for him. And even some conservatives don't like the idea that he was considering a presidential run while serving as ambassador.

All of this. It's crazy to think that either political party would coast if they thought they were ahead. I can assure you, that's not how it works.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Marley23

McCain was pretty much behind the whole campaign, and the GOP is more divided now than it was in 2008.

The GOP was also fairly divided in 2004 and they still won. Democrats were sorely divided in 2004 and they lost, but not as bad as you'd think, considering the times.

I'm not sure he's really ramped up his campaign, but he's going to have a hard time tapping into the right wing's dislike for Obama when he spent a couple of years working for him. And even some conservatives don't like the idea that he was considering a presidential run while serving as ambassador.

There's always a fear that the GOP right wing will stay home, but so far, it hasn't been the case. He's 'pro-life' and Christian, and not the rabid freakish kind, either.

It's my opinion that Kerry lost in 04 because people just didn't have enough reason to vote for him. If the poll in question is to be believed, then it's probably more about dissatisfaction with Obama than love of Romney.

Sometimes that's even more dangerous, as it means voters are lowering standards for the guy they're actually voting for.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

If Democrats weren't concerned re: competitive race, they wouldn't be conducting outreach and trying to raise billions.

First, Hilarly lost partially due to overconfidence. Obama won't make that mistake.
Second, the rules are different now. Obama has to contend with lots of companies giving lots of money to those who will deregulate them.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

The GOP was also fairly divided in 2004 and they still won. Democrats were sorely divided in 2004 and they lost, but not as bad as you'd think, considering the times.

Divided? With a sitting President? Before the Iraq War went totally south, before Katrina, before the meltdown? Ron Paul might have been having his usual infantile tantrums off in the corner, but how else was the party divided then?

[gonzomax]

The Republicans are not divided at all. They vote in one huge block for Repub programs. They do not break up and have very few who ever jump ship for a vote.
The presidential race is among very similar right wing candidates, with very slight differences. Paul is a bit farther out, so he has no chance. Romney may fail because he is not righty enough. He has ideas not in the right wing mainstream.
The rest are trying to out conservative each other in a race toward the far right.

[Farmer Jane]

Well, Obama isn't very left and he still won.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

The GOP was also fairly divided in 2004 and they still won.

They weren't that divided, and no, it was nothing like what's going on right now. There are always going to be opposing factions when you have a system with only two big-tent national parties, but the GOP was behind Bush. The old fashioned Northeast Republicans and small government conservatives may not have liked him much, but he did enough to appeal to them (or they disliked Kerry enough) that they did vote for him. McCain had to try a lot harder to appeal to those kinds of groups - the evangelicals on one hand and the George Wills on the other - and in the end he had to try so hard to appeal to the evangelical conservatives that he lost his credibility with independent voters and couldn't win the election. The same trends are still there are they're more pronounced now. Romney's health care experience was one of his selling points in 2008. Now it's a stone around his neck.

He's 'pro-life' and Christian, and not the rabid freakish kind, either.

Then that's another problem for him. And when the theme of the GOP campaign is "everything Obama does is horrible," Huntsman has to explain why he quit as governor of Utah to become Obama's ambassador to China. That sounds tricky.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

The Republicans are not divided at all. They vote in one huge block for Repub programs. They do not break up and have very few who ever jump ship for a vote.

We're talking about Republican voters, not the Republicans in Congress. Even if we were just talking about Congressional Republicans I'm not sure about this statement.

[gonzomax]

It is true there is no monolithic Republican voter. It includes people who think they are voting against abortion. It also has those who think they are saving guns from the Democratic confiscation. It is the home of racists, who hate Obama's color. It houses the wealthy who never get a fair deal from the government and will do all they can to eliminate corporate and personal taxes that the rich still have to pay. It is the home of the far right crazy evangelicals who vote as the leadership dictates.
I suppose the pro war types are still Repubs even though Obama has done exactly what they want.

