Why Obama Will Lose

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Barack Obama on track to lose—John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com

Less than four months until the election, the Real Clear Politics average of all national surveys has Obama at 46.2 percent, vs. 45 percent for Mitt Romney.

That’s not a good number for an incumbent.

The issue today is the economy. Not to mention the economy. Also, the economy. In every poll, more than 50 percent say the economy is the No. 1 issue; health care comes in second, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent.

How is Obama faring on economic questions? Terribly. Much worse than his head-to-head numbers. In this week’s New York Times poll, 39 percent of the public rates him favorably on his handling of the economy, vs. 55 percent who disapprove. It’s pretty much the same in other polls.

This is even worse for him than it looks because the poll sample itself — the registered voters interviewed by the pollsters — is tilted in the president’s favor. Of those interviewed, 32 percent said they were Democrats, 25 percent Republicans and 37 percent independents.

That 7-point Democratic advantage was the spread on Election Day 2008 — after the collapse in George W. Bush’s support, the Republican scandals of 2006, the financial meltdown and the Obama surge. Does anyone seriously believe that, in 2012, Democrats will have anywhere near that advantage?

James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute notes that the only two presidents to face re-election with the consumer-confidence numbers Obama has to show for himself were Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush — both one-termers.

In 2012, what is the incumbent going to do — talk about somebody else’s tax returns for the next 109 days?

Probably

Do you ever post your own thoughts?

 

[Peach]

The undecideds at the last moment go big for the challenger if they are unhappy with the incumbant.

8.1% REAL unemployment, too high. If unemployment doesn't go down noticeably, by late September, its advantage Romney.

 

[ginscpy]

The Obama camp has used up most of their ammo against Romney already - and they are still barely even

 

[ginscpy]

sooner of later - Obama will have to address hisrecord in his first term - by his own words said _ I have 4 years to turn this around

 

[ginscpy]

The exception is the 92 elections where shorlty after the Gulf War - Pres George HW Bush had historic high job approval ratings.

Theecoomy went sort of south - but certainly no recession ........................

never couldfigure out why he didnt getrewarded with a 2nd term

a head-scratcher

 

[pvsi.]

Why Obama Will Lose

There are two turds in the race, one might win.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The exception is the 92 elections where shorlty after the Gulf War - Pres George HW Bush had historic high job approval ratings.

Theecoomy went sort of south - but certainly no recession ........................

never couldfigure out why he didnt getrewarded with a 2nd term

a head-scratcher

I read this entire thread. And then got to this post, and this was, swear to Christ, my thought:

"Oh no WONDER this fucking guy sounds so batshit crazy!"

 

[ginscpy]

I though the first President Bush desrved re-election.

Certainly no questions about hisresumee.

Congressman, CIA chief, Ambassador, 2 term VP underregan - War Hero (youngest Navy flier in WW2.)

 

[ginscpy]

Do you think the undecideds in the last week before the the Nov election are going to say "good job Mr President - letshave 4 more years.............R

 

[ginscpy]

Oba,ma belongs on the MtRushmore Hall Of Shame

Saw the orig 1 - my one beef was about Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jackson]

Obama is outspending Romney while Romney continues to bring in more money from supporters. Not wise on the president's part this early in the game.

 

[ginscpy]

Main reason : crappy/failed president

 

[ginscpy]

WINK AND A NOD.

Goes all the way bak to JFKs womanizing and before.......................

Clintons drug-use/womanzing, Obamas hard-drug use - queastionable origin ofbirth ,

 

[Bloodline]

Obama is outspending Romney while Romney continues to bring in more money from supporters. Not wise on the president's part this early in the game.

Back to the title of this thread and many other.....

"Why this.....and Why that?"

Not hard to spot the FOX News crowd here is it?

 

[ginscpy]

The main reason Obama will lose is because he has been a terrible president.

 

[ginscpy]

He will lose.

You know it.

And he should .

BEEN A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT

 

[ginscpy]

Obama has been a terrible president.

I hope the voters see throught the fraud in Nov and wise-up.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure Ruppie gave Pudhurtz a pat on the head for this one, but let's get real here.

69 Million people vote for Obama in 2008.

59 million people voted for John McCain in 2012.

In order for Romney to win, he has to get all 59 million of McCain's voters to show up, then get at least 5 million of Obama's voters to change their minds.

