It's morning in Obama's America

[Admiral Yi]

I think Obama will be vulnerable in 2012, but as the saying in football goes, "you still have to play the games." For that reason I'd be very shocked if Obama actually loses. Not because I don't think he'll be vulnerable, but because a Presidential election isn't going to be Barack Obama against a generic candidate, it is going to be Barack Obama against a specific Republican candidate. I think the man is a flawed President, but given what we saw in his defeat of Hillary and then McCain, anyone who can't say that we're talking about one of the most masterful campaigners, organizers, and fund raisers in American electoral history is a damn fool and a liar. The fact that he's vulnerable means he could be beaten in spite of that, but because of his talents at campaigning it means that he's no featherweight who any Republican patsy is going to knock over with a strong wind. He's vulnerable but the Republicans needed to field a solid candidate to actually take advantage of that.

I don't dislike Romney, truth be told. But he's just an average candidate, he's not strong enough to beat the President. No one else in the field is moderate enough to beat the President.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama is a masterful campaigner but I'm not all that convinced.  He generated heat during the primaries and the general, but how much of that was Obama and how much of that was throw out  Bush and his cronies?  Since getting elected his staged political events have been pretty flat.  Obama giving more or less the same stump speech against more or less the same backdrop of fat black women and white union guys.  Don't have any reason to doubt his fundraising ability.

I think Obama will win because it will be so much easier for him to demagogue the economic issues than for Romney or anyone else to.

[Phillip V]

Obama has a vaunted campaign machine, but I would not underestimate the now quite experienced Romney machine, especially one that can be self-funded to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars... (personal wealth + Super PACs)

While Romney is not dominating anything right now, Obama did not lock down his own nomination either until late spring 2008. As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

[Ideologue]

Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

I'll be the first to say Reagan is overrated (and I am a Reagan supporter), but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

Well, he had his problems.  It's true.

[Razgovory]

Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

I'll be the first to say Reagan is overrated (and I am a Reagan supporter), but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

What exactly did Carter do that was "worse then a thousand Hitlers"?

[Razgovory]

Obama has a vaunted campaign machine, but I would not underestimate the now quite experienced Romney machine, especially one that can be self-funded to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars... (personal wealth + Super PACs)

While Romney is not dominating anything right now, Obama did not lock down his own nomination either until late spring 2008. As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Nonsense.  McCain knew he was in trouble well before then.  That's why he picked Palin as VP. 
It was clear that McCain wasn't getting an traction during the Summer.  He was switching strategies every few weeks.  He and his team understood that unless they did something drastic they would lose.  They did something drastic.  They picked a complete unknown for VP.  What some of them referred to as a "Hail Mary Pass".  The choice was a disaster for McCain, but he still would have lost.  Hell he would have lost if the Economy hadn't collapsed in 2008.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml

[Admiral Yi]

Agree with Raz.  The nationwide numbers weren't that bad for McCain but the electoral map was very bad.

[Razgovory]

 

[Phillip V]

Obama has a vaunted campaign machine, but I would not underestimate the now quite experienced Romney machine, especially one that can be self-funded to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars... (personal wealth + Super PACs)

While Romney is not dominating anything right now, Obama did not lock down his own nomination either until late spring 2008. As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Nonsense.  McCain knew he was in trouble well before then.  That's why he picked Palin as VP. 
It was clear that McCain wasn't getting an traction during the Summer.  He was switching strategies every few weeks.  He and his team understood that unless they did something drastic they would lose.  They did something drastic.  They picked a complete unknown for VP.  What some of them referred to as a "Hail Mary Pass".  The choice was a disaster for McCain, but he still would have lost.  Hell he would have lost if the Economy hadn't collapsed in 2008.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml

Once again. Look at the economic indicators. That June poll you linked to, look at gas prices and stock market at the time.

