Obama Is a Lock

The American public loves recession, war, tyranny.

The near-certainty that Mitt Romney will be defeated by Barack Obama in November is both intuitive and numerical

Following his important if unspectacular victories in six out of 10 state primaries on Tuesday, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is now on a slow but secure track to be the Republican Party’s nominee for president of the United States. 

There is no evidence that Romney can unseat President Obama in November. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Obama beating Romney handily in a one-to-one contest, with Obama drawing 50 percent support to Romney’s 44 percent. 

Much more important than opinion polling, however, is the real polling that has taken place since the Iowa caucus. These elections provide a true account of how many people are actually turning out to vote for Romney. So far, they indicate that Romney is failing to generate substantially more support than he did during his losing campaign in 2008. And the greater cause of nominating a Republican challenger to Obama is generating measurably less support than it did four years ago. 

Put simply: About the same number of people are voting for Mitt Romney as voted for him in 2008, when he didn’t even win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election. This is not true in every state. There are small states such as Vermont and largish ones such as Virginia and Ohio where Romney has more than doubled his 2008 performance. But in those cases, Romney is still pulling fewer votes than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) got in the 2008 primaries. In the case of South Carolina, where he pulled a vote count that was both higher than his 2008 take and higher than McCain’s 2008 haul, Romney still didn’t win the state. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich did. 

The raw numbers are even more dire at the level of the overall Republican field. So far, 7,881,788 people in 22 states have pulled the lever for any Republican primary hopeful. In 2008, those same 22 states delivered at least 8,401,502 votes for Republicans. (And probably many more: Popular-vote counts for 2008 were missing for Maine and Wyoming, and I threw out the 2008 Washington state number, which was improbably larger than 2012. I used Real Clear Politics numbers for 2008 and 2012.) 

From a libertarian it will sound like special pleading to say that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who appears able to motivate people. But while his growth rate is impressive, Paul’s total numbers remain humble. If enthusiasm were Olympic medals, Paul would have the gold, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum would take silver, Gingrich would get the bronze, and Romney would be one of those human interest novelty stories wherein Tonga or someplace fields a mouse-that-roared winter biathlete. Together, the four remaining candidates do not signal that the Republicans can bring out enough voters even to equal the GOP’s losing 2008 performance. 

Fortunately for Romney (possibly) and the nation (definitely), a presidential election is not a popularity contest. There are whole states like Florida and Ohio and Illinois, where the vote has become an afterthought to the real drama of the ballot disposal. I have been voting in California for 15 years and I don’t think those machines are plugged into anything. 

But to believe that a low-turnout election will favor the Republican is to ignore the Democrats’ own skill with delegate math. California Democrats have perfected the art of voter suppression to something approaching science, and they pay close attention to the scheduling of vacant-seat votes and explosive ballot initiatives during off-year elections held in June or March and ignored by almost everybody. According to Casey Peters, a vice president at Californians for Electoral Reform, the gap between how voters vote and state seats get assigned widened from 9.5 percent in 2002 to more than 20 percent in 2010. 

Peters, using numbers from the California secretary of state’s office, shows that in 2010 Republicans won 44 percent of the votes, yet only 35 percent of the state Assembly seats. Democrats in that year won 65 percent of the Assembly seats while turning out only 54 percent of the vote. Given the big gains made by Democrats in the most recent redistricting, that gap will probably widen this year. Would it make sense for other political machines around the country to watch and copy the California model? “Undoubtedly,” Peters says. 

This is where the intuitive part comes in. I have two gut reasons to believe Romney can’t beat Obama. First: I have met both men.

Second: I see plenty of evidence that Obama is getting his message out to his troops much more efficiently than Romney is. It started with a Wells Fargo phone rep almost two years ago, who called to let me know I was “eligible for refinancing through the Making Home Affordable program of the Obama Administration's 2009 Recovery Act.” When I asked why I had been singled out for the honor, this Wells Fargo employee replied, “If we can get you a loan with a lower interest rate that will stimulate spending in the economy.” 

