President Obama 332
Romney 206

Not a chance

It's Obama's best-possible-outcome, but it is possible. Basically assuming Romney wins all the McCain states plus Indiana and North Carolina, while Obama holds Florida and all the others that he got last time.

If that (Obama 332, Romney 206) did happen, then Obama would be the first president since Woodrow Wilson to win a second term with a smaller margin than he got winning the first term. I haven't really studied the elections of the 1800s (when, often times, incumbent presidents were pushed aside by their own party), but offhand I think Wilson is the only one to have done that so far.

(05-18-2012 09:23 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  President Obama 332
Romney 206

that's laughable what have you been smoking?

This is close to what'd I'd expect. Romney picks up NC and IN ... maybe CO. But Romney is getting pasted in many traditional swing states .... NH, IA, VA, PA. And this is what I believe to be Romney's best polling. Obama is deeply unpopular, and people don't have specifics on why Romney sucks yet. I think the more people find out ... especially about Bain ... the more he will bleed. That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson, a deeply unexcited GOP side, the Ron Paul R[evol]ution staying home or going Gary Johnson .... that equals a much bigger defeat for Mittens.

Polls mean nothing right now for measuring head to head. And on what polls is UM basing this? Are they registered voters or likely voters?

What matters right now is Obama's favorability rating in swing states. And he's well below 50 in more than a few of them.

One thing to remember, polls had Carter whipping Reagan after he'd secured the nomination. How'd that work out?

If you look at the Real Clear Politics site it has 161 firm for Obama, 131 firm for Romney. 82 leaning Obama but Romney could take a number of those. They have 39 leaning Romney but there's no chance in hell Obama takes Georgia (16), Indiana (11), Montana (3) or South Carolina (9) so those are really firmly Romney.

The toss ups are:
Arizona (11)
Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
Missouri (10)
New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Virginia (13)
Wisconsin (10)

I'd argue NC is not a toss up. Obama will not win NC again barring some miraculous turn in the economy. I don't believe he wins Virginia or Florida either.

Everything is fluid and can turn on a dime obviously. And with the media wholly in the tank for Obama and committed to his being reelected it's an uphill climb for Romney no doubt. But if the economy doesn't get better, or gets worse, between now and election day, Obama will have an extremely tough time winning.

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

The last six LP presidential nominees and their national vote-%:

1988 Ron Paul - 0.47%
1992 Andre Marrou - 0.28%
1996 Harry Browne - 0.50%
2000 Harry Browne - 0.36%
2004 Michael Badnarik - 0.32%
2008 Bob Barr - 0.40%

So the highest % was 0.50 and the lowest was 0.28. That seems like a fairly narrow range of outcomes. Against that background, I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

I voted for Marrou and for Browne both times, so I would be happy to see Johnson run a successful campaign and even (ideally) win a few states like New Mexico or Nevada, where Johnson's brand of western libertarianism would probably find the electorate most friendly. But right now, I just don't see any realistic path for that to happen.

(05-19-2012 07:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

The last six LP presidential nominees and their national vote-%:

1988 Ron Paul - 0.47%
1992 Andre Marrou - 0.28%
1996 Harry Browne - 0.50%
2000 Harry Browne - 0.36%
2004 Michael Badnarik - 0.32%
2008 Bob Barr - 0.40%

So the highest % was 0.50 and the lowest was 0.28. That seems like a fairly narrow range of outcomes. Against that background, I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

I voted for Marrou and for Browne both times, so I would be happy to see Johnson run a successful campaign and even (ideally) win a few states like New Mexico or Nevada, where Johnson's brand of western libertarianism would probably find the electorate most friendly. But right now, I just don't see any realistic path for that to happen.

There is only one Libertarian today that could accomplish much and he will be at the GOP convention.

