I think Obama has given away 28-29 states, as of this point, and the counting starts from there. On current trajectory, PA goes over as well, and that means anybody with a pulse beats Obama. And Perry and Romney both have pulses.
RomneyCare gives Obama a bit of cover for ObamaCare, neutralizing one of Obama's many weak spots. And the whole Mormon thing might tend to split the R coalition a tad, however unspoken (although as team Obama has already mentioned, they'll be quick to tag Romney as "weird", so they'll get their point across in any event). So I'd say Obama would rather face Romney, for multiple reasons. It'd be a kinder, gentler form of campaign season... and that's the only environment in which Obama can possibly win. Some measure of Hope and Change must be involved. Somewhere. Somehow. Some way. Or he loses.
Perry on the other hand will tempt the Obamistas to go straight negative, and risk blowing their own turnout model, if they succumb to the temptation to spend $1B or more blowtorching the country with negative advertising. Perry's voters will definitely show up to vote, but Obama's won't, and the $1B blowtorching will be one of the reasons they won't.
I think that's the reason we've seen the MSM and Obamabots going after Perry so hard. They know they need an early kill on this guy, because they cannot take him out in the general without damaging themselves. And Perry's presence in the general precludes the light and fluffy campaign environment that Obama must have in order to win. Perry is a wolf, and there will be nothing light and fluffy about the 2012 election, on his end.
So far, Perry informs us that Bernanke is guilty of treason, and Social Security is definitely, no doubt about it a ponzi scheme. Evidently, Perry's read the tea leaves, and has decided Romney is squishy and can be exposed as such. An interesting and bold strategy, and we'll see if it works.
(Note: liberal answering the conservative question)
I'd put both of their chances around 80-85% now, based entirely on my uninformed guess as to the state of the economy in a year. And the only reason it's 80-85% is that my uninformed guess has a lot of uncertainty involved. But, if the economy doesn't get noticeably better in a year, it doesn't matter who the GOP nominates (outside of maybe Ron Paul).
"and Social Security is definitely, no doubt about it a ponzi scheme. Evidently, Perry's read the tea leaves, and has decided Romney is squishy"
When someone says the main source of income for millions of voters is a Ponzi scheme I think that is negative for their vote getting ability.
One potential advantage of the GOP is that they have become the party that is tougher on illegal immigration. That advantage would be thrown away if Perry were the nominee because unlike the "squishy" Romney Perry is against a border fence, is against using e-verify and favors instate tuition for illegals.
Romney's recently released economic plan contains an item with even more appeal to voters. He is for getting tougher on China for their violation of trade rules and would have the government sanction them on his first day in office. I am not sure where Perry stands on China's trade practices.
I think the Perry/immigration thing is backwards. I think Perry (especially if he picks Rubio as his VP, which I think he probably would) brings lots of Latinos into the fold. I think there's more to be gained from that crossover than lost, especially since Perry will be popular with the types of voters who disagree with him on that issue on pretty much every other issue.
Strikes me that there may be an unusual interaction effect between Perry v. Romney and the state of the economy 14 months out.
If we remain in economic doldrums, the question may tilt heavily toward Romney. His perceived wonkish competence helps him in that case, while Perry's non-mainstream views (SS, Bernanke, etc) seem especially threatening to core Republican constituencies. If the generic Republican has an 85% chance of winning in that case (following Matt Jarvis, above), I'd guess Romney would have a 90-95% chance, while Perry might be only a 70% favorite.
By contrast, if things are looking much better 14 months out, then an election in reasonably good times may favor Perry. He then benefits from the go-along, get-along party-on vibe that propelled Bush past Gore (sort of). Romney, somewhat like Gore, is haunted by his technocrat-wonkish-no-one-really-likes-him-never-won-anything-anyone-cares-about equity. So if things are better, and the generic Republican has a 60% chance, I'd give Perry a 70% shot and Romney more like 50.
As always, I could be way off here, but if I'm right it presents a conundrum for Team Obama. It wouldn't be clear who they would prefer to face at this point.