It’s maybe not surprising that Wells Fargo would acknowledge its debt to the government by distributing pro-administration talking points to employees. But how do you explain the Occupy L.A. activist who last fall described to me how her father had to struggle to get refinancing (which he had obviously earned because the bank “was still trying to charge him the same even though the house wasn’t worth that much anymore”), and how the dad and the local church and the bank worked out some principal reduction which was only possible thanks to “a law that the Democrats passed and Obama signed”?

Republicans ignore the discipline of the Democrats’ messaging and organizing to their own ruin. From the union hall to the para-transit bus pool to the senior citizens pavilion to the rec center, the ascendant message is of Obama’s wise stewardship of the economy, of the frustratingly slow pace (induced by obstructionist Republicans) of the Obama recovery, and whenever possible of how the speaker personally received some benefit—no matter how meager or humiliating—thanks to the president’s leadership. 

You may say this isn’t enough, that there are too few community organizers and reverends and union enforcers and public school teachers to make a difference. I say these are the people who have the very real skill that Mitt Romney very clearly lacks: the ability to turn out the quick and the dead on election day. And it is precisely during a no-hope, low-turnout election that those skills are most valuable. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    Romney is the Bob Dole/John McCain of 2012. The two parties have agreed to trade the Whitehouse every 8 years and that's that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would let Michael Clark Duncan and Ving Rhames double-penetrate me while deep-throating Tommy Lee and swallowing every drop of his STD-laden wad if it would prevent Obama from being reelected.

    And I accuse anyone who wouldn't as being a leftist sympathizer.

  • Killazontherun||

    Better cum fed than Red!

  • ||

    I would let Michael Clark Duncan and Ving Rhames double-penetrate me while deep-throating Tommy Lee and swallowing every drop of his STD-laden wad if it would prevent Obama from being reelected.

    So you, uh, really love your country, huh?

  • brickhouse||

    "I would let Michael Clark Duncan and Ving Rhames double-penetrate me while deep-throating Tommy Lee and swallowing every drop of his STD-laden wad if it would prevent Obama from being reelected.And I accuse anyone who wouldn't as being a leftist sympathizer"

    John, darling, is that you?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, it's not me. I don't even know who Michael Clark Duncan *is.*

  • ||

    If I had to choose between Obama and Romney, I would vote for Obama, just to send a cheery "Fuck you!" to the GOP. But I don't. Romney COULD get my vote if Ron OR Rand Paul were in the VP slot. Otherwise, I'll just vote for the Libertarian candidate as I've done most of my life.

  • fatherof10||

    So if you had to choose between a chance of liberty and prosperity and the dure thing lavery and serfdom, you take the sure thing of slavery and serfdom?

    Good choice, Loser.

  • ||

    I, for one, welcome the leadership of the Master Negro.
    He is the Dark Lord we deserve.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Counterpoint: WRONG.

  • ||

    Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Romney is leftish enough not to offend the independents and the left too much, and he's not Obama.

    I'm really amazed at how much people are discounting the state of the economy. It's a huge problem for Obama. As are his low approval ratings (probably worse than measured, too, as I can't help but think that leftists getting polled are scared to sound racist by opposing him). I don't think he has much chance at all of winning, despite Captain Willard's lackluster following. And among the true blue, the ones who aren't total morons have noted secretly to themselves that he's actually worse than Bush (or equally bad) on many, many issues. Hard to get enthusiastic about that.

    (cont'd)

  • ||

    Weren't all of the things Tim is saying true in 2010 as well? That was a midterm low interest election. And God knows the Dems did everything they could to keep the Congress. Losing the House is a big deal. A lot of people lost their jobs over that. And yet, 2010 was the worst year for Democrats since the civil war.

  • Mo||

    Turnout was quite high in 2010 ... for the Republicans. There was a massive enthusiasm gap. Remember all those Tea Party rallies?

  • ||

    There will be that kind of turnout again for the Republicans. Look at the enthusiasm polls. Republicans hate Obama more than Dems love him.

