Topic: The Inevitable Mitt Romney Tour Running Thread

[Bob Cook]

Figured, because I'm a sadist AND a masochist, start a new presidential running thread while we have a lull before Super Tuesday. Not that Mitt ain't winning.

I'll kick it off with this -- we have another Obama vs. Romney poll! (It's ABC/Washington Post, saying Obama is up among registed voters, 51-45.) Polls don't mean a whole hell of a lot this far out, but this nugget struck me as interesting. It's part of the explanation for why Romney is start to flag, at least in general-election terms:

Notably, 52 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say the more they hear about Romney the less they like him - double the number who like him more.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=15519812#.TzAfdcWXRDn

Obama's fortunes could swing downward again tomorrow if there's lousy economic news. But, man oh man, that gap between those who like Romney less and those who like him more the more they hear him seems like a serious problem for Mittens. What say you, oh political sages of sj.com?

[I Should Coco]

Skimming through that story, what struck me is there's a hell of a long way to go before the election.

If the economic outlook -- especially the declining unemployment rate -- continues to brighten, Romney has almost no chance.

But if things get rocky again economically -- a distinct possibility given Europe's financial instability and the worries of a Middle East war between Iran and Israel -- then the key question becomes if the nutty, right-wing tea partiers decide to get 100 percent behind Romney.

And as the poll notes, the more people find out about Mitt, the less they like him.

From what I'm seeing (*) here in Red Stateville (north Idaho), there is zero enthusiasm for Romney. Many rightwingers might just sit this one out and grumble their way through four more years.


* -- I'm not a political scientist, but I occasionally play one on SJ.com ...  

EDIT: I shouldn't have said "nutty," because that could be applied to plenty of lefties I've known, too. But as Obama's popularity continues to rise, that fringe of the political spectrum will be completely ignored by Democrats in 2012.

[Uncle.Ruckus]

CHART: GOP turnout plummets in New Hampshire (-16%), Florida (-14%) and Nevada (-26%).

http://t.co/roqQOcgX

And to paraphrase a friend: In other words, fewer people have turned out to vote for Mitt Romney than last time, when he lost to the guy who lost to Barack Obama.

Four More Years!

[LongTimeListener]

Skimming through that story, what struck me is there's a hell of a long way to go before the election.

If the economic outlook -- especially the declining unemployment rate -- continues to brighten, Romney has almost no chance.

But if things get rocky again economically -- a distinct possibility given Europe's financial instability and the worries of a Middle East war between Iran and Israel -- then the key question becomes if the nutty, right-wing tea partiers decide to get 100 percent behind Romney.

And as the poll notes, the more people find out about Mitt, the less they like him.

From what I'm seeing (*) here in Red Stateville (north Idaho), there is zero enthusiasm for Romney. Many rightwingers might just sit this one out and grumble their way through four more years.


* -- I'm not a political scientist, but I occasionally play one on SJ.com ...  

I was just going to post about that. It seems like Romney is more popular in every state until he actually arrives in the state and people get a look and listen at him. Maybe the Jim Nantz of politics.

[Stitch]

An acquaintance of mine is a big Santorum supporter and considers himself an expert in political thought. I don't know how he can say with a straight face that Santorum would beat Obama. He cites a few polls that show Santorum beating Obama, but his blinders are on too tightly to notice the real mood of the electorate.

[TigerVols]

It's pretty easy to take Friday's surprisingly good economic numbers, couple them with voters learning more about Mormon Mittens and his millions stashed in off-shore bank accounts, and assume Obama will win by at least 5 points.

But as has been noted above, November is ages away. Lots of time for 3 things to tank Obama's re-election hopes: 1. A European collapse that brings the US economy along with it; 2. A Middle East conflagration of some sort; and 3. the huge unknown (for example, this time last year, a tsunami and a Arab Spring were on the way).

[TigerVols]

An acquaintance of mine is a big Santorum supporter and considers himself an expert in political thought. I don't know how he can say with a straight face that Santorum would beat Obama. He cites a few polls that show Santorum beating Obama, but his blinders are on too tightly to notice the real mood of the electorate.

Given that he continues to equate breast cancer with abortion, I'm guessing he may lose out on some key demographics. Namely, virtually all women.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/05/santorum-suggests-abortion-causes-breast-cancer/

[Michael_ Gee]

British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was asked what would determine the country's political future. "Events, dear boy, events," he answered.

[LongTimeListener]

It's pretty easy to take Friday's surprisingly good economic numbers, couple them with voters learning more about Mormon Mittens and his millions stashed in off-shore bank accounts, and assume Obama will win by at least 5 points.

But as has been noted above, November is ages away. Lots of time for 3 things to tank Obama's re-election hopes: 1. A European collapse that brings the US economy along with it; 2. A Middle East conflagration of some sort; and 3. the huge unknown (for example, this time last year, a tsunami and a Arab Spring were on the way).

The economy is the #1 issue, but I do think Obama's peeps have been able to assign enough blame to an obstinate GOP Congress, and to corporate overlords who look very much like Willard Romney, that the administration won't own all of the blame on that one.

[Hokie_pokie]

Obama will beat Romney because he is much better at pretending he cares about the "99 percent" than Romney is.

