For the first time, I am beginning to believe that Obama has a <50% chance of winning re-election. The chances of the economy showing any significant improvement over the next 15 months seem... remote, and the chances of the economy getting even worse seem quite probable.

It's still early, I know, but it really is looking like the GOP will nominate either Romney or Perry. Either one of them passes the basic "Is he qualified?" threshold question. Unless the GOP goes off on a tangent and nominates Bachmann, Santorum, etc., I think Obama is -- for the moment -- headed for a bad loss on 11/06/12.

(08-06-2011 09:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  For the first time, I am beginning to believe that Obama has a <50% chance of winning re-election. The chances of the economy showing any significant improvement over the next 15 months seem... remote, and the chances of the economy getting even worse seem quite probable.
It's still early, I know, but it really is looking like the GOP will nominate either Romney or Perry. Either one of them passes the basic "Is he qualified?" threshold question. Unless the GOP goes off on a tangent and nominates Bachmann, Santorum, etc., I think Obama is -- for the moment -- headed for a bad loss on 11/06/12.

I think the economy will be worse a year from now. I think that being much worse is a more likely prospect than being any better. I still think there is a real possibility that things will go so badly so quickly that democrats will force Obama to give way to Hillary in order to minimize damage in down-ballot races.

(08-06-2011 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still think there is a real possibility that things will go so badly so quickly that democrats will force Obama to give way to Hillary in order to minimize damage in down-ballot races.

Such a scenario, obviously, requires a kind of "free-fall" disaster in the markets, and perhaps 10% unemployment. If that were to actually happen, Hillary just might decide that she really doesn't WANT the nomination after all.

(08-06-2011 09:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still think there is a real possibility that things will go so badly so quickly that democrats will force Obama to give way to Hillary in order to minimize damage in down-ballot races.

Such a scenario, obviously, requires a kind of "free-fall" disaster in the markets, and perhaps 10% unemployment. If that were to actually happen, Hillary just might decide that she really doesn't WANT the nomination after all.

I think that scenario is in play. I could see the Dow at 4000-6000 and unemployment at 12-15%, easily. I think we are that screwed up.

But I doubt that would convince Hillary that she didn't want it, and I'm quite certain that would not convince Bill that she didn't want it.

I wish we were in the middle of Bill's fifth term right now.

It's one thing for Bill/Hillary to ask themselves, "Do we want to be President (again)?" and say "Sure, why not?"

It's another thing to ask, "Do we want to spend 15 months of our lives Campaigning for the Presidency?", with all that entails. Clinton's post-presidency financial dealings will be held up to the most withering media microscopes. Does he (and she) really want to deal with that? Perhaps so, but then again perhaps not. Especially if it looks like the Democrats are going to take it on the chin in November, which seems to be a built-in assumption for a scenario like this.

Plus, at what point does Obama say, "Sure, I'll be glad to step aside. After all, I've been a disaster as president." Does that happen before the Iowa Caucuses? Before the Florida primary? Once those delegates are locked in, it will be extremely difficult to get them to just "change their mind."

(08-07-2011 09:14 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It's one thing for Bill/Hillary to ask themselves, "Do we want to be President (again)?" and say "Sure, why not?"
It's another thing to ask, "Do we want to spend 15 months of our lives Campaigning for the Presidency?", with all that entails. Clinton's post-presidency financial dealings will be held up to the most withering media microscopes. Does he (and she) really want to deal with that? Perhaps so, but then again perhaps not. Especially if it looks like the Democrats are going to take it on the chin in November, which seems to be a built-in assumption for a scenario like this.
Plus, at what point does Obama say, "Sure, I'll be glad to step aside. After all, I've been a disaster as president." Does that happen before the Iowa Caucuses? Before the Florida primary? Once those delegates are locked in, it will be extremely difficult to get them to just "change their mind."

It's a long shot. But it's still within the realm of possibility. And I would guess that recent events have increased the probability.

I don't really think either Clinton would back off given the opportunity. I think the bigger impediment would be Obama. With the size of his ego, admitting that he has been a total disaster will not come easily.

(08-07-2011 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's a long shot. But it's still within the realm of possibility. And I would guess that recent events have increased the probability.

I don't really think either Clinton would back off given the opportunity. I think the bigger impediment would be Obama. With the size of his ego, admitting that he has been a total disaster will not come easily.

I genuinely think that anyone who runs for president, given the process they have to go through, has to have an ego big enough to qualify as a mental disorder.

(08-09-2011 08:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's a long shot. But it's still within the realm of possibility. And I would guess that recent events have increased the probability.