  • Mo||

    There was huge turnout at the primaries in 2010, not so this year. That doesn't indicate a lot of enthusiasm.

  • ||

    That doesn't indicate a lot of enthusiasm for voting for these clowns. It says nothing about the enthusiasm for voting against Obama. Voting in the primary is not voting against Obama. November will be an entirely different situation.

  • Mo||

    I think the fact that we're stuck with these clowns is pretty indicative. If the A-listers thought they would win, they would have run this year. Instead, they're waiting for an open field with either a) no incumbent or b) Joe Biden as the "incumbent". For Republicans (b) is a better situation than (a)

  • Robert||

    They made up their minds too early.

  • boomshanka||

    What A-listers are you referring to, exactly?

  • MJ||

    Enthusiasm's the reason that focusing on appeal to "moderates" instead of exciting the base has been a terrible strategy suggesting from the GOP establishment. Not that I am sure who could have been a candidate better placed to inspire enthusiasm.

  • Realist||

    You guys are arguing about an electrate that elected the following dolts in the last 24 years: Bush(2)!, Clinton, Obama. And look who their opponents were.

  • Realist||

    The leftist, socialist dickwads still hold the Senate and Presidency.

  • Paul||

    I'm really amazed at how much people are discounting the state of the economy. It's a huge problem for Obama.

    I'm hearing glowing reports daily on NPR about how great everything is getting. Unemployment down, housing prices stabilizing. Green shoots everywhere.

    It's almost like spring is coming! Ooh, it is! Just in time for Obama to to turn his poll numbers around!

    Cash for clunkers worked, he might support gay marriage one day ( or so say gay folks), wind farms are being planned across the fruited plains, please ignore the Chevy Volt, the UAW is back to work, the GM Bailouts worked(tm), America is Going Back to Work. The future is winning. It's Bi-Winning! Winning here, winning there...

  • ||

    Of course, NPR listeners will vote for Obama regardless, and everybody else will believe it when they see it.

  • ||

    Same on Yahoo News (with Reuters/AP "news" items). Actually, close reading shows that most of it is total propaganda: new unemployment claims are dropping but the unemployment rate is still 8.3%, "economists" are "predicting" that the unemployment rate will be 7.3% in 2013, then the next day new unemployment claims have risen but "the economy shows signs of life"... it is all about massaging the public psyche into the direction of "hope & change".

    As much as I fear & detest "charismatic" leaders, it seems that a plain vanilla politician will have trouble beating Obama in November.

  • ||

    This morning the news is all about the economy roaring back. Everyone is happy, and they've been praising Obama. Attacking the economy is the absolute WORST thing you can do going against him right now.

  • ||

    I'm thinking that, if people are still paying >$4 for gas in November, and the Obama administration is still talking about reducing dependence on foreign oil but not actually drilling for it in the US, and if the XL pipeline isn't approved by then, Obama is toast against any opponent.

  • ||

    Remember that many of us will be paying over $5/gallon this summer. Come October or so, the price will come down. It's the standard gas pricing cycles. But it's looking very unlikely to be below $4 in November.

    And if war/bombing starts in Iran, then the price of gas could go well above even these numbers.

  • ||

    Wishful thinking. Obama's going to win. He's at 61 on Intrade, Romney's at 31.

  • ||

    (cont'd)

    I suppose one possibility to the contrary of the above is that either Johnson mounts a historically great LP run (I'm not all that hopeful, given the GOP run) or that Paul actually does run as an independent, which I think would be enough to give Obama a win.

  • Paul||

    I'm still trying to figure out how I can send you a bottle (or... *ahem* you can send me one) depending on who wins our 'bet'. Which we haven't actually made official or anything, but out of my libertarian sense of honor, I will send you a bottle if Obama loses.

    Just sayin'.

  • ||

    c/o Reason Foundation?

  • Paul||

    Fuck that, Cavanaugh or Welch would swing through the property room and it would never be seen again. Den of thieves that Reason Foundation.

  • ||

    The Kochs it is, then.