[Sheilbh]

The conventional wisdom is that Obama is a masterful campaigner but I'm not all that convinced.  He generated heat during the primaries and the general, but how much of that was Obama and how much of that was throw out  Bush and his cronies?  Since getting elected his staged political events have been pretty flat.  Obama giving more or less the same stump speech against more or less the same backdrop of fat black women and white union guys.  Don't have any reason to doubt his fundraising ability.

I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

I think Romney, on the other hand is a very unimpressive campaigner.  In a general election at his best I think he'll reach the heights of Kerry.  He could, of course, still win if the economy crashes but I think it looks increasingly unlikely.  This is one of the reasons I have with Romney.  If he's chosen I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republicans nominate, say, Rand Paul in 2016.

I think the party should nominate Huntsman who could win, or get the crazy out of their system.

As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Not true.  After Obama became candidate he held a consistent lead over McCain.  Then McCain announced Palin and had a very good convention (and she was magnificent).  That initially had a very positive effect, it then didn't work out so well and the stock market crashed.  September's the only time, after Obama got the nomination, that the two were equal or McCain was ahead.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?nr=1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Phillip V]

As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Not true.  After Obama became candidate he held a consistent lead over McCain.  Then McCain announced Palin and had a very good convention (and she was magnificent).  That initially had a very positive effect, it then didn't work out so well and the stock market crashed.  September's the only time, after Obama got the nomination, that the two were equal or McCain was ahead.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?nr=1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

See my post above. What we have is the public was split on the two men in spite of Bush fatigue and McCain campaign ineptitude and lack of cash. Each time we saw major poll changes was in the context of economic conditions rather than Obama being *omg* awesome comapaigner. The Palin bump was humongous and quite impressive in the face of macro headwinds, but that was totally destroyed by the stock market crash in September (rather than blaming Palin, who I agree is an idiot).

[garbon]

For example if Chris Christie had thrown his hat into the ring, and had he won the nomination, I think he could beat Obama in 2012. Christie has everything it would take to beat Obama, none of his policies will totally alienate the middle, and he's a brawler who isn't afraid to go for the vicious body blows and has no fear of staking out his position on the issues.

Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

[garbon]

I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

If only he had the goal of being a pretty impressive president.

[Sheilbh]

I only say Obama's an impressive campaigner.  I think Clinton and Reagan were probably better - aside from that he's the best recent President.

I kind-of like Palin.  But I think she was a choice that weakened McCain's campaign hugely.  Similarly I think McCain was probably the only Republican candidate who could run without being entirely tarred with Bush.

The economy matters, of course, but I think it's in the broad 'events, dear boy, events' category.  What matters is how politicians respond to and use stories about the economy and if they succeed in that.  McCain did huge damage to his campaign with his idea of stopping the campaign and everyone heading to DC.  I think that hurt his campaign more than the stock market crash did - it's not like the left worldwide's done well out of the economic crisis.

[Sheilbh]

I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

If only he had the goal of being a pretty impressive president.

I think he has.  He's got more significant domestic legislation than any President since Reagan, at least, and I think his  foreign policy's been strong.  He's up there with Bush I on foreign policy in my view.

You may not think that what he's done is right but he has, for the most part, achieved it.

[Phillip V]

I only say Obama's an impressive campaigner.  I think Clinton and Reagan were probably better - aside from that he's the best recent President.

I kind-of like Palin.  But I think she was a choice that weakened McCain's campaign hugely.  Similarly I think McCain was probably the only Republican candidate who could run without being entirely tarred with Bush.

The economy matters, of course, but I think it's in the broad 'events, dear boy, events' category.  What matters is how politicians respond to and use stories about the economy and if they succeed in that.  McCain did huge damage to his campaign with his idea of stopping the campaign and everyone heading to DC.  I think that hurt his campaign more than the stock market crash did - it's not like the left worldwide's done well out of the economic crisis.

You can once again try and spin it, but looking at those poll numbers you yourself tried to use before, Obama broke away in polling starting in May/June when the Dow started dropping and then utterly ran away with victory when the economy totally went to hell in September.