I don't believe it matters who Obama faces, nor what the economy looks like, because he'll lose to any of them. It's an incumbent referendum first of all, and Obama is going to lose that referendum overwhelmingly, worse than Carter or Bush 41. The results of that referendum will come due in January 2012 or thereabouts, and they're going to be ugly.
Obama committed suicide long ago. Rather than focusing on what was important, he focused on Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare... and that has absolutely destroyed him. There would have been a chance for him to follow the Truman route back to the WH, had he acted Trumanesque. But he didn't. He acted Pelosiesque. Now comes the final referendum on Pelosism.
Speaking as a liberal, I think Obama would FAR rather face Perry than Romney, though I think he will have an uphill battle for re-election in any event. Perry inevitably brings with him echoes of George Bush, who is not admired by the electorate, and his views on basic social programs on which so many people depend will be offputting to many voters. The fact that Romney is still way behind in polls of Republican voters says less about his electability than it does about the hold the Tea Party and other extreme conservatives now have on the party. I would give Perry 50/50 odds; Romney 65/35.
(As you don't have a question for moderates, I'll take the liberty of commenting here.)
Speaking for moderate independents everywhere (they all take their marching orders from me), Perry would be a very bad choice for the Republicans. He's charismatic, and seems to be a nice enough sort, but some of his views are just way out on the lunatic fringe. The middle would go solidly for Obama. No one can win without at least dividing the independents. I'd give him a 10% chance.
If they nominate Romney? It would probably come down to the economy. If there is significant progress before next November, I'd give it to Obama. If not..... Lacking a crystal ball, I'll give Romney about a 40% chance.
(One last point: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall hearing Perry accusing Bernanke of treason. Rather, I heard him say that any actions by Bernanke to make the economy look better just prior to an election would be treasonous.)
"It's generally a bad to idea to make confident electoral predictions based on political theories."
.
Perhaps, but that's not what I did.
I make confident electoral predictions based upon hard data and reality, as provided in the run up to the election last November, the election results themselves, and the follow on and forecast for how the hard data is trending.
Given all that, Obama is a dead man walking. Now, can he be resurrected, as you're wishing? Always a chance, and nothing's absolute in this world... but I highly doubt it. Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare are proven killers, as Pelosi discovered. She committed suicide, and so did Obama, it's just taking a bit longer to obtain the coroner's report.
I make confident electoral predictions based upon hard data and reality, as provided in the run up to the election last November, the election results themselves, and the follow on and forecast for how the hard data is trending.
There is no known correlation between the results of midterm elections and the subsequent presidential elections. If there is any correlation at all, it is a negative one. Truman, Reagan, and Clinton all suffered strong midterm losses and went on to be elected to a second term. In contrast, Carter and Bush Sr. endured relatively mild midterm losses yet were voted out of office two years later. Bush Jr. actually gained seats in his first midterm--which is almost unheard of--yet was just barely reelected, with a narrower popular-vote margin than any other incumbent president in history. In short, midterm results don't tell us much about the upcoming presidential race, for better or worse.
Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare are proven killers, as Pelosi discovered.
Where is your evidence that any of those things were responsible for the midterm results?
There is no known correlation between the results of midterm elections and the subsequent presidential elections."
.
FYI, Michael Barone has precisely correlated the 2. No offense, but I'll take his analysis over your claim. And it's one of the prime reasons why Obama is a dead man walking right now... the biggest reason, in fact. That hard data of November 2010 is quite hard indeed, and the trends aren't changing much, and may be getting even more ugly for Obama, if anything. They don't support Obama's opposition, not at all. They simply oppose Obama, just like they opposed Pelosi and company.
The evidence that Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare brought on the historic 2010 blowout is the historic blowout itself. We have hard data on that, remember?
And we have the historical outliers brought on by those who got blown out. Those outliers would obviously be: Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare.
And we all know what folks wanted the blown out to focus on, don't we? At least, I hope we all know, by now. But instead, the blown out focused on: Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare.