[neuroman]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Obama is going to win re-election in a walk, by the way. He's made no significant mistakes, had no scandals, saved the economy from free fall and killed bin Laden. There's no good reason to replace him, and the Republicans don't have a better option even if there was.

Oh my, thank you for my belly laugh of the day. Presidents usually get too much blame (or conversely, too much credit) for the nation's economy, but not much has happened during Obama's term to give room for optimism.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

We would have had a depression if not for the Stimulus. You're welcome.

The normal calculus about the economy is altered because of the context. He inherited an economy in free fall, stopped it from hitting rock bottom an got it started back on its way to soem kind of recovery (not as much as if he had rolled back the Bush tax giveaways to the rich, but it's something). Furthermore, the Republicans have no plans or ideas to bring back jobs themselves except to give more money to the rich and take away even more power from the working class.

And with the particular field of GOP candidates Obama is facing right now, he practically doesn't even have to campaign. The likes of Sarah Palin are doing it for him.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Marley23

but he did enough to appeal to them (or they disliked Kerry enough) that they did vote for him.

This is how elections are won, and that was my point - it has less and less to do with one's personal affection for a candidate.

Then that's another problem for him. And when the theme of the GOP campaign is "everything Obama does is horrible," Huntsman has to explain why he quit as governor of Utah to become Obama's ambassador to China. That sounds tricky.

He has a history with China, and it's not very tricky at all. Not with the American public.

I do believe the theme of the Democrats is, "GOP sucks!", so it's not new.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

This is how elections are won, and that was my point - it has less and less to do with one's personal affection for a candidate.

I didn't say it was about personal affection. Eight or 12 years ago it was easier to bridge the gap between some of those different Republican groups. Bush did it - primarily by telling the religious conservatives what they wanted to hear and then doing what the pro-business groups wanted, I suppose. In 2008 all the nominees struggled with it. McCain pulled it off but by then he couldn't pull in a lot of moderates. In the last couple of years, the far right has made more and more demands. At this point, pretty much any compromise with Democrats (like Romney's health care plan or some of Pawlenty's moves) has to be denounced as a mistake.

He has a history with China, and it's not very tricky at all. Not with the American public.

I didn't say his history with China was the issue. Huntsman resigned from the governorship of Utah to spend two years working for the Obama administration. How is that going to help him with Republican primary voters who think the Obama administration is terrible?

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Then that's another problem for him. And when the theme of the GOP campaign is "everything Obama does is horrible," Huntsman has to explain why he quit as governor of Utah to become Obama's ambassador to China. That sounds tricky.

If I had to make a guess, it would be that Huntsman isn't seriously seeking the nomination in this cycle. He's trying to establish himself on the national stage in preparation for a real run in 2016, gambling that the rabid right will wear itself down in the meantime and leave the way open for a more moderate Republican.

His current relatively low-key approach and, especially, his ambassadorial endeavors seem to make more sense in that light. He's looking to establish name recognition without drawing too much fire from the rest of the field. He doesn't want them digging up dirt on him yet, and if he doesn't look like much of a threat, they'll likely fight each other instead. Serving as an ambassador deals him a "foreign affairs experience" card to play later, when it's no longer quite so important who he was working for at the time.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I didn't say his history with China was the issue. Huntsman resigned from the governorship of Utah to spend two years working for the Obama administration. How is that going to help him with Republican primary voters who think the Obama administration is terrible?

But Republicans don't disagree with our foreign policy relationship with China.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

But Republicans don't disagree with our foreign policy relationship with China.

So? He worked with Obama, and pretty much all the Republican campaigns are currently focused on how bad our current President is. You really think the average voter is looking at this with any more detail than that?

[Chronos]

I do believe the theme of the Democrats is, "GOP sucks!", so it's not new.

No, the themes of the Democrats are "Reduce dependence on oil", and "Put a price tag on carbon emissions", and "Expand health care coverage for all Americans", and "Reduce foreign military involvements", and "Provide civil rights for everyone". We're not just reflexively opposing whatever comes from the other side of the aisle; we're giving actual ideas for where and how to move forward.

