Another problem with the no re-elected with >7.4% unemployment is that this time it is different in that a significant number of people blame that number on the party NOT in power. Between Bush being president when the crash started and Wall Street/banking being blamed this reflects more on the Republicans. Combine this with the perception that the Republicans have been sandbagging the economy and masturbating over every bit of bad news…the high unemployment is just not going to stick on Obama as much as you might think.
Of course not. That simply proves my point, though; even if he’d created a million teaching jobs you’d give somebody else the credit. Strangely, you won’t also give them the blame.
I think this is key. It is probably less important where exactly the economy is at than it is how it has changed over the course of the presidents tenure. or to put it another way are you better than you were four years ago. In Obama’s case the the unemployment rate is just about where it was when he took office. If we give him a 6 month grace period at the start of his term to reflect the time to actually have any policy take effect, then unemployment is actually down about a point. Not great, but better than the alternative.
You don’t even read my posts. I’ve said that Obama money went to saving some jobs. Oh I and I did blame the superintendent in S. Colorado Springs for not using the money to save jobs.
What I also said and you continually ignore is that Obama promised hundreds of thousands of jobs in education that never materialized. There was one president, Clinton I think, that gave money to the states specifically for increasing teaching jobs. The states were required to demonstrate the that money went to hire more teachers in the classroom.
Voice of America radio was saying this morning that Obama and Romney are in a virtual tie right now. I honestly cannot understand this, and it worries me a lot. Looking from afar like I am, I can’t see how such a doofus as Romney can come this close to the president in the polls.
The majority of the voters who will decide this election aren’t even paying attention right now; that’s why the Obama camp is rushing to define Romney early as the entitled rich outsourcer that he likely actually is in real life, so that once the rest of the electorate starts tuning in they will already have a negative perception of the GOP’s candidate. If Romney continues to refuse to release his taxes, that might further that negative perception. Honestly, it’s a tie now because of an overall indifference towards Romney amongst the persuadables that’s being coupled with an unrelenting contempt of Obama on the right.
My guess is that it’ll be virtually gridlocked until, at the earliest, the debates. Obama has his Democratic base locked in already, and Romney has most of the GOP base on his side; he may very well not get everybody on the right to vote for him, but it isn’t like they’ll vote for Obama instead. They’ll just stay home and not vote for anybody.
The debates aren’t that significant, in my opinion. I think most people that watch have already picked their man and are just tuning in to cheer. Most of the low-information voters who aren’t going to make up their mind until they enter the voting booth aren’t going to watch the debate. Barring a huge gaffe, not a lot of votes will turn on the debates. Both sides will claim victory, cheerleaders for both sides will take the other guy out of context, and in the end not much will get decided.
So, in your mind, what could conceivably happen to definitively sway the polls to favor a specific candidate?
I hate to say it, but negative advertising. You’ve got Obama the socialist Muslim gun grabbing “God damn America” radical vs. Romney the vulture capitalist pension-sucking tax dodging Mormon. Whichever negative image turns off the most people is going to determine the winner.
I find it helpful and comforting to look at sites that analytically consider the electoral votes rather than some nationwide poll. I like to look at several but there’s none with more detail than http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
When you look at the number of states Romney would need to turn (that he’s currently doing poorly in) in order to win, it makes you realize it’s not particularly close at all.
Nate Silver predicts that by Nov 6 Obama will have a 68% chance of winning and based only on information we have today, an 83% chance. That seems about right to me.
@ BobLibDem I’ve got to ask you about this, then:
One of the things that I’m honestly surprised the Obama camp hasn’t touched on yet - and if they never address it they’ll be shooting themselves in the foot - is Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping on virtually every issue he has ever addressed. The old saying that “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” really, definitively rings true for Romney because, as far as I can tell, he stands for absolutely nothing. I can definitely see the appeal behind painting Romney as a selfish corporate elitist; at the very least, it plants the seed in people’s minds that Mittens is a less-than-standup guy. IMO, coupling that light of attack with the picture of Romney as a conviction-less politician would resonate far more with voters than what the current results have been yielding.
Do you think that the Obama camp is going to go after the Romney flip-flops? Should they?
Yes, I do and yes, they should. It’s still early. I think the approach thus far has been correct- attack Romney’s “strength” first and foremost. His rationale for running has been his alleged business expertise. Turn that into heartless pension-plundering tax-dodging outsourcing and you’ve defined him before he defines himself. Post-convention, I’d run a bunch of clips of Romney being pro-choice, pro-planned parenthood, and gay-friendly. Remember he tried to run to Ted Kennedy’s left on gay rights. Then I’d see if Tom Hanks would do a voiceover, saying “Voting for Romney is like a box of chocolates- you never know what you’re going to get.”
I take some comfort in this. Romney would have to flip the coin and win Florida, and then take Ohio and Virginia, currently trending Obama, to have a shot. Even then, Obama would eek it out with the states he is currently trending in, and Romney would have to grab someone like Nevada to put him over the edge. But, still these states don’t exist in a vacuum. If, for some reason, Ohio turns toward Romney, it is likely that Virginia would trend in that direction as well.
That’s what has me nervous. Most of the time, the electoral vote follows the popular vote. With the popular vote looking so close, most anything can happen.
Sounds like a good idea, assuming it won’t convince left-leaning independents who are on the fence about Obama, and at least like the idea that Romney once supported issues they care about, to vote for him. There’s no need to give such voters the hope that the flip-flopper might just flop back to supporting those issues once he’s elected.
On another note, as it stands right now, if Obama wins Florida, obviously not a foregone conclusion, does anyone else agree that we can just go to bed for the night?
There is always a huge gaffe; and if there isn’t, the media will invent one by taking an insignificant comment and blowing it up into a huge gaffe, and run it over and over in the 24 hour news cycle. That is how the uninvolved voter gets moved by the debates.
As far as unemployment numbers go, of all the states that are polling close,per Nate Silver, the unemployment rate is an average of 1.5% below the national average.
National: 8.2
Florida: 8.4
Colorado: 8.2
Ohio: 7.2
Virginia: 5.7
Iowa: 5.2
NH: 5.1
All of these states have also trended down since June of last year:
Florida: -2.1%
Ohio: -1.7
Iowa: -0.8
Virginia: -0.6
NH: -0.4
Colorado: -0.2
So if you wanna look at electoral college, these states that could be iffy for Obama are all trending his way on unemployment, significantly Ohio.
But as we all know, states don’t usually exist in a bubble, and nationally, they’re trending his way too, asthe unemployment rate is down almost a point from last year.
That being said, I don’t think it’s going to come down to the national unemployment numbers. The state-by-state trends in the battleground states are more important. Unless things start trending the other way in these states, I think the president will be fine at election time, even if you want to give Florida to the challenger.
And *that *being said, I think there are so many other negative things Romney could do (or positive things he could continue failing to do), that this could be a blow out. As long as real-world economic numbers continue to trend toward the positive in the important states, there’s absolutely nothing Romney can do to win. He’s just a bad candidate, and even if he magically turned into a decent candidate overnight, I still don’t think he could beat a great incumbent campaigner who has the economic winds at his back.
I think it is going to be very close in Florida for whoever wins so I would agree if Florida goes to Obama early in the evening it is over.
I would say the same for Ohio and Virginia. If they both go to Obama, even if Florida doesn’t, Romney is going to be done. I think this is the more likely outcome, btw.
Thanks. That’s a good website and does make me feel somewhat better. If Obama lost, I’d leave America.
Oh, wait …
BTW: what would the chances be of Romney squeaking out a win in all three states – Florida, Ohio and Virginia?