So, they got blown out, historically so. And there are obvious reasons for that, just as there will be for what's coming in November 2012. The same reasons, basically: Pelosism. We're just awaiting the coroner's report for confirmation.
There's only one poll that matters. We conducted it last November, and it served as coroner report for Pelosi's suicide.
Every poll leading up to that poll confirmed what was coming. We did need that one November poll to serve as official coroner report, however.
It was ruled a suicide because actions taken resulted in the (political) death of the actor. The actor was Pelosi and the Left, and the actions taken were: Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare.
The great mass of polling data today seems to indicate that Obama's past suicide will be officially confirmed next November.
Now, to your point, it isn't like the electorate loves Obama's opposition, because they clearly don't. They merely want to grind Obama's bones to make their bread, similar to what they did to Pelosi and the Left last November.
Why does the electorate want to grind lefty bones to make their bread? Simple answer: Because of Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare, which were suicidal.
Anonymous: It's the economy. The economy was bad in 2010, and voters took it out on the party of the president. Because the economy is still bad, they will continue to take out their frustration on the party of the incumbent president, but in 2012, that guy will actually be on the ballot.
It's not the issues. Voters are FANTASTICALLY uniformed about those. They DO know whether they think things are going well or not, and they don't think they're going well. Ergo, Dems lost in 2010, and if things don't improve, they'll lose in 2012.
All polls have Romney leading with independents, so he would stand the best chance.....60 /40
ReplyDeleteI think Obama has given away 28-29 states, as of this point, and the counting starts from there. On current trajectory, PA goes over as well, and that means anybody with a pulse beats Obama. And Perry and Romney both have pulses.
ReplyDeleteRomneyCare gives Obama a bit of cover for ObamaCare, neutralizing one of Obama's many weak spots. And the whole Mormon thing might tend to split the R coalition a tad, however unspoken (although as team Obama has already mentioned, they'll be quick to tag Romney as "weird", so they'll get their point across in any event). So I'd say Obama would rather face Romney, for multiple reasons. It'd be a kinder, gentler form of campaign season... and that's the only environment in which Obama can possibly win. Some measure of Hope and Change must be involved. Somewhere. Somehow. Some way. Or he loses.
Perry on the other hand will tempt the Obamistas to go straight negative, and risk blowing their own turnout model, if they succumb to the temptation to spend $1B or more blowtorching the country with negative advertising. Perry's voters will definitely show up to vote, but Obama's won't, and the $1B blowtorching will be one of the reasons they won't.
I think that's the reason we've seen the MSM and Obamabots going after Perry so hard. They know they need an early kill on this guy, because they cannot take him out in the general without damaging themselves. And Perry's presence in the general precludes the light and fluffy campaign environment that Obama must have in order to win. Perry is a wolf, and there will be nothing light and fluffy about the 2012 election, on his end.
So far, Perry informs us that Bernanke is guilty of treason, and Social Security is definitely, no doubt about it a ponzi scheme. Evidently, Perry's read the tea leaves, and has decided Romney is squishy and can be exposed as such. An interesting and bold strategy, and we'll see if it works.
(Note: liberal answering the conservative question)
ReplyDeleteI'd put both of their chances around 80-85% now, based entirely on my uninformed guess as to the state of the economy in a year. And the only reason it's 80-85% is that my uninformed guess has a lot of uncertainty involved. But, if the economy doesn't get noticeably better in a year, it doesn't matter who the GOP nominates (outside of maybe Ron Paul).
"and Social Security is definitely, no doubt about it a ponzi scheme. Evidently, Perry's read the tea leaves, and has decided Romney is squishy"
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says the main source of income for millions of voters is a Ponzi scheme I think that is negative for their vote getting ability.
One potential advantage of the GOP is that they have become the party that is tougher on illegal immigration. That advantage would be thrown away if Perry were the nominee because unlike the "squishy" Romney Perry is against a border fence, is against using e-verify and favors instate tuition for illegals.
