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 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.
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.
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.
If Democrats weren’t concerned re: competitive race, they wouldn’t be conducting outreach and trying to raise billions.
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).
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.
The argument was made for McCain and he seemed to do a fine job before that Palin monster came aboard.
Sorry; party operatives will always make like they aren’t nervous, but the Republicans can certainly put forth a viable candidate.
From this morning’s Political Wire:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well, Obama isn’t very left and he 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.
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.
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.
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.