Not accustomed to reading economic prognosticators much, eh? 
Anyway, the downward revision of first quarter GDP, the Philadelphia Fed economic index and New York’s Empire Index all clearly indicate that something has gone wrong, and point to the Sept 1st ISM report as contractionary. If that’s indeed the case, then we will know the shit’s hitting the fan.
Because Obama’s favorables (even as he’s slid below 1:1 fav/unfav) are still significantly higher than that of the Congressional GOP. You keep assuming that all blame for the economy will be dumped on Obama’s head, when the real perceptions in the minds of the voters is far more complex.
I think that, in general, the election is the incumbent’s to lose. I think that people generally vote on how good or how bad they think the incumbent is doing, rather than who the other guy is.
I’d guess that when Romney (or possibly Perry) gets the nom, the Republicans will need another issue like gay marriage to keep the tea partiers from just staying home. Can a Republican candidate win by promising to cut taxes and/or expel all illegal immigrants or something? Aside from the various semi-cults of personality surrounding Bachmann and Paul and such, what unifies the Republican base?
For that matter, could promising to oppose gay marriage work again?
You’re kidding, right? In opposing a president with a disapproval rating of over 50% among the general population, all one has to do is promise to replace Obama.
But isn’t it the case that the most fervent replace-Obama voters tend to cluster around their favoured candidates? Will disappointed Bachmann supporters grudgingly vote for Romney, or will they stay home?
I really don’t know - I get the impression that when it’s a fight among extremists, they start accusing each other of unorthodoxy and their followers buy into it, to the point where Romney looks like even more a traitor to the cause than Obama.
So, no, I’m not kidding. I’m speculating.
Democratic voters don’t like angry candidates for president.
I don’t think it can. In the 8 years since they last tried it, a lot of gay folks turned 18 (and they all have families) and the old folks that would have supported candidates who promise it have started to die off.
If anything, starting that fight again would just energize the other side and the Republicans know it.
Are you serious? He’s got the worst approval rating of every. other. president.
The ONLY way he could win is if the dumb fucking Repugs put McCain / Palin (I’d hit it) back on the ticket, and even then it would be very, VERY close.
If jobs and the economy don’t get better Obama is toast. (Heh, yeah, like the economy is going to get better at the rate he’s spending money and printing Prosperity 
)
Oh, and the Tea Partiers are not going to be staying home. They’re pissed and it’s going to be out in force. They’re already gaining huge numbers of voters who are sick and fucking tired of POTUS running the country into the ground deeper and faster than Bush ever thought of.
How can they be “sick and…tired…”, if the Tea Partiers have successfully prevented almost everything the President has tried to do?
But you have a point. They will be out in force.
I think the Tea Party didn’t really start making progress until after Obama did all the major damage. And don’t forget the lies about transparency, lobbyists, bipartisanship, blah blah ef’n blah. He pissed of a lot of Repugs AND Dumbs that way.
Yeah, I think he’s toast.
Are you daft? Obama doesn’t even have the worst approval rating of Presidents elected in this century. Not only that, but Obama’s lowest point is still higher than 9 of the last 13 Presidents (which is as long as they’ve been keeping records).
As far as the public is concerned, Obama is one of the most well-liked Presidents of the last 100 years (notice, I didn’t say “this century”).
To the (rather small, IMHO) extent that the Tea Party is a reaction to Bush and Obama, you have a point there…Obama, in the first few months of his presidency, was pretty much continuing Bush policies (especially Bush’s last-minute efforts to slow the free fall of the economy), and by the time Obama was really trying to push his “own” stuff, the Republicans (increasingly urged on by the Tea Partiers) were blocking 95% of his efforts, rather than just 80% of them, as before.
But either way, one cannot blame Obama much, unless you want to blame him for any strategic or tactical mistakes and negotiating weaknesses that resulted in the Tea Partiers getting too much of what they wanted.
What *specifically *did he do before the Tea Party started getting active and successful?
*Shhh! *
We wanted the Obama landslide to be a surprise.
You have to remember that older people tend to be more likely to vote. And everybody knows that the Republicans want to take away people’s Social Security. (Don’t bother to deny it, no one believes you.) All the Dems have to do is persistently point this out and they get a win, in Congress and in the White House.
It will be, if it happens. Obama trails Romney and ties with Perry in the latest Gallup polls. It’s early days, and as Captain Amazing says, the election is usually the incumbents to lose, but still.
Obama hasn’t started campaigning yet, and Romney hasn’t started anything national yet. It would appear to be best for Perry - he just declared, and is already tied? Wow. Look for MSM coverage of Perry and Romney, but especially Perry, to increase and become more negative.
Regards,
Shodan
Shades of Fred Thompson. Wow?
The Tea Party made its progress the minute a Not White man was elected President. I was a spectator at a Houston Tea Party Rally–blinding in its whiteness in the middle of this diverse city. I asked some of the attendees why they didn’t say a word when Bush was wrecking the economy–with his taxcuts for pals & expensive wars.
Gosh, they just didn’t notice. Until Obama…