  • Paul||

    I'll have them put it in the CATO liquor cabinet after they change all the labels.

  • ||

    Sounds like a plan.

  • Realist||

    If it's not Paul it doesn't matter if it is Obama or one of the assholes in the Republican running. They all believe in BIG government and war.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    I dunno. As bad as the economy is, ROMNEY SIGNED THE PERMANENT MASSACHUSSETS AWB. I can't be the only person who will vote against him for this reason.

  • wareagle||

    most people vote pocketbook first. If you choose to support Obama, you pretty much get what you deserve. I'm not sweating assault weapons as a national priority.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Vote against does not equal vote for Obama. It most likely equals protest vote for Gary Johnson, or overthrowing the federal government.

  • ||

    Yep.

  • Mo||

    The problem Romney has is he can't effectively attack Obama on his weakest flank, Obamacare.

  • Robert||

    Sure he can, just watch. If he says, never mind what I did in that left-shithole Mass., a vote for me is a vote vs. Obamacare, what are voters who are against Obamacare going to do, vote for Obama?

  • Robert||

    The only way Obama could neutralize this would be for Obama to promise to fight for repeal of Obamacare.

  • Barack H. Obama||

    ROMNEY, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!

  • fatherof10||

    If anyone were to actually read his book and actually see what romneycare really is, instead of just allowing themselves to be led along by the MSM, they would be in Romney's camp.

    http://fatherof10.com

  • ||

    Dude, you need to proof read your shit. It's basically unreadable.

  • ||

    Bullshit its apples and oranges

  • Da Nile||

    Put on your flame retardant suit, Tim. This kind of thinking isn't going to go over well with the GOP fellow travelers here.

  • Paul||

    Flame retard suit? I don't get it?

  • ||

    The difference is that 2012 isn't 2004. The economy was doing pretty well in 2004. The 2004 election was a referendum on the war. Bush and Rove managed to convince the country that Kerry wanted to surrender to the Islamist.

    This election is going to be about the economy and nothing else. It doesn't matter how many distractions Obama creates, the election is a referendum on the economy.

    You can't compare this to 2004. If we had had 9+% unemployment in 2004, Kerry would have won and won easily.

  • ||

    Kerry got 251 Electoral Votes to Bush's 286, and 48.3% of the popular vote to Bush's 50.7%.

    That was not exactly a landslide for Bush, and Kerry was a weak candidate, too.

    The election played out as it did, but as John says, it really wasn't a slam dunk.

  • ||

    Bush was a weak candidate just like Obama. And he had a good economy. And Kerry still almost won.

    The point is that elections are a referendum on the incumbent. The challenger is almost incidental.

  • ||

    True. Furthermore, you can have a great challenger, but if people are generally satisfied with things, a majority will still vote for the incumbent.

  • Joe M||

    Furthermore, you can have a great challenger...

    Really? Too bad we've never seen such a thing.

  • ||

    Thomas E. Dewey? Adlai Stevenson?

    I'd say they were exactly that: strong challengers who could not beat incumbents when times were comfortable.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Stevenson got his clock cleaned.

  • ||

    Exactly. But people still remember him positively as a candidate, which is not something you can say of, for example, Mondale, Dole, or Kerry. (McCain too but that's still a bit recent.)

  • Joe M||

    Sorry, I really should've specified something like in a generation or two.

  • fatherof10||

    So the question is, are people genuinely satisfied with Obama? No.

    http://fatherof10.com
    I hated communists even before they started calling themselves liberals.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    That CNN host is a piece of work. And they call Fox News biased?

  • Robert||

    Elections where the incumbent is a candidate are partly a referendum on the incumbent. The degree to which the weight of the decision is on the incumbent varies from election to election. However, this particular election, the weight is extremely on the incumbent, to the degree that his chances don't depend at all who his opponent is. Obama is an extremely polarizing figure, and his chances are worse this go-round than in 2008, because a lot of people wanted to give him a chance then who won't give him another. In fact, a lot of people wanted to give just about any black guy a chance, and now that he's had it, that offer is withdrawn.