[Hampshire]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

The linked article talked about the "frustration index", and says it is at about 72% among independents...that's the folks that put Obama over the top in '08. Without them, he's toast. He'd better make with some bread and circuses quick, or he's done in '12.

The real independants (not the teabagger type) who are so frustrated still need to be convinced that a Republican could do something better. It's not as simple as "well, this guy ain't working, time to give someone from the other side a shot at it again." Pubs need a real working plan. Something they've failed to yet produce.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I didn't say his history with China was the issue. Huntsman resigned from the governorship of Utah to spend two years working for the Obama administration. How is that going to help him with Republican primary voters who think the Obama administration is terrible?

As ambassador to China, though. It's not like he was involved in domestic policy, or even foreign policy that Republican primary voters don't like. If anything is going to hurt him, it's that the Mormon thing is going to affect him the same way it does Romney, and that he's still not very well known, neither of which is fatal.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

But Republicans don't disagree with our foreign policy relationship with China.

They don't? Did you notice what Donald Trump was saying about China when he was pretending to consider running for president? I don't think Republican primary voters are happy about the relationship between the U.S. and China or China's holding of U.S. debt (often portrayed in the media as "China owns us!"). It would be unfair to blame all that on Huntsman and I'm not saying he's responsible, but I think it's something that would hurt him in the primaries. I think it's plausible that he is setting himself up for 2016, like Balance says.

[Chronos]

Yeah, he's much more plausible for 2016. Even aside from the current Republican knee-jerk aversion to Obama, ultimately in a race you need to run against your opponent. There's no plausible way for Huntsman to run against Obama when he was was a part of his administration. In 2016, though, he'll be able to claim credit for anything that's perceived as good about Obama, while at the same time distinguishing himself from whomever the Democrats run.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Leaper

This one.

Of course, one could argue that it's an outlier (IIRC, it's the only poll that has such a state at this point) and that such polls are meaningless so far out from the election.

OTOH, one could also claim that it's an interesting factor in the Republican nomination process, and that, if you're not expecting the economy to get any better in a year and change, that it's a pretty clear sign of bad times to come for the incumbent.

What say you?

I would say polls are pretty meaningless this far out..

Let's not forget, 2007 polls had the race down to a Guliani v. Hillary race. Obama was obscure and McCain was declared dead just like people are declaring Newt dead today. (Although I think Newt really is dead!)

Lots of twists and turns can happen, candidates can fall flat on their faces, etc.

Let's review why we didn't get that 2008 matchup.

Rudy Guiliani decided to diss the early primary states and concentrate on later primaries. He had a legit point. Why do New Hampshire and Iowa get to select the final few choices? But that's the system, and by the time it was over, The "Hero of 9/11" was running behind Ron Paul. Romney spent a lot of money in Iowa, but the Crazy Baptists wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Huckabee terrified the crap out of business types who really run the GOP. Fred Thompson proved he sounds like an idiot when Dick Wolf isn't writing dialog for him. So all they were left with was McCain, who was somewhat credible.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side. I'm going to say this, the country would have been better off if Hillary had become president instead of Obama. But Hillary had made the mistake of voting for the Iraq war, and the party's fringe never forgave her for it. Hillary also made a bunch of tactical mistakes, the biggest of which was having no strategy or organization past Super Tuesday. As of Super-Tuesday, she had more committed delegates than Obama. But then those later, southern primaries came along, with lots of African Americans and young people voting, and that gave Obama the edge.

World's longest aside over, what does this say about this outlying poll? It says that people are willing to give someone a chance.

The interesting thing is that in this poll, they are willing to consider an alternative. People are very nervous about this economy. While he beats Pawlenty, Palin and Huntsman, he barely breaches 50%.

