Not unless it results in an EU meltdown and a reduction in trade. And it might help - the austerity budget is more like the Republicans propose. If it leads to a Greek depression Obama can point to how the US, with our horrid debt and stimulus, is actually doing a lot better.
Syria is horrible, but no one really cares. Now if Iran acts up, and blocks the straits of Hormuz, Obama wins. We’ve got an enemy to blame for the problem, and we’ll be busy blowing the hell out of their ships and their military, so we’ve a just war the right can’t object to. And everyone one will remember who got Osama.
Assuming FEMA doesn’t screw up, a disaster won’t hurt. Unemployment spiking for some reason will.
My prediction: Romney will win the nomination, on the first ballot, because a contested nomination will look really, really disorganized. Remember that there are plenty of at-large delegates who are party hacks ^h^h^h stalwarts, all of whom will be behind Romney. No third party drive for Santorum or Gingrich. Paul, maybe, but unlikely. Unless they insult him at the convention.
However, since no one will like Romney even after he is nominated, the money men will try to put their money into Senate and Congressional races to try to keep the House and win the Senate, which may look more feasible.
And Romney is in deep shit. He has moved ever further to the right during the nomination fight. If he stays there, he is going to lose independents. If he moves to the center, his reputation for expediency will just be reinforced and their will be ad upon ad showing him contradicting himself. The right will hate him and the moderates still won’t trust him.
I don’t know what he’ll do. Hope the Daily Show doesn’t run a montage of his statements, I guess.
Thing about Greece: the Pubbies will declare victory no matter what, and most of us folks don’t understand it anyway, so its kind of a wash. Thing about Keynes type stimulus for me is that I don’t see how it can work unless there is an underlying economy to stimulate. Which we have in spades but they don’t. “Austerity” won’t work any better than poverty.
As our economy improves, so will others, the people who sell us stuff. So, for us, its WIN win, help others by helping ourselves. But we don’t buy that many olives.
How many Republicans want the USA’s embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem (which most of the world treats as an “independent city”)? This may keep Iran and Syria from rocking the boat before the election. If you thought Greece complaining about “Macedonia” was bad…
I would say a landslide is over 300 EVs and 53% of the vote. I think it is probably at about 55% that this happens and about 65% that he wins regardless of margin.
I dunno. There are quite a few states that are actually quite purple. It is increasingly looking like the GOP candidate is going to be very weak (maybe not quite as weak as Mondale was against Reagan but close) and quite possibly dealing with a very divided party. Voter enthusiasm on that side may be very very low and the middle may be very disgusted with all of them by then. Texas is red by virtue of a Tea Party/fundamentalist vote; that may not come out for a beaten down Romney, while his recent immigration positions may drive just enough Hispanic votes to tip even a Texas. And Texas is not required to get to 400. Just having few enough on the GOP come out, and enough in the middle press D, that some of those purple states flip blue for one day.
Probable? Nah. But “impossible”? Very far from that. It is a long way to election day.
If, come November, there’s even the slightest chance that Texas might go blue, that’s a sign that Obama has enough votes nationwide to easily guarantee the victory.
Yes. It would happen as part of a landslide, with 400 or more electoral votes.
McCain won Texas 56 to 44% while losing nationally 53 to 46%. At this point winning Texas would mean both a significant plurality overall and circumstances that drive certain demographics to come out and others to not bother. That last bit is where Romney may be the hope for Texas to turn Blue. Hispanic voters, if they came out against a GOP candidate, would have a huge impact; rural and/or Fundamentalist Conservatives staying home would have a big impact.
Improbable maybe, but not so easily dismissed as “impossible.”
I’m not sure why you’re putting Montana (where McCain had less than 50% in 2008) in the same category as Wyoming and Idaho (in both of which McCain had over 60%).
? Unemployment went down, in the latest monthly report, for the fifth month in a row. If the election was now, Obama would surely win because of the economic news being so good.
Perhaps you are thinking that the depression is bad news for the president. I don’t think so. He will no more be punished for it than FDR was, who handily won re-election in a far worse depression because the economy was, as today, going in the right direction.
The real question is whether the run of good news continues.
