Obama's secret advantage- people's inability to admit a mistake

[bripat9643]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

A dead carp would be a good alternative to Obama.

 

[Toro]

Wow, sounds like you are getting a bit desperate, aren't you. YOu've shoved your weird Mormon Robot down people's throats and now that he's going to lose, you are grasping for straws.

lol

Mr Confirmation Bias, it's you who is getting desperate, projecting and hating and seeing conspiracy theories and pimping Obama.

It's pretty sad, really.

1) If the economy was "improving" in those other elections, it's improving now. It's off it's highs of 10%.

Sorry, Champ. There is a BIG difference between 5% unemployment and 8% unemployment. This is one the weakest recoveries on record. Unlike those other times, the economy is trending well below capacity.

If employment growth really starts accelerate, however, and unemployment is 7%-7.5%, then the calculus changes.

2) The Republicans lost badly in 1932 because theywere completely in control of all aspects of the government at that point- both houses of Congress and the Presidency and had been for 12 years. Obama can (and will) blame the GOP.

And the Democrats could lose the WH and the Senate but make gains in the House.

3) 2010 was a lot of Republican rage, but really, like all Midterms, most people didn't vote. Only about 70 million people voted in 2010 compared to some 130 million in 2008. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Nope. 70 million is reflective of the will of the population. Pollsters know that a sample size of 1,000 is accurate to within 3% of the actual mean 95% of the time. 70 million is statistically accurate to within 0% of the mean, 100% of the time for a voting population of 220 million, i.e. meaning there is practically zero chance it is wrong. Statistics 101.

I think that there was a lot of energy created by the TEA movement, but that's been tempered by its villification in the media and the fact that the GOP establishment is doing just about all it can to renounce the TEA Party.

Despite your paranoia showing through yet again, there is some truth to that. But that doesn't matter to the Tea Party, does it? The Tea Party hates Obama, the base will vote for Romney, and Independents and moderates will decide this election, like they usually do.

 

[JoeB131]

Mr Confirmation Bias, it's you who is getting desperate, projecting and hating and seeing conspiracy theories and pimping Obama.

It's pretty sad, really.

Not really. the sad thing is you rigged the game, and still are going to end up losing. Which is sad. Didn't have to be this way.

Sorry, Champ. There is a BIG difference between 5% unemployment and 8% unemployment. This is one the weakest recoveries on record. Unlike those other times, the economy is trending well below capacity.

If employment growth really starts accelerate, however, and unemployment is 7%-7.5%, then the calculus changes.

Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.

And the Democrats could lose the WH and the Senate but make gains in the House.

Possibly. My predictions- They keep the White house, gain about 10 seats in the House, lose 5 seats in the Senate.

Nope. 70 million is reflective of the will of the population. Pollsters know that a sample size of 1,000 is accurate to within 3% of the actual mean 95% of the time. 70 million is statistically accurate to within 0% of the mean, 100% of the time for a voting population of 220 million, i.e. meaning there is practically zero chance it is wrong. Statistics 101.

That assumes the voting populace is average, which is isn't. In 2006, it was heavily Democratic. Democrats were enthused, Republicans weren't. 2010, the oppossite. But there have beena whole bunch of midterms were the out of power party made gains and STILL lost the following cycle- 1994, 1986, 1982, 1970, 1962.

Can't see anyone getting enthuszed about the Weird Mormon Robot... Except Mormons, maybe.

Despite your paranoia showing through yet again, there is some truth to that. But that doesn't matter to the Tea Party, does it? The Tea Party hates Obama, the base will vote for Romney, and Independents and moderates will decide this election, like they usually do.

Uh. No. Independents don't decide jack shit. They go with the flow. And the flow will not be with the party that runs the guy under the theory, "He was the best we could come up with. No, Really."

Been involved with Republican Politics my whole adult life. From Reagan's landslides to the horrid flatulance that was Bob Dole. I can tell the winners from the losers.

Never had any illusions Dole or McCain could win. But they are giants compared to Romney.

 

[imbalance]

For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.

 

[JoeB131]

For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.

Don't buy that. Dems were pretty apathetic about McCain, but they still came out and gave Obama the largest vote total in AMerican history.