Then again, it's hard to be less tuned-in to the plight of the common man than Romney unless your name is George Herbert Walker Bush.

[EStreetJoe]

It's pretty easy to take Friday's surprisingly good economic numbers, couple them with voters learning more about Mormon Mittens and his millions stashed in off-shore bank accounts, and assume Obama will win by at least 5 points.

How many electoral votes does 5 percentage points equal?

[EStreetJoe]

Don't forget the Super-Bowl factors in determining Presidential elections.

1) Last time the Giants won the Super Bowl, Obama won the presidency
2) In the 7 times NFC has won the Super Bowl in an election year, Democrats are 3-4 at winning the general election (but 3-1 since '92) in the 4 times the AFC has won the Super Bowl during an election year the Democrats are 1-3 at taking the White House.

[LongTimeListener]

Obama will beat Romney because he is much better at pretending he cares about the "99 percent" than Romney is.

Then again, it's hard to be less tuned-in to the plight of the common man than Romney unless your name is George Herbert Walker Bush.

The 99 percent. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a term that entered the lexicon solely because of Occupy Wall Street. And now it's the biggest issue in the election.

I guess all the Fox News/Limbaugh "what's the point?" commentary has its answer.

[cranberry]

Obama will beat Romney because he is much better at pretending he cares about the "99 percent" than Romney is.

Then again, it's hard to be less tuned-in to the plight of the common man than Romney unless your name is George Herbert Walker Bush.

The 99 percent. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a term that entered the lexicon solely because of Occupy Wall Street. And now it's the biggest issue in the election.

I guess all the Fox News/Limbaugh "what's the point?" commentary has its answer.

OWS = Just a disorganized bunch of spoiled kids who live at home and have no real message or agenda.

[Bob Cook]

Skimming through that story, what struck me is there's a hell of a long way to go before the election.

If the economic outlook -- especially the declining unemployment rate -- continues to brighten, Romney has almost no chance.

But if things get rocky again economically -- a distinct possibility given Europe's financial instability and the worries of a Middle East war between Iran and Israel -- then the key question becomes if the nutty, right-wing tea partiers decide to get 100 percent behind Romney.

And as the poll notes, the more people find out about Mitt, the less they like him.

From what I'm seeing (*) here in Red Stateville (north Idaho), there is zero enthusiasm for Romney. Many rightwingers might just sit this one out and grumble their way through four more years.


* -- I'm not a political scientist, but I occasionally play one on SJ.com ... 

I was just going to post about that. It seems like Romney is more popular in every state until he actually arrives in the state and people get a look and listen at him. Maybe the Jim Nantz of politics.

A tradition unlike any other. Mitt Romney, on the Republican ballot.

[Mizzougrad96]

I read something that was linked on Real Clear Politics that said that Obama would win every state where his approval rating was higher than 46 percent or something like that. It was an interesting read that showed again how basically six states will determine who wins this thing, but I didn't fully buy it because there's a difference between saying that you don't approve of the president and saying that you will vote for Romney.

There are a lot of people who are unhappy with Obama who will vote for him again by default.

[steveu]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol

[Uncle.Ruckus]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

LOLZ!

[joe]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

LOLZ!

We had to destroy the village to save the village.

[TigerVols]

Here's a question I've been wondering about for a while now, ever since the second (or was it third?) Newt comeback, when the GOP establishment came out of the woodwork to attack him. It seems like every former Congressman who worked under Newt in the 90s has come out to blister him. Over and over again, they are saying "Newt should not be President." They then list one reason or another as to why he's clearly not worthy (some even call him unhinged).

My question is this: Why did the GOP put him at the top of their leadership when they did? If he's so terrible, why did they allow him to be second in line for the Presidency? Doesn't that call into question the party's overall worthiness to lead?

[Bob Cook]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol

You're not going to recognize your country in four years no matter who wins, if for no other reason than the masses of aging white Baby Boomers and even older white people are being replaced mostly with minorities, particularly Latinos, and recently arrived immigrants. The younger population is much more ethnically and religiously diverse, is much more likely to approve of, say, gay marriage and drug legalization.

Beyond race and ethnicity, the overall trend for population growth is slow, because of the large aging (and dying) part of the country. So we won't get fast growth that comes with lots of people having lots of babies.

I don't mean to bring this up to accuse you or anyone of being racist or unduly nostalgic. But the people who say we need to "take our country back" have to be aware that you can't take it back to 1955 or 1981 or whatever ideal year is stuck in your head. Profound changes are coming no matter who is President.

[dixiehack]

Before the original post gets buried, few things are more useless than polling "registered voters." Likely voters has been proven more accurate so many times, I don't know why they bother with the former.

[Brian]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

Change the name and you now know how the other side felt in 2004.

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm not going to sit here and spew hyperbole about how Obama is ruining the country, but I think he's been a colossal disappointment as President. Part of that was due to unrealistic promises and expectations. Would Romney be better? I think it would be naive to say yes, but I'm willing to give him a chance, even though I'm far from being a big fan of his.

[Stitch]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol

I can't take anyone seriously if they actually believe the tripe about them being afraid of not recognizing America if the incumbent wins. It was a BS statement in 2004 during W.'s re-election campaign, and it's BS this time around. Are you going to move to Canada if Obama wins?