I don't really think either Clinton would back off given the opportunity. I think the bigger impediment would be Obama. With the size of his ego, admitting that he has been a total disaster will not come easily.

I genuinely think that anyone who runs for president, given the process they have to go through, has to have an ego big enough to qualify as a mental disorder.

Broder's Law

http://lawsoflife.co.uk/broders-law-of-p...-ambition/

(08-09-2011 10:10 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(08-09-2011 08:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's a long shot. But it's still within the realm of possibility. And I would guess that recent events have increased the probability.

I don't really think either Clinton would back off given the opportunity. I think the bigger impediment would be Obama. With the size of his ego, admitting that he has been a total disaster will not come easily.

I genuinely think that anyone who runs for president, given the process they have to go through, has to have an ego big enough to qualify as a mental disorder.

Broder's Law

http://lawsoflife.co.uk/broders-law-of-p...-ambition/

So Broder uses two years. And President Romney will have spent how many years running?

(08-09-2011 12:53 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2011 10:10 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(08-09-2011 08:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 05:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's a long shot. But it's still within the realm of possibility. And I would guess that recent events have increased the probability.

I don't really think either Clinton would back off given the opportunity. I think the bigger impediment would be Obama. With the size of his ego, admitting that he has been a total disaster will not come easily.

I genuinely think that anyone who runs for president, given the process they have to go through, has to have an ego big enough to qualify as a mental disorder.

Broder's Law

http://lawsoflife.co.uk/broders-law-of-p...-ambition/

So Broder uses two years. And President Romney will have spent how many years running?

If he gets the nomination and runs until November 2012? 5 years and almost 9 months. He announced his '08 candidacy February 13, 2007.

What about Ron Paul - when did he start running in 2008? I understand Romney probably has a better chance of winning the nomination and extending the time. How many times did Dennis Kucinich run?

Mitt Romney let it be known at the 2004 Republican National Convention that he intended to run in 2008. He probably knew in his own mind for several months before that. So really, if he is inaugurated President on January 20, 2013, it will be the culmination of nine years of time, effort, and money.

So Perry's officially in. I really think he's much closer to Bachman in electability for the general than he is to Romney. But even if I'm wrong about the degree, I have no doubt Obama's people would much rather run against Perry. And I think much of the Republican establishment feels the same way - I've seen numerous Sunday morning show Republicans say the "nation isn't ready for another governor from Texas" and Rove denounced Perry's "treasonous" comments toward Bush appointee Bernanke.

I really think the Republicans are squandering a chance here with so many far-right candidates. Obama is very vulnerable, probably the most vulnerable sitting president since Carter, but American elections are won in the middle and Republican politics have been so far pushed to the right by the tea party and non-compromising rhetoric that they are losing that middle ground of independent voters.

That said, the Republicans have been an order of magnitude better at playing the political game (framing debates, sound bites, messaging, branding) in my lifetime, and I would expect them to improve their situation over the primary process. But I think they should be worried about someone like Bachmann or Perry winning the primaries, because they are probably unelectable to the middle. Paul is the wild card. I still disagree with him on almost every point of domestic policy, but he's a much more respectable (i.e., consistent) kind of far-right thinker. And I think he has more independent appeal than Bachmann or Perry.

That said, unless Texas some how comes into doubt, I will definitely be voting for a third-party candidate. I think an angle that isn't getting a lot of attention is voter discontent with everyone right now causing a significant increase in third-party voters. Most of my peer group are finding themselves pushed that way these days. But maybe my peer group is representative of a very small minority of voters.

I think Obama is the favorite in the horse race until the Republicans come back to middle--or at least present their branding as being more independent-friendly.

NPR had a discussion on 3rd parties awhile back. The problem is, folks may say "I'll vote 3rd party", but unless there's someone charismatic enough to grab attention, like Ross Perot or George Wallace, there's no way to generate a 3rd party movement. Also, folks who consider 3rd parties span the political spectrum. In 2004, I voted Constitution Party; I doubt they would be your 3rd party of choice. Lastly, I think some folks on the Left are scared of a rerun of the 2000 election, where west coast folks who thought Gore had won Florida early in the day voted Ralph Nader. On the Right, they remember how Perot shot himself in the foot enough to not be a contender but still drew lots of support away from Pappa Bush and Dole.

(08-16-2011 03:08 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  That said, the Republicans have been an order of magnitude better at playing the political game (framing debates, sound bites, messaging, branding) in my lifetime, and I would expect them to improve their situation over the primary process.