 

[WillowTree]

a turnip would be an improvement over this corrupt asshole.

 

[Oldstyle]

For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.

Don't buy that. Dems were pretty apathetic about McCain, but they still came out and gave Obama the largest vote total in AMerican history.

A large part of that vote total was the young vote who fully bought into the whole "Hope & Change" thing. They've had three years of reality now to better understand that Barack Obama is just another politician. If you think that youth vote is going to turn out for Obama like they did last time I think you're sorely mistaken. Same with many of the Independents. They voted for an idea last time more than a man. The reality of Barack Obama for them has been just as underwhelming as it was for the kids.

 

[JoeB131]

For all the apathy Romney generates within Republicans where you want some emotion, there's a flip side to that coin. He generates a lot of apathy within Democrats, meaning there isn't as much emotion driving people to get out and vote anti-Republican as there was in 2008 if Romney is the candidate.

Don't buy that. Dems were pretty apathetic about McCain, but they still came out and gave Obama the largest vote total in AMerican history.

A large part of that vote total was the young vote who fully bought into the whole "Hope & Change" thing. They've had three years of reality now to better understand that Barack Obama is just another politician. If you think that youth vote is going to turn out for Obama like they did last time I think you're sorely mistaken. Same with many of the Independents. They voted for an idea last time more than a man. The reality of Barack Obama for them has been just as underwhelming as it was for the kids.

Maybe. But honestly, I haven't talked to anyone yet who've told me, "I voted for Obama, and what a horrible mistake that was."

People who didn't like him four years ago don't like him now, and people who liked him four years ago still do.

On the other hand, I know a few people who voted for McCain who will not vote for Romney, because he's too Mormon, too slippery, too liberal, too phony.

 

[Toro]

Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.

By your logic, then, you should support Romney because he does better against Obama than all the other candidates.

Obama +8.8 v Gingrich
Obama +7.7 v Paul
Obama +10 v Santorum
Obama +12.5 v Perry.

I'm not predicting Romney is going to win. I don't know who is going to win. I'm saying Romney has the best chance. Thus far, you have shown zero, zip, nada to suggest otherwise other than "He's a Mormon and I hate Mormons" and "I hate capitalism and Romney is a capitalist."

BTW, what was Reagan polling against Carter a year before the election? Hmm?

Uh. No. Independents don't decide jack shit. They go with the flow. And the flow will not be with the party that runs the guy under the theory, "He was the best we could come up with. No, Really."

Listen über-RINO, as much as you like to rah-rah the party that left you a long time ago, you can't win without independents, no matter how much your misplaced partisanship otherwise wants.

 

[Toro]

Maybe. But honestly, I haven't talked to anyone yet who've told me, "I voted for Obama, and what a horrible mistake that was." .

I have.

Lots of them.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.

By your logic, then, you should support Romney because he does better against Obama than all the other candidates.

Obama +8.8 v Gingrich
Obama +7.7 v Paul
Obama +10 v Santorum
Obama +12.5 v Perry.

I think the difference is, other than Gingrich, those guys are still kind of introducing themselves. Romney's a known quantity, he's been at this for a second time now. As Iowa has shown, opinions on him haven't changed any.

Also, I honestly would rather lose standing on principles than lose giving them up hoping to win.

I'm not predicting Romney is going to win. I don't know who is going to win. I'm saying Romney has the best chance. Thus far, you have shown zero, zip, nada to suggest otherwise other than "He's a Mormon and I hate Mormons" and "I hate capitalism and Romney is a capitalist."

If your argument is "this is the best we can come up with", that's a good reason to come up with something else. A guy who only draws 25% of your base after running for 5 years and has 18% of your base that won't vote for him because of his whackjob religion, that's a weak candidate.

BTW, what was Reagan polling against Carter a year before the election? Hmm?

A year before the election, John Anderson had not left the GOP, and was not drawing votes from Carter. (Reagan, after all, only got 50% of the vote in 1980). Also, a year before the election, we were at the beginning of the Iran Hostage crisis, and people were backing Carter. Carter's biggest worry before that was that Ted Kennedy was going to take the nomination from him.

So there was massive dissatisfaction with Carter even within his own party. Nothing comparable.. Obama will lead a united Democratic party against a divided Republican one.