Romney's recently released economic plan contains an item with even more appeal to voters. He is for getting tougher on China for their violation of trade rules and would have the government sanction them on his first day in office. I am not sure where Perry stands on China's trade practices.
I think the Perry/immigration thing is backwards. I think Perry (especially if he picks Rubio as his VP, which I think he probably would) brings lots of Latinos into the fold. I think there's more to be gained from that crossover than lost, especially since Perry will be popular with the types of voters who disagree with him on that issue on pretty much every other issue.
ReplyDeleteA non-Conservative chiming in here to agree with the last comment; Perry/Rubio is a good ticket for the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the professor's answer to this question?
ReplyDeleteStrikes me that there may be an unusual interaction effect between Perry v. Romney and the state of the economy 14 months out.
ReplyDeleteIf we remain in economic doldrums, the question may tilt heavily toward Romney. His perceived wonkish competence helps him in that case, while Perry's non-mainstream views (SS, Bernanke, etc) seem especially threatening to core Republican constituencies. If the generic Republican has an 85% chance of winning in that case (following Matt Jarvis, above), I'd guess Romney would have a 90-95% chance, while Perry might be only a 70% favorite.
By contrast, if things are looking much better 14 months out, then an election in reasonably good times may favor Perry. He then benefits from the go-along, get-along party-on vibe that propelled Bush past Gore (sort of). Romney, somewhat like Gore, is haunted by his technocrat-wonkish-no-one-really-likes-him-never-won-anything-anyone-cares-about equity. So if things are better, and the generic Republican has a 60% chance, I'd give Perry a 70% shot and Romney more like 50.
As always, I could be way off here, but if I'm right it presents a conundrum for Team Obama. It wouldn't be clear who they would prefer to face at this point.
I don't believe it matters who Obama faces, nor what the economy looks like, because he'll lose to any of them. It's an incumbent referendum first of all, and Obama is going to lose that referendum overwhelmingly, worse than Carter or Bush 41. The results of that referendum will come due in January 2012 or thereabouts, and they're going to be ugly.
ReplyDeleteObama committed suicide long ago. Rather than focusing on what was important, he focused on Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare... and that has absolutely destroyed him. There would have been a chance for him to follow the Truman route back to the WH, had he acted Trumanesque. But he didn't. He acted Pelosiesque. Now comes the final referendum on Pelosism.
>Now comes the final referendum on Pelosism.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--
What will you do if Obama wins? Admit you don't know what you're talking about?
It's generally a bad to idea to make confident electoral predictions based on political theories. Ask Shelby Steele.
Speaking as a liberal, I think Obama would FAR rather face Perry than Romney, though I think he will have an uphill battle for re-election in any event. Perry inevitably brings with him echoes of George Bush, who is not admired by the electorate, and his views on basic social programs on which so many people depend will be offputting to many voters. The fact that Romney is still way behind in polls of Republican voters says less about his electability than it does about the hold the Tea Party and other extreme conservatives now have on the party. I would give Perry 50/50 odds; Romney 65/35.
ReplyDelete(As you don't have a question for moderates, I'll take the liberty of commenting here.)
ReplyDeleteSpeaking for moderate independents everywhere (they all take their marching orders from me), Perry would be a very bad choice for the Republicans. He's charismatic, and seems to be a nice enough sort, but some of his views are just way out on the lunatic fringe. The middle would go solidly for Obama. No one can win without at least dividing the independents. I'd give him a 10% chance.
If they nominate Romney? It would probably come down to the economy. If there is significant progress before next November, I'd give it to Obama. If not..... Lacking a crystal ball, I'll give Romney about a 40% chance.
(One last point: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall hearing Perry accusing Bernanke of treason. Rather, I heard him say that any actions by Bernanke to make the economy look better just prior to an election would be treasonous.)
"It's generally a bad to idea to make confident electoral predictions based on political theories."
ReplyDelete.
Perhaps, but that's not what I did.