  • Sam Grove||

    Who's to say we won't have a war before November?

  • ||

    Sure smells like some bombs will be falling by this summer. Maybe not--depends on a number of factors, I suppose.

  • Ska||

    So it's a good time for The Cure to do a reunion tour?

  • Paul||

    If Obama went to war with Iran, he would fully secure the GOP vote and lose none of the Occutard vote. None of it.

  • ||

    Yeah, if anything history shows that starting a war right before an election is a great way for incumbents to hang onto positions of power.

  • Bill||

    In the past the incumbents would have the Fed lower interest rates (was it Volcker who would not do it for papa Bush?) to give the economy a temporary boost to be paid for later with inflation. I suppose the Fed could make interest rates negative and pay people to borrow money. Along with a war w/ Iran or Syria.

  • shrike||

    The CiC.

    Unless we get attacked. BiBi is a fucking degenerate asshole hated by the Europeans too. The only pro-war crowd will be McCain, Lindy Graham, Joe L, etc.

  • wareagle||

    really? Obie and Hill banged the drums for going into Lybia; they made a lot "Mubarak's got to go" noise; what says they won't rain on Iran?

    Iraq did not attack us but plenty of Dems signed onto the resolution to use force. Curiously, not a single anti-war protester seen since W went home to TX.

  • Paul||

    Curiously, not a single anti-war protester seen since W went home to TX.

    They're just resting.

  • shrike||

    Libya is not a war.

    Its not a war unless your guys get killed. Its a simple concept. Americans didn't care about Bosnia either.

  • ||

    Shorter shrike, killing brown people is great as long as they can't fight back.

  • Mo||

    Much like a blind squirrel finding the nut, he's kinda right. No one cares unless American blood is spilled*. We could bomb Madagascar day in and day out from now until election day and no one would care until someone flew into Dover in a casket.

    * Unless their response is to block Hormuz and gas prices go up.

  • protefeed||

    Ummm, gotta give credit where due, I think shrike is actually making sense for once, and saying voters in the U.S. don't get too worked up over wars where very few U.S. soldiers get sent home in flag-draped coffins.

    Which, unfortunately, seems to be a correct assessment.

  • ||

    I think that's true.

    OTOH I don't think that a war will win anything for Obama either. People don't really notice, either way. See Libya.

  • ||

    Curiously, not a single anti-war protester seen since W went home to TX.

    Dubya was a murderer for oil; Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

  • Hooha||

    Oh yeah! Wait, what did he "win" that for again? I seem to be having a bit of trouble recalling for some reason...

  • Realist||

    The point is only Paul is against pointless wars. The rest love war.

  • ||

    True, it will be about the economy. Voters will vote against the people who fucked it up. The GOP. We would have had more than 9% unemployment in 2004 if we weren't in the middle of a bubble and a spending spree.

  • Federal Reserve||

    You say 'bubble' like it's a bad thing.

  • ||

    Too early to say. If everything stays more or less level or improves between now and November, I give Obama the edge just because he loves campaigning (its the only thing he's ever succeeded at) while Romney isn't comfortable with it, and the Dems run a better machine than the Repubs.

    However, if any one of a number of things that could go wrong, do go wrong, then its Romney. Among the things that could cost Obama the election:

    (1) Gas prices up around $5.00 a gallon through the summer.

    (2) The economy rolls over. Europe is entering a recession now, China is significantly slowing, what are the odds we don't catch a cold from them?

  • ||

    I think the economy is going to tank big time this summer. Look at durable goods orders. Look at the shipping index. Nothing is moving. There are no signs of a turn around.

    The only way to keep the economy from completely tanking is to print money. But doing that is what is driving the gas prices up, which will tank the economy anyway.

    Yeah, we are totally fucked.

  • wareagle||

    look at people rejoining the job hunt and, therefore, being counted in what remains a fraudulent jobless figure. And nothing in this administration's DNA points to proactive steps re: gas prices.