(05-19-2012 07:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 07:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

The last six LP presidential nominees and their national vote-%:

1988 Ron Paul - 0.47%
1992 Andre Marrou - 0.28%
1996 Harry Browne - 0.50%
2000 Harry Browne - 0.36%
2004 Michael Badnarik - 0.32%
2008 Bob Barr - 0.40%

So the highest % was 0.50 and the lowest was 0.28. That seems like a fairly narrow range of outcomes. Against that background, I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

I voted for Marrou and for Browne both times, so I would be happy to see Johnson run a successful campaign and even (ideally) win a few states like New Mexico or Nevada, where Johnson's brand of western libertarianism would probably find the electorate most friendly. But right now, I just don't see any realistic path for that to happen.

There is only one Libertarian today that could accomplish much and he will be at the GOP convention.

Agree. It's an absolutely pipe dream to think Johnson will pull 1% overall, much less 5%. 20% is just plain lunacy.

Polling is largely meaningless right now. After the conventions is when it matters. That's when people really start paying attention.

If Johnson campaigned solely in the 3 main western battleground states (NM, NV, CO), and if he had money for really contesting those states with TV/radio/etc, and if he campaigned well and presented his ideas as effectively as possible, then I could see him possibly touching Ross Perot-'92 type of #s in those 3 states.

(05-19-2012 07:35 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  It's an absolutely pipe dream to think Johnson will pull 1% overall

If Johnson and the LP run a smart campaign, 1.0% nationwide is doable. I admit the odds are against it, but it's not that far out of reach.

Quote:Polling is largely meaningless right now. After the conventions is when it matters. That's when people really start paying attention.

Agreed. Those of us who are into this political stuff every day, I think we tend to forget that most people (80-90%) simply Do Not Care and pay close to Zero attention except for a few weeks in September-October-November, every other year.

The Reagan-Carter campaign is a good example, as mentioned earlier. Also in the Carter/Ford campaign of 1976, Carter led nationwide in one poll by 62-29 in July. That was an outlier, but all the polls had Carter up by ~15-20 in that time. Result in November was 50-48.

In 1996, even in October with just a week or so til the election, a lot of polls had Clinton up by 12-13-14 over Dole. There was one polling co. that pegged it at 8-8.5% and they were accused of being pro-GOP. The final margin was exactly 8.5% and that company became semi-famous in the political industry. Can't remember now if it was Rasmussen or Zogby, but I'm pretty sure it was one of those two.

This map is going to change significantly over the next month or so. NC was a tossup, just one month ago. Now that the NOT Obama crowd has only one choice they are solidly for Romney and the latest NC poll of Likely Voters shows Romney +8. I suspect VA and OH will probably continue this trend, possibly even FL.

Not seeing much excitement for Romney. Plus his message if the "economy got worse under Obama" is very hard to sell in VA, OH, WI,IA when in those states the economy is much better than it was in 2009 and the unemployment rate is lower.

(05-19-2012 08:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Not seeing much excitement for Romney. Plus his message if the "economy got worse under Obama" is very hard to sell in VA, OH, WI,IA when in those states the economy is much better than it was in 2009 and the unemployment rate is lower.

It's' not about excitement for Romney, it's about dissatisfaction with Obama. I'm not excited about Romney at all but I'm thrilled with the prospect of voting Obama out. That will drive many in the GOP to the polls.

Also don't underestimate the fact that Romney isn't wholly unacceptable to blue dog type democrats. Not like a Newt or Santorum would have been.

Hopefully America has learned from the 2008 election that hype and "excitement" aren't sound criteria for choosing a president. Making you feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't cut it when choosing the leader of this country.

RCP is showing Obama 46%, Romney 44%. But that leaves 10% undecided, and what I've seen indicates that historical trend is that undecideds break 80-20 against the incumbent. If that's the case, this would suggest a Romney win. And considering that the lukewarm support for Romney very likely suggests that, perhaps even more than normally, the 10% is very likely Santorum, Gingrich, et al, supporters who haven't warmed to Romney yet, that trend could very well repeat. Obviously the state by state breakdown means more, and there are only a few states that really will decide this. But if Obama is x% less popular now than four years ago, then it stands to reason that any state that Obama won by less than x% last time would be in play this time.