You do know they have a Tory government up there, and immigration quotas are down except for temporary workers, right? So, unless independently wealthy, you probably would be a second class citizen in a Tory-run state.
Mexico’s next government is excepted to be center-left. You might want to look into their immigration laws.
Reflecting on what I wrote about moving to Canada in #72, I was at least a little snarky. More directly, here is the point:
In a democracy, rotation in office is normal. While you have a right to fight for your political ideology, you can’t expect that every victory in a more liberal direction can never be reversed, just as the right can’t expect any Santorum administration victories regarding abortion or same-sex-marriage to be permanent. Now, if a GOP victory was going to bring back slavery, that would be different. Before your kids get sold downriver, you should most certainly flee to Canada. But what Santorum is proposing is far from that – it is more like bringing back the 1960’s in terms of birth control and, in terms of race, not even that far back. If that’s all it take to get you to run, I don’t think Canada would be wise to accept you. Your nation, whatever it is, deserves greater loyalty in hard times. And I also object to the tone of entitlement, as it you are entitled to go to Canada whenever it meets your needs. What about their needs?
I put Montana, Wyoming and Idaho in the same category even though they have proximity to Oregon and Washington State. I put Ohio and Indiana in the same category even though they have proximity to Wisconsin and Illinois. So Ohio isn’t the same as Illinois (Obama’s home state) just as Wyoming isn’t the same as Washington State. However, if Texas goes blue then all bets are off.
My electorial analysis is that there are two geographical locations, one (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) and two (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio), that will be in play in 2012. Obviously, Washington, Wisconsin and Illinois won’t be in as play much. Of course, Obama would be a fool not to campaign in those states.
Besides Ohio and Indiana, Obama should concentrate on Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
BS, say what you will about the man but Hitler’s campaign machine was probably the best ever seen. Sure, he lost in the Presidential election to Hindenburg, but in post-WWI Germany that was akin to running against George Washington in a Presidential election. What’s important is he took a party with literally no support in the Reichstag, in which there were already several sane and reasonable conservative alternatives, not to mention a strong populist push from the left, and in a few short years go enough seats in the chamber to force the President to appoint him Chancellor.
Obama wasn’t bad but the sheer level of mass campaigning, propaganda spreading and etc the NSDP engaged in is really unlike anything ever seen in America.
Additionally the Nazi party had a campaign organization with a literal army (the paramilitary SA prior to the Nazis being in power.) I mean, that’s like the grassroots activists that supported Obama in 2008 but 2000x more effective per person.
A lot can change until the election. A national Rovian push-poll asking if voters know that Obama has two black kids and lives in public housing, for example.
But it’s sure not looking like Romney (R - Uncanny Valley) is making anybody very excited. I think the economy would really have to start spiraling again for Obama to not win.
Short of the GOP nominating a child molester, Obama has no chance in Idaho or Wyoming. Montana, maybe. Oregon and Washington should be easily in the bag for Obama, mainly because of the heavily Democratic western portions of those states where the big cities are. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (which is quite a distance away from OR and WA, by the way, Utah and Nevada are both closer!) are totally different. Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah are just about the three most reliable GOP states you can think of these days.
Right, if Obama wins Montana, it’s probably a good sign for him, but he could still win Montana but lose overall. And Montana actually has a fair chance of being the state that tips him over the top, so it makes sense for him to spend resources here. If he wins Wyoming or Idaho, though, that means he’s cruising his way to that 400+ EV landslide that cckerberos mentioned. Neither of those states has any chance of giving him the win; all they could be would be the victory lap.
I would say that they might be able to rehabilitate their brand by November if they didn’t immediately replace their fucked up position on the payroll tax with their position on contraception. Do they really think that people think of the pill the way they did back in the 1970’s? Its not just for hookers and anymore.
I voted for HW Bush and I thought he got a raw deal because of Perot but I remember people saying that if the Gulf war had happened in 1992 instead of 1991, Bush could have won. Military conflict rarely hurts a sitting president.
That strikes a chord with me. He’s like a male version of a stepford wife.
You do realize that both the senators from Montana are Democrats. Obama lost Montana by 2%. I agree with the rest.
