Why can’t we make polls in the Elections forum? Anyway…
Since we’re about a year from the start of the Presidential campaign (the RNC will be held on August 27, 2012), I thought this would be a good time to poll the forum about Obama’s chances versus the mythical “field.”
This thought occurred because some guy commented on my Obama bumper sticker at the pump today. He said “I bet that sticker isn’t making you any friends.” After replying that he’s the first to say something, we went our separate ways. But as I’ve driving away I realize that, in my opinion, the election is still Obama’s to lose, regardless of all the “mistakes” he’s made. This is doubly true in light of the pack of psychos that the GOP is putting forward.
Am I just a biased Obamaniac, or is Obama still in the catbird’s seat with a year to go before the real campaigning begins?
At this moment, Obama would still sweep the floor with any Republican candidate out there. At this moment. He leads in almost every matchup with a named Republican opponent in key states like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia. If the election were held today, the electoral vote count would probably be very close to what it was in 2008.
Now, there’s still a good chance that the situation will change a few times before the election, but yeah, Obama has a very good chance at reelection.
There are clear signs we may be entering another recession, possibly worse than the last. As even a normal recession takes a year to work through, and recovery isn’t called until after the fact – if this is indeed the case, then game over, man. Game over.
Theoretically it should be easy for Obama to win. He has the power to say “as President, I will give you…” versus the Republicans who seem to like saying “As President, I will take away from you…” It should be easy for Obama to say that if you want to keep your rights, your entitlements and your tax dollars, vote Democrat.
Unfortunately, Obama plays honest and his opponents play dirty. So I think there is a good chance he could lose control of the message. Think back to “death panels” for example. That was complete bullshit yet people thought it was real. The Republicans managed to convince the general public that the government was going to create death panels. Obama should have pointed out the obvious- they already exist and they are called insurance companies. They literally have the power to look at a balance sheet, decide your medical care is not in line with their profit margin and deny you any further benefits, hence leading to your death. Sounds like a death panel to me. But the Republicans were able to blame the government for something the private sector does every day! Obama needed to bitchslap that ignorance hard and he didn’t. He has to have enough backbone to call his opponents liars when they lie. He has to expose bullshit and call it as he sees it. If he doesn’t learn to do this soon he may well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Romney might be the most electable of the field but his nomination would kill the enthusiasm gap currently working in favor of the Republicans. I think Obama wins easily, the Republicans don’t have anyone who is both electable and someone their base can be excited about at the same time.
If Romney gets the nomination, I think the general election process will be a real contest, which I think Obama will win, but by a slim margin. If, however, Romney get knocked out early in the primaries, which is a real possibility with today’s GOP, then the election will be a cakewalk for Obama, regardless of the unemployment numbers.
ETA: The downside of a Romney loss is that the GOP and Tea party will take it as proof that it was because he was not conservative enough and become, collectively, more crazy and conservative as a result, which could be very dangerous for the country. My hope is for one of the extremists to get the nomination. Only a big loss among one of their ranks will cause the GOP to reassess, possibly opening the door for a Huntsman nomination in 2016 which, at this point, I don’t think would be a bad thing.
I’m genuinely curious what prompts you to dismiss this factor. Is there anything more important to voters? What is it, and what makes you think Obama has it?
Missed the edit window the second time. I wanted to amend the following statement in my previous post thusly for clarity: The downside of a Romney loss in the general is that the GOP and Tea party will take it as proof that it was because he was not conservative enough and become, collectively, more crazy and conservative as a result, which could be very dangerous for the country.
Because if Romney is nominated, the Teavangelists will run a third party candidate and split the Republican party once and for all. And if the Republicans nominate Perry or Bachmann, they lose the moderates and independents in the general election. Either way, they lose.
Because they have demonstrated (in the debt ceiling debate) they will not take fuck you for an answer, and even though it is bad for the country and ultimately bad for their cause, they can be counted on to strap on a bomb vest and charge into the crowd shouting bumper stickers.
Because they are far right kooks that do not appeal to moderates and independents. As we learned with Howard Dean in 2004, voters do not like angry candidates for president.
I think unemployment will be a more important factor if Romney gets the nomination than otherwise. The public will look at Romney and Obama with the perspective that they are more similar than different, which will make other factors, such as the unemployment numbers, more critical in determining the more (or less) desired candidate.
However, any of the other heretofore announced GOP candidates, with the exception of Huntsman, will be constantly on the defensive because of their extreme positions and statements; those will become the story, those will be what the general public (not GOP primary voters) become concerned with. It really won’t be difficult at all to cast some of the current crop of GOP candidates as crazed (if not crazy), extreme, and dangerous, and point to their own words and deeds for proof, which will propel Obama to a second term, yes, regardless of what the unemployment numbers are.
The mistake I think some in the GOP make is considering the current political environment the same as the past. Whether we want to admit it or not, there has been a paradigm shift in politics. I contend that high unemployment numbers in a vacuum will no longer necessarily doom a president’s prospects for a second term. Yes, they don’t help, but other factors can serve to mitigate their import and impact, and in this election cycle, hoo-boy, there are other factors galore.
There is a movie coming out a month before the November election 2012 about the Navy Seals raid on bin laden. That’s a ton of free publicity for the President and his stance on terror.
Do you really think that moderates and independents won’t see either one of those candidates as an alter-ego of Palin? As in, outright political partisans with pretty far right-wing views?
I’m fully willing to give a hat-tip to Republicans who, although I may disagree with them, make good candidates. I just see a hard time having Republicans coalesce around a candidate with appeal to independents right now. The Tea Party has fractured the Republican party worse than the Democrats ever have been divided in modern history, and that’s saying something.
Arguably, the “Teavangelists” are no more and no less than the Republican party’s traditional white conservative base. Regardless, if they really do have that much sway, then Romney won’t get the nomination in the first place. And you seriously misunderestimate how dedicated the angriest folks will be to getting Obama out of office, whoever the ultimate GOP nominee might be.
They don’t appeal to you, clearly, but I’m not sure you speak for moderates and independents. And Howard Dean let out his primeval scream at a time of (apparent) prosperity when most people were still feeling upbeat about the country. These days people are genuinely scared over the economy and the prospect of prolonged stagnation if not decline, and a candidate who projects him or herself as rationally, righteously angry over the state of things might suit the electorate’s mood to a T. Again, in the face of one out of every six Americans either unemployed or underemployed, with no end in sight, it’s hard for me to imagine any other concern taking precedence.
That is so far off base it doesn’t even merit a response. The Tea Party makes Ronald Reagan look like Eugene V. Debs. The Tea Party is to crazy what Stonehenge is to rocks.
And that is exactly why they are not going to just melt away if a mainstream Republican like Romney or Huntsman is nominated. It is you that misunderestimate the Tea Party if you think they won’t run a third party candidate.
I believe I do, but that is not important. If the Tea Party can’t even abide Romney, how in the world will their agenda attract moderates and independents? ?They are not the traditional Republican base; they are the far, extreme right wing of a nutter party to begin with.