I make confident electoral predictions based upon hard data and reality, as provided in the run up to the election last November, the election results themselves, and the follow on and forecast for how the hard data is trending.
Given all that, Obama is a dead man walking. Now, can he be resurrected, as you're wishing? Always a chance, and nothing's absolute in this world... but I highly doubt it. Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare are proven killers, as Pelosi discovered. She committed suicide, and so did Obama, it's just taking a bit longer to obtain the coroner's report.
I make confident electoral predictions based upon hard data and reality, as provided in the run up to the election last November, the election results themselves, and the follow on and forecast for how the hard data is trending.
ReplyDeleteThere is no known correlation between the results of midterm elections and the subsequent presidential elections. If there is any correlation at all, it is a negative one. Truman, Reagan, and Clinton all suffered strong midterm losses and went on to be elected to a second term. In contrast, Carter and Bush Sr. endured relatively mild midterm losses yet were voted out of office two years later. Bush Jr. actually gained seats in his first midterm--which is almost unheard of--yet was just barely reelected, with a narrower popular-vote margin than any other incumbent president in history. In short, midterm results don't tell us much about the upcoming presidential race, for better or worse.
Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare are proven killers, as Pelosi discovered.
Where is your evidence that any of those things were responsible for the midterm results?
There is no known correlation between the results of midterm elections and the subsequent presidential elections."
ReplyDelete.
FYI, Michael Barone has precisely correlated the 2. No offense, but I'll take his analysis over your claim. And it's one of the prime reasons why Obama is a dead man walking right now... the biggest reason, in fact. That hard data of November 2010 is quite hard indeed, and the trends aren't changing much, and may be getting even more ugly for Obama, if anything. They don't support Obama's opposition, not at all. They simply oppose Obama, just like they opposed Pelosi and company.
The evidence that Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare brought on the historic 2010 blowout is the historic blowout itself. We have hard data on that, remember?
And we have the historical outliers brought on by those who got blown out. Those outliers would obviously be: Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare.
And we all know what folks wanted the blown out to focus on, don't we? At least, I hope we all know, by now. But instead, the blown out focused on: Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare.
So, they got blown out, historically so. And there are obvious reasons for that, just as there will be for what's coming in November 2012. The same reasons, basically: Pelosism. We're just awaiting the coroner's report for confirmation.
" Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare are proven killers, as Pelosi discovered. She committed suicide, and so did Obama, "
ReplyDeleteIf Pelosi "committed suicide" please explain why the poll numbers for the GOP in Congress is the same as the Dems according to Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146948/Americans-Give-Equally-Low-Ratings-Parties-Congress.aspx
There's only one poll that matters. We conducted it last November, and it served as coroner report for Pelosi's suicide.
ReplyDeleteEvery poll leading up to that poll confirmed what was coming. We did need that one November poll to serve as official coroner report, however.
It was ruled a suicide because actions taken resulted in the (political) death of the actor. The actor was Pelosi and the Left, and the actions taken were: Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare.
The great mass of polling data today seems to indicate that Obama's past suicide will be officially confirmed next November.
Now, to your point, it isn't like the electorate loves Obama's opposition, because they clearly don't. They merely want to grind Obama's bones to make their bread, similar to what they did to Pelosi and the Left last November.
Why does the electorate want to grind lefty bones to make their bread? Simple answer: Because of Bailouts, Porkulus, Cap & Tax and ObamaCare, which were suicidal.
"Why does the electorate want to grind lefty bones to make their bread? "
ReplyDeleteSo you think the voters are cannibals? I hope this is some lefty parody writer posting this idiotic rhetoric.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIt's the economy.
The economy was bad in 2010, and voters took it out on the party of the president. Because the economy is still bad, they will continue to take out their frustration on the party of the incumbent president, but in 2012, that guy will actually be on the ballot.
It's not the issues. Voters are FANTASTICALLY uniformed about those. They DO know whether they think things are going well or not, and they don't think they're going well. Ergo, Dems lost in 2010, and if things don't improve, they'll lose in 2012.