  • Loki||

    doing that is what is driving the gas prices up

    but, but, teh SPEKUULATOZ!!!!!!!!111!!!!!one!!

  • ||

    You know, I think Obama is in trouble for a reason even bigger than the economy--he's not going to be able to run as an empty vessel into which people pour their hopes and dreams. He has to run on his record, and I don't think many media outlets can pull the same crap they did last time. It's impossible to not vet the claims and record of a sitting president.

    I'm pretty scared of what a President Romney might do, especially with a likely GOP-controlled Congress, so it's not really wishful thinking on my part. I'll be voting LP, regardless.

  • ||

    In all seriousness, what scares you about Romney? I think he would be a do nothing caretaker President. I don't see where he has the balls to do anything of note.

  • ||

    He's left-leaning, will probably keep some version of Obamacare (if it isn't struck down), and may pull a Bush in further pushing the GOP towards socialism.

    Do I prefer him to Obama? I suppose, mostly because Obama is one of the worst presidents ever. But I'm also aware that I might regret that feeling.

  • ||

    I think it will be struck down. I would imagine in private, politicians from both sides are begging and pleading for the Supreme Court to make it go away and alleviate them of the responsibility of dealing with it.

    If you could repeal it today and bring it back to a vote, I bet it wouldn't get a single vote from either side today. What a mistake that was.

  • Joe M||

    I would imagine in private, politicians from both sides are begging and pleading for the Supreme Court to make it go away and alleviate them of the responsibility of dealing with it.

    God I hope that's true. Please let their spinelessness trump their thirst for power.

  • protefeed||

    If you could repeal it today and bring it back to a vote, I bet it wouldn't get a single vote from either side today. What a mistake that was.

    Oh, for fuck's sake, John. Obamacare repeal would get about 100% of Republican votes, and maybe 10% of Democratic votes in R-leaning districts.

    Partisans pander to their base.

  • Len Bias||

    John - Don't you think there's a good chance that just the mandate will be struck down and the rest will remain. Given that the bill is nearly 2,000 of government takeover, if all but the mandate remains, the bill will still cause enormous damage.

  • wareagle||

    I don't see the left-leaning. I see a business guy interested in what works. In MA, he had a hugely Dem legislature; no way to do anything without them. Might be nice to have someone who has actually created a job with his own money pulling some economic levers rather than a career politician.

  • ||

    Maybe. It's occurred to me that his leftishness was more out of Mass. necessity than inclination. However, he really hasn't repudiated some fairly serious things--like Romneycare.

  • ||

    I'd say that he is not someone who has a strong ideology. He's not an ideological leftie, but he's no constitutionalist, either.

    He's a management guy, not an issues guy. I don't know whether that's good or bad, really.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He'll be great at managing our collapse. A neat and tidy crater. In wareagle's words 'what works'.

  • ||

    Right. Romney's buddies would (not "will" because he's going to lose) rake in the cash regardless of what happens to the economy.

  • Ring||

    I have seen Romney make the fairly sensible claim that many MA voters wanted some kind of healthcare reform so he implemented it at the state level as it should be.

  • ||

    I see a business guy interested in what works.

    So why'd he sign off on RomneyCare?

  • tarran||

    In all seriousness, what scares you about Romney? I think he would be a do nothing caretaker President. I don't see where he has the balls to do anything of note.

    That's precisely what should cause you to crap your pants about Romney; the man will be the civil service's bitch.

    Whatever they want to do, thhey'll do, because all they need to do is show him powerpoints with numbers that say their policies are the technocratically correct, non-controversial ones.

    The civil service is driving the U.S. government off a financial cliff, and without an administration with the intestinal fortitude to reign them in, they will continue on their disastrous course.

    Anyone who pulls a lever for Romney might as well be pulling a lever for Obama... Obama is the civil service's bitch far more than people realize.

  • Robert||

    So enter civil service and you can't lose. Except the waiting lists for the jobs are hopelessly long now.

  • Sam Rayburn||

    Romney would just be Obama turned inside out. Really, not much different,except the ucky stuff on the outside.