Listen über-RINO, as much as you like to rah-rah the party that left you a long time ago, you can't win without independents, no matter how much your misplaced partisanship otherwise wants.

You also can't win without Evangelicals, who will desert in droves.

you can't win without Hispanic support, which Romney will lose because of his race-baiting.

You can't win without working folks, which you will lose when they start educating folks on how how Romney made his money.

You can't win without women, and when folks find out how ass-backwards Mormons are on gender issues, you can kiss that group goodbye.

 

[WillowTree]

izz this poll working the way the pollster hoped it would.. cause it looks to me like most folks had the intelligence then and they have it now.. and they didn't vote for dick tater.

 

[JoeB131]

izz this poll working the way the pollster hoped it would.. cause it looks to me like most folks had the intelligence then and they have it now.. and they didn't vote for dick tater.

No, it's working the way I expected.

People who voted for McCain last time are voting not voting for Obama this time, either. People who voted for Obama last time are voting for Obama. One guy claims he voted for Obama (yet claims he's a Republican. No, really!) last time but won't this time.

Put that on a national level, 69 million people voted for Obama last time. Romney has to get some of those folks to change their minds while not losing anyone who voted for McCain last time to third parties or staying home.

In short, I'm not hearing from anyone who was an Obama supporter last time who is now going to be a Romney supporter.

 

[Amelia]

izz this poll working the way the pollster hoped it would.. cause it looks to me like most folks had the intelligence then and they have it now.. and they didn't vote for dick tater.

No, it's working the way I expected.

People who voted for McCain last time are voting not voting for Obama this time, either. People who voted for Obama last time are voting for Obama. One guy claims he voted for Obama (yet claims he's a Republican. No, really!) last time but won't this time.

Put that on a national level, 69 million people voted for Obama last time. Romney has to get some of those folks to change their minds while not losing anyone who voted for McCain last time to third parties or staying home.

In short, I'm not hearing from anyone who was an Obama supporter last time who is now going to be a Romney supporter.

I think some casual independents will change their vote.

But mostly what I expect to happen is that large numbers of shallow people who swelled into the polling places on the crest of the hope-and-change, "we're making history" wave will just not be motivated to vote in 2012.

Republicans will continue to be motivated to get Obama out. That will be our advantage.

 

[JoeB131]

I think some casual independents will change their vote.

But mostly what I expect to happen is that large numbers of shallow people who swelled into the polling places on the crest of the hope-and-change, "we're making history" wave will just not be motivated to vote in 2012.

Republicans will continue to be motivated to get Obama out. That will be our advantage.

I don't see anyone getting "motivated" for Reversable Mittens.

By that logic, Bush should have lost in 2004, because, man, there were a bunch of people on the other side that just hated his guts. Hate so thick you can cut it with a knife. Some of these people STILL have a hate-on for Bush after he left 3 years ago.

You really can't win being against an incumbant. You have to be FOR someone. Reagan and Clinton won because they were inspiring characters. Hate doesn't get you to the finish line.

Sadly, no one on the GOP inspires me at this point. I'll be happy if they nominate someone I could vote for without puking.

 

[Amelia]

I think some casual independents will change their vote.

But mostly what I expect to happen is that large numbers of shallow people who swelled into the polling places on the crest of the hope-and-change, "we're making history" wave will just not be motivated to vote in 2012.

Republicans will continue to be motivated to get Obama out. That will be our advantage.

I don't see anyone getting "motivated" for Reversable Mittens.

By that logic, Bush should have lost in 2004, because, man, there were a bunch of people on the other side that just hated his guts. Hate so thick you can cut it with a knife. Some of these people STILL have a hate-on for Bush after he left 3 years ago.

You really can't win being against an incumbant. You have to be FOR someone. Reagan and Clinton won because they were inspiring characters. Hate doesn't get you to the finish line.

Sadly, no one on the GOP inspires me at this point. I'll be happy if they nominate someone I could vote for without puking.

But Obama had a phenomenal number of formerly apathetic people come out to support his historic ascension.

So that could be a huge number of people who by now have slid back into apathy. People were out of their mind with the euphoria. That high is gone. Can Obama get those people back to the polls?