I find this to be an interesting perspective, particularly given the Obama phenomenon. So far he has proved to be nothing but an incredibly well packaged empty box. All he has done well is to play the political game. I first called him Chance the gardener years ago, and the more I see, the better I think that fits.

I think to some extent it is normal to expect that the other side must do a better job of playing politics. I mean, their ideas are clearly wrong, except they still get widespread support, therefore they must do a better job of playing politics, right?

Since I take positions consistent with the left on some issues, with the right on some issues, and with neither on some issues, I will comment on how I see it from all three perspectives. I find that the democrats do a much better job of political packaging on the issues where I generally agree with them (gay rights generally, abortion, death penalty, most social issues) than do the republicans, and I also think democrats do a much better job of political packaging on the issues where I generally disagree with them (taxes, spending, strong military, most fiscal issues) than do the republicans. What frustrates me is that on issues where my position is independent of either party (gay marriage, health care, balancing the budget, foreign policy), both parties are so focused on selling the politics behind their entrenched positions that neither is open to different--and I think better--ideas.

While I broadly agree with Philosoph-owl that the GOP is on average better at politics, I'm not so sure this time around, what with the vote to abolish Medicare. And in presidential politics the fact that some are now touting a Ryan late entry as their savior:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61475.html

I think the GOP is Obama's best ally in his reelection bid....

(08-17-2011 02:27 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  While I broadly agree with Philosoph-owl that the GOP is on average better at politics, I'm not so sure this time around, what with the vote to abolish Medicare. And in presidential politics the fact that some are now touting a Ryan late entry as their savior:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61475.html
I think the GOP is Obama's best ally in his reelection bid....

There was no "vote to abolish Medicare"--unless you mean pulling $500 billion out of Medicare to make the numbers appear to work for Obamacare. Little known fact--the Ryan budget proposal actually shows MORE spending for Medicare than the Obama outyear budgets for the next decade. But somehow the republicans were asleep at the wheel and allowed themselves to get demonized on this issue.

The very fact that this is even a viable talking point for use against republicans seems to me to refute precisely the point you are making about who plays the political game better. The ad showing grandma being dumped off the cliff should have run at the time Obamacare was being passed, and the person doing the pushing should have looked like Obama or Reid or Pelosi--or maybe all three.

I really think both parties are wrong on health care. The present system generally does a good job of providing health care to sick people, but it draws low ratings because it costs too much, doesn't cover everyone, and does a poor job of preventive medicine. Obamacare means we pay more for worse health care than under the current system. Something like the French/German/Dutch/Swiss "Bismarck" approach is the way to go. When those systems are compared with the Canadian and UK systems that the left would love to emulate, the Bismarcks kick @$$ by a wide margin. Obamacare is a giant step in the wrong direction. Before we take the next step in that direction, why not instead try to copy a good system?

(08-16-2011 03:08 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  Paul is the wild card. I still disagree with him on almost every point of domestic policy, but he's a much more respectable (i.e., consistent) kind of far-right thinker. And I think he has more independent appeal than Bachmann or Perry.

...

I think Obama is the favorite in the horse race until the Republicans come back to middle--or at least present their branding as being more independent-friendly.

I agree on RP. I find myself in an uncomfortable position. I won't vote for Obama again for reasons to obvious and numerous to get into here, but I sure as hell won't vote for one of these Rick Perry types, who are even worse as far as being pro-corporation, pro-war, and worse, cover it all with a slimey cover of being "religious". Ugh.

With RP and most libertarians I disagree vehemently on positions of health care, education, and funding infrastructure (spare me the toll roads, please). I also find his views on abortion and gay marriage to be unfortunate. But weighing what is most important (most personal liberties, avoiding modern-day serfdom to the banks, ending the wars), I have to say he is, somehow, the most logical candidate. It will be a very uneasy vote for me in 2012 unless a good independent comes up (a Jesse Ventura who valued higher education would get my vote).

Of course if I had to make a bet and wanted to keep my money, I would bet on Obama winning in 2012. The clowns the GOP is putting forward have basically zero chance of taking over the center/independents, much less those on the left.

I'm just hoping the Rick Perrys and Michelle Bachmanns talk themselves out of it (which they are doing a damn fine job of between comments on Climate Change and $2 gas) and someone half decent gets nominated. I still think Mitt Romney would be ok...maybe Jon Huntsman (but he doesn't seem to be getting any attention)...I'd actually be ok with Ron Paul too.

I won't vote for Obama...but I won't vote for Perry or Bachmann if they get nominated.