  • ||

    It's impossible to not vet the claims and record of a sitting president.

    Don't underestimate the mendacity of the lapdog press.

  • ||

    Oh, they'll try, but I think it's a lot worse to try that with a sitting president than with Mr. Everything We Actually Know Nothing About. Too many alternative outlets these days.

  • Sam Rayburn||

    The economy is going to tank no matter who is president. Worse case scenario: it stays the same or continues a very marginal improvement until the election. Romney narrowly beats Obama but within a year of his election, after he does little different from Obama - a little regulation here, a little less regulation there, we get a complete economic meltdown. Everyone blames the Republicans, the free market, and of course, those awful, awful libertarians and the Koch's who are really the ones responsible. Them and of course, Wall Street Bankers and da corporashuns. So, 2016, the occutards and Mickey Moore get some complete reactionary, far far to the left of Obama into the Whitehouse. The country officially enters the dark ages and the lights don't come back on for another 100 years, if ever.

  • ||

    Couldn't we use kerosene or whale oil or something?

  • Hooha||

    Sam, you are absolutely correct. I think this election is all about board position, to borrow some chess parlance.

    Let Obama ride his flaming wreck into the ground, start wars in Iran, Syria, and wherever else become fasionable in the next four years. Let the costs of Obamacare start kicking in while the Dem golden boy is at the wheel.

    ...and we'll be in much better position to put a Ron or a Rand in the whitehouse in 2016 then we otherwise would be if we elect a Romney, Mitt, or Santorum.

    If the plan goes completetly to shit, we can always take over New Zealand and try again there.

  • Wiggle||

    he's not going to be able to run as an empty vessel into which people pour their hopes and dreams.

    LOL! That's all the American voter ever votes for (at least for POTUS).

    The real battle will be Congressional seats. And I think the GOP knows this and is supporting the candidate who will will carry enough Congressional wins, the party already seems resigned to not winning the White House. Obama with two GOP-controlled houses is effectively beaten anyway.

  • Paul||

    2) The economy rolls over. Europe is entering a recession now, China is significantly slowing, what are the odds we don't catch a cold from them?

    I thought they caught the cold from us?

  • Sam Rayburn||

    Dean, spot on.

  • tarran||

    So essentially, Obama is the second coming of FDR;

    He fucks up the economy, doles out favors to people whose support he needs to get elected, blames congress for everything and keeps getting reelected.

    Diis manibus! Why are my countrymen such fucking morons they keep falling for this shit!

  • Realist||

    Republicans are no prize.
    When everyone can vote everyone loses.

  • ||

    I see. None of what happenened during W's rule has anything to do with what's going on now. THAT ASSHOLE W INHERITED A SURPLUS!!

  • ||

    W had a chance to kill bin Laden before 911 and fucked that up. And fucked up at Tora Bora too. And ramped up the War on Drugs. So much incompetence in just one person, a Republican at that. Why would any sane person reward the party behind all that shit? They should be banished from the White House for at least another twenty years. Even for a fucking visit.

  • ||

    Except for Ron Paul.

  • rts||

    It started with a Wells Fargo phone rep almost two years ago, who called to let me know I was “eligible for refinancing through the Making Home Affordable program of the Obama Administration's 2009 Recovery Act.”

    So, the Democratic strategy is free ponies for all.

    Cavanaugh may be on to something here.

  • Paul||

    If Greece can riot because someone said, "smaller free ponies for all", then you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a winning strategy.

  • Realist||

    The Greek ponies are so small you can't ride'em.

  • ||

    (3) A biggish, ugly "war" in the Mideast. The Mideast just gets more unstable, so there will be no such thing as an Osirak-style surgical strike on Iran that doesn't blow up. Not to mention that the real faultline in the Mideast (no, not Islamonutters v Jews) is the Shia-Sunni hate fest could go at any time.

    Contrary to the CW, America is tired of war, and a nasty Mideast blowup will not be well-received, I don't think.