[Martin Hyde]

I remember Democrats started saying Bush was done more than two years out, on this forum it was accepted fact that Bush was a one term President. I've always said very little in the polling matters until September or October of the general election. Especially if it's a moderately close race. McCain was always behind in the polls, but not behind by massive amounts, a moderate wind change in a different direction and he could have won. Likewise, Kerry was close enough with Bush (and of course Democrats were heavily pushing any poll showing a Kerry victory) that it would have taken a small shift in public opinion and Kerry would have been President. Since elections are really decided by that small portion of voters who are truly willing to change their mind, in a few key states, it's folly to think polling this far out means anything.

I will say the same thing about Obama that I said about Bush in 2004. For Obama to lose a candidate has to be selected that can beat Obama. I do not think Kerry was ever that candidate versus Bush. I don't really think any of the current GOP front runners stand a chance against Obama 1-v-1. It's really irrelevant how much approval/disapproval Obama has in his job performance, what actually matters is how he stacks up against the other option. That's why Kerry lost to Bush, not because people thought Bush was doing a great job (his ratings were 48% approve/47% disapprove in the last approval ratings prior to the 2004 election) but because they didn't think Kerry would do a better job.

The Presidency cannot be vacant, in a business if someone is doing a god awful job you can fire them and open up recruitment. With the Presidency you have to decide "is this guy so bad I want him out, and is the other guy going to do better?" Incumbency is a strong force because unless a candidate is above and beyond, super compelling, most people know what they are getting with the sitting President and are hesitant to change. Aside from Carter most incumbents that lost in the 20th century lost because "something out of the ordinary" happened. (Major third party candidate, pardoning Nixon, being blamed for the Great Depression, a former President running and splitting your side...)

[Recovering Republican]

Martin- Actually, Carter had a major third party candidate as well, his name was John Anderson, and he got about10% of the vote that probably would have went to Carter normally.

In the five cases where incumbants lost, four of them had major inter-partry challenges, three of them had third party challenges.

The one where a guy had support of his party but lost anyway was Herbert Hoover, and what did him in was the economy.

The problem is, businesses have no reason to really hire right now. sales are flat and they've found ways to operate with the people they have. If you need to invest in more production, you go overseas. (Thanks, idiot trade treaties.)

The downside is long term, that isn't recovery.

From Wall Street's perspective, they've already had a recovery. They've gotten back most of what they lost in the crash, they are paying their guys huge bonuses again. On main street, not so much. The ironic thing is, there is an increasing disconnect between the GOP and Wall Street of late. Wall Street has decided they can live with Obama, but the GOP wants him gone.

[Chronos]

In the five cases where incumbants lost, four of them had major inter-partry challenges, three of them had third party challenges.

Nitpick: Every President and presidential candidate since Washington has had a major inter-party challenge. You meant to say intra-party.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Nitpick: Every President and presidential candidate since Washington has had a major inter-party challenge. You meant to say intra-party.

I would argue Reagan didn't in '84.

Monroe also genuinely didn't in 1820--the Monroe Presidency commonly being called the "era of good feelings." Much of the country was united under a very big-tent Democratic-Republican party which fractured irreparably after the end of Monroe's Presidency.

[Chronos]

Ah, right, I forgot about Monroe. Reagan '84, though, I guess it depends on your definition of "major". I expect that up until Election Day, Reagan and his campaign staff did treat the challenge as serious.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Martin- Actually, Carter had a major third party candidate as well, his name was John Anderson, and he got about10% of the vote that probably would have went to Carter normally.

Anderson was a Republican, and actually was in the Republican primaries with Reagan and GHW Bush before going the Independant route. His votes came mostly from Republicans.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Anderson was a Republican, and actually was in the Republican primaries with Reagan and GHW Bush before going the Independant route. His votes came mostly from Republicans.

Anderson was a Republican, but he chipped away at the liberal base Carter counted on. That was before liberal Republicans became an extinct species along with conservative democrats.

WIthout anderson in the race, Carter could have made more of a race out of it... He'd have still lost, though.