I'm not so sure I want Romney to win. It would be hard for Romney to win without R's also taking the senate, That gets us back to one-party rule, and I'm beginning to think that doesn't work well in our system. If R's take the senate, that pretty much limits the damage Obama can do with Supreme Court appointees, and he'd have a hard time doing as much by executive order, since he wouldn't have one captive chamber to stifle congressional action to thwart.

I still think we are very much living on borrowed time economically, and I don't see any effort to address the real issues. I've been predicting a fall for a long time and we've dodged it so far (or maybe we haven't, maybe what we're seeing right now is a slow death), but I'm not sure how much longer we can kick the can down the road. Unless we start to address the issues seriously, and nobody seems willing, I see things getting really bad at some point. If it happens in the next 4 years, then I can't think of anyone I'd rather see on watch to take the blame than Obama.

(05-19-2012 08:49 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 08:44 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Not seeing much excitement for Romney. Plus his message if the "economy got worse under Obama" is very hard to sell in VA, OH, WI,IA when in those states the economy is much better than it was in 2009 and the unemployment rate is lower.

It's' not about excitement for Romney, it's about dissatisfaction with Obama. I'm not excited about Romney at all but I'm thrilled with the prospect of voting Obama out. That will drive many in the GOP to the polls.

Also don't underestimate the fact that Romney isn't wholly unacceptable to blue dog type democrats. Not like a Newt or Santorum would have been.

Hopefully America has learned from the 2008 election that hype and "excitement" aren't sound criteria for choosing a president. Making you feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't cut it when choosing the leader of this country.

Still. How do you address the fact that "millions are dissatisfied" but their local economies are actually stronger than they were in 2009? Especially VA, IA, OH, and WI. The economy is booming and the unemployment rate is low. It's really in FL, CA, NV, and GA where the economy is lagging.

(05-19-2012 08:59 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Still. How do you address the fact that "millions are dissatisfied" but their local economies are actually stronger than they were in 2009? Especially VA, IA, OH, and WI. The economy is booming and the unemployment rate is low. It's really in FL, CA, NV, and GA where the economy is lagging.

I'd point out that every one of those is controlled by Republicans. But it could see some stay with Obama. Or it could see them decide on the basis of something else besides the economy.

CA will go Obama no matter what. The guy could be indicted for human trafficking and they'd still vote for him. GA will go Romney no matter what. FL and NV are true swing states, though I think FL less and less.

I'm not worried about the GOP turning out. Many may not love Romney, but the dislike for Obama vastly tips the scales from apathy and staying home to wanting him out.

(05-19-2012 09:16 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  CA will go Obama no matter what. The guy could be indicted for human trafficking and they'd still vote for him. GA will go Romney no matter what. FL and NV are true swing states, though I think FL less and less.

I'm not worried about the GOP turning out. Many may not love Romney, but the dislike for Obama vastly tips the scales from apathy and staying home to wanting him out.

All true.

(05-19-2012 08:59 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Still. How do you address the fact that "millions are dissatisfied" but their local economies are actually stronger than they were in 2009? Especially VA, IA, OH, and WI. The economy is booming and the unemployment rate is low. It's really in FL, CA, NV, and GA where the economy is lagging.

Given the sorry state of things in 2009, I'm not convinced that "better than 2009" is much of a standard for voter approval. I think Obama won in 2008 by promising to make things not just better, but a LOT better than they were then, and so far has not delivered. Nor do I think he ever will.

So I think voters will be asking not only "am I better off than I was in 2008?" but also "is this as good as it gets?" and that latter question creates opportunity for whoever is the challenger.

But to energize those voters, republicans need to create a vision. So far, they aren't very good with the vision thingy.