Republicans voted without that high. And I think they'll keep voting.

 

[Trajan]

Heres my 2 cents..

McCain was a horrible candidate, he was vapid and appeared out of it at times, his supposed 'maverick' title was a media construct by and large. When he flipped on the torture issue that sealed it for me.

I was ripe for a Democrat, I voted for Clinton in 96, so, why not, but, Obama was way too cool for school and woefully inexperienced. I feel vindicated on that count.

I wrote in Paul......*shrugs*

Romney at times , which is a lot of it, appears insincere, like hes checking off boxes. I rarely think he speaks from the heart. I have heard him do it a fews time, hes actually convincing but he gets there so rarely, it’s a shame.

Heres the thing, I voted Clinton in 96 because he knew when to fish or cut bait, politically that is. The senate and house were rep. no need to put it all in one parties hands, they were getting things done, so I gave him my vote. Plus Dole was a bit like McCain.

This time around, I cannot take the chance, even if the senate goes rep. obama will never ever move anywhere near where Clinton did, ( funny eh? “back in the day” Clinton was seen as hard core lefty, oh and I fully cop to my hindsight being 20-20 )

 

[JakeStarkey]

Snarkey hasn't figured out he's on ignore yet.

JoeB hasn't figured out that we know he can't not read me. He is my little stalker.

 

[Toro]

Obama was beating Romney in the polls when it was at 9.3, he's beating him now that it's down to 8.5%. What makes you think that 7% will make that much of a difference?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

His current lead is 2.2 on the RCP average. but if you look at the graph, he's really been comforably ahead of him the whole time. And that's before he whips out his 1 Billion dollar buzzsaw.

By your logic, then, you should support Romney because he does better against Obama than all the other candidates.

Obama +8.8 v Gingrich
Obama +7.7 v Paul
Obama +10 v Santorum
Obama +12.5 v Perry.

I think the difference is, other than Gingrich, those guys are still kind of introducing themselves. Romney's a known quantity, he's been at this for a second time now. As Iowa has shown, opinions on him haven't changed any.

But your objection is that he trails Obama. You were supporting Gingrich earlier. Gingrich is better known than Romney and he polls worse. The more Republicans know about Perry, the less they like him. Paul is a no-hoper. And Santorum, well good luck with that.

Also, I honestly would rather lose standing on principles than lose giving them up hoping to win.

I'd rather win and put in someone who is competent and can get the economy moving again.

You also can't win without Evangelicals, who will desert in droves.

Conservative evangelicals will come out for anyone who isn't Obama.

you can't win without Hispanic support, which Romney will lose because of his race-baiting.

Hispanics are a problem, but guess what, its a problem for the party as a whole. Gingrich and Perry are better for Hispanics.

You can't win without working folks, which you will lose when they start educating folks on how how Romney made his money.

You are assuming class warfare and division will work. I don't think it will. People want solutions. They want jobs. Romney will be able to point to his success and all the jobs his companies created. The Democrats will hammer him on the jobs that were cut by his companies. But if the Republicans are skillful, they should be able to parlay those attacks by saying something along the lines of "I know how to create jobs. I am being elected to create jobs. I am not being elected to shed jobs. And because I know what businesses need to create jobs, and because I know much more than Obama - who has no experience creating jobs and the economy has not created enough jobs under his watch - I am the candidate you should vote for." And I think that is likely to work because Obama won't be able to point to his own record.

You can't win without women, and when folks find out how ass-backwards Mormons are on gender issues, you can kiss that group goodbye.

Romney has been married for 40 years and has a big family. You'll have to point to Romney's attitudes towards women, not Mormon's, because if you do, you'll get crushed in the media.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Democrats always said they wished more Republicans were like McCain. Until he got the nomination, and he became the anti-Christ.

It's really hard for me to believe he could have done a worse job than Obama.

McCain lost a lot of democrats when he embraced the Iraq war and attempted to get back in the good graces of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists in preparation for the rightist crucible that is the GOP primaries.

The pragmatic, independent moderate of 2000 became just another republican politician pandering to the radical right in 2008.

Democrats want more republicans to be like McCain 2000 and stay that way, not fold when the radical right starts making ‘RINO’ threats.