There will be some growth in the electorate, but not enough to make a difference. If anything, new voters favor the incumbant.

Let us look first at the 69 million who voted for Obama last time. This was an improvement over the 59 million who voted for Kerry or the 50 million who voted for Gore. IN fact, the Democrats have increased the number of voters who support their candidate in every election since 1980.

The only two elections were the Democratic candidate got a lot less votes than they did the previous cycle were 1980 (where Jimmy Carter went from 40 million to 35 million) and 1968 (When Humphrey got 13 million less votes than LBJ did in his crushing route of Barry Goldwater.)

In both of those cases, the difference was NOT losing those votes to the Republicans than losing them to third party candidates, some of whom drifted to the GOP later. (Again, Anderson in 1980, and Wallace in 1968).

There is no corresponding third party peeling away from the Democrats this time. They might be disappointed with Obama, but they aren't going to embrace Romney.

Then you have Romney's problem. He has to get all of McCain's voters.

McCain actually got 3 million less voters than George W. Bush got in 2004. So maybe those are possibilities they can get back. That's providing they haven't died since 2004, since older voters skew more Republican. McCain was no George W. Bush and Romney is neither in terms of likablilty or story.

Romney's problem is that a lot of us supported John McCain because he wasn't Romney. We looked at Thompson, we looked at Huckabee, but at the end of the day, we supported McCain because he wasn't a two faced weasel who belonged to a whacked out cult.

This is the incumbant advantage. When you vote for the guy once, you are really hard pressed to admit you made a mistake. Who admits mistakes easily?

The two times when incumbants did lose ground- Bush-41 and Carter, it was because there were nice third party alternatives where you could vote against the guy and still not admit you screwed up by voting for him in the first place.

Romney, on the other hand, still hasn't really sealed the deal with those who supported McCain. Which is why he's afraid to stare down Limbaugh or Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama is outspending Romney while Romney continues to bring in more money from supporters. Not wise on the president's part this early in the game.

All the money in the world can't give Romney a soul.

 

[ginscpy]

I'm sure Ruppie gave Pudhurtz a pat on the head for this one, but let's get real here.

69 Million people vote for Obama in 2008.

59 million people voted for John McCain in 2012.

In order for Romney to win, he has to get all 59 million of McCain's voters to show up, then get at least 5 million of Obama's voters to change their minds.

There will be some growth in the electorate, but not enough to make a difference. If anything, new voters favor the incumbant.

Let us look first at the 69 million who voted for Obama last time. This was an improvement over the 59 million who voted for Kerry or the 50 million who voted for Gore. IN fact, the Democrats have increased the number of voters who support their candidate in every election since 1980.

The only two elections were the Democratic candidate got a lot less votes than they did the previous cycle were 1980 (where Jimmy Carter went from 40 million to 35 million) and 1968 (When Humphrey got 13 million less votes than LBJ did in his crushing route of Barry Goldwater.)

In both of those cases, the difference was NOT losing those votes to the Republicans than losing them to third party candidates, some of whom drifted to the GOP later. (Again, Anderson in 1980, and Wallace in 1968).

There is no corresponding third party peeling away from the Democrats this time. They might be disappointed with Obama, but they aren't going to embrace Romney.

Then you have Romney's problem. He has to get all of McCain's voters.

McCain actually got 3 million less voters than George W. Bush got in 2004. So maybe those are possibilities they can get back. That's providing they haven't died since 2004, since older voters skew more Republican. McCain was no George W. Bush and Romney is neither in terms of likablilty or story.

Romney's problem is that a lot of us supported John McCain because he wasn't Romney. We looked at Thompson, we looked at Huckabee, but at the end of the day, we supported McCain because he wasn't a two faced weasel who belonged to a whacked out cult.

This is the incumbant advantage. When you vote for the guy once, you are really hard pressed to admit you made a mistake. Who admits mistakes easily?

The two times when incumbants did lose ground- Bush-41 and Carter, it was because there were nice third party alternatives where you could vote against the guy and still not admit you screwed up by voting for him in the first place.

Romney, on the other hand, still hasn't really sealed the deal with those who supported McCain. Which is why he's afraid to stare down Limbaugh or Trump.

Its the economy stupid.

Obama - in his own words - pledged to fix it in 4 years.

Terrible president - one OF THE WORST EVER.