    Note to Squirrelz: Yeah, that character limit has really cleaned up the threads. Howsabout doing the right thing, admitting it was a failure, and getting rid of it?

  • ||

    People fought a war for 8 years under a Republican. That whole "we can't change Presidents in the middle of a war" is a myth. A war would be bad for Obama not good.

  • WanT||

    Agree, but the only problem I see with this is all the GOP candidates (minus Paul) essentially promised war too. I don't see how the GOP nominee will contrast to Obama on this issue...

  • ||

    Trudat.

  • ||

    Its not necessarily the contrast with Obama, its that Obama is in the Big Chair and will catch the heat (or the credit) for a Mideast breakdown.

  • Mo||

    I think a war in the Mideast would sink Obama. I think he's figured it out to with his, "Nothing's off the table, but let's slow our roll a bit. Why don't you pitch the country on why war is a good idea Mitt/Newt/Rick?"

  • ||

    While the GOP would have unclean hands on this issue, I think you're right. A war would really highlight the reasons why Obama shouldn't be reelected. Especially the $6/gallon gas.

  • Mo||

    Intrade seems to have taken it into account. The price of a bomb Iran contract for 2012 has dropped significantly and the price of the 2013 contract has risen.

  • ||

    The only war which has ever really been a liability for an incumbent was Vietnam, and it took *years* for the public to become disgusted and war-weary enough for that to happen. You could maybe count Bush's Iraq venture, but that required a similar incubation period. I think even if Obama's Iran venture (and he seems to me to want one) started tomorrow, it would still be too late for it to really cost him in November. Even if it did send gas to $8 per gallon (Obama voters would just blame those recalcitrant Iranians).

    Even Teddy Roosevelt never paid a heavy political cost for his ventures into Cuba and the Philippines, and that was back when there was still some shred of anti-imperialist sentiment left in the USA.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I think it helps to fight with a volunteer military vs an army of drafted slaves.

  • ||

    I look at the front page picture for this article and can't help but think, "Oh, so THAT'S what they look like."

  • kilroy||

    FWIW, I think Cavanaugh is right. The best thing I see happening in this election is the possibility Johnson gets 15% and gets i the debates.

  • ||

    If Obama gets reelected because an LP candidate pulls a Perot, that's fine with me. Impossible to ignore the implications of something like that, and an LP surge is a different animal than a Reform Party one (people weren't really sure what that meant, but it's harder to ignore the consistent message of the LP, especially coupled with Ron Paul's decent run).

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I like Johnson, but I just can't see it happening.

  • Joe M||

    And probably many more: Popular-vote counts for 2008 were missing for Maine and Wyoming

    Haha, you missed a few hundred votes.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    I don't think there's any way to counter the narrative Tim outlines--the economy is getting better and anything that's holding it back is the Repub's fault. Certainly that's how the press is playing it (Fox aside), and here at the university, that's how it's perceived. And in the fitness club too.
    But, of course, being a libertard I'm not any happier if it actually ends up going the other way either.
    Sigh.

  • ||

    The beauty is that we lose either way.

    A good number of media outlets put their thumb on the side of the Democratic candidate every election. People must get that and discount accordingly; otherwise, we'd never see a GOP win at all.

    It's really hard to peg the state of the economy on a minority party. They'll try, but that's a losing message.

  • ||

    Not that difficult if you're the majority party and more popular than the turds that ran the economy into the ground with a big yee-haw.

  • ||

    The GOP is offending too many people. (Women, Latinos; the libertarians will stay home if the GOP puts either Santorum or Gingrich on the ticket.) They haven't got a chance, not even if they tould reincarnate George Washington and nominate him.

    Obama, as Tim points out, has managed to frame the recession as a problem created by the GOP under Bush and ongoing because of GOP obstructionism. And he is going to throw the "GOP will take away your healthcare" bomb as well. Obamacare may be unpopular, but Obama will just challenge the GOP to suggest a replacement, then shoot it down when they propose it.

    The elephant is dead and roasted.

  • ||

    I don't think it is that simple. I don't think he is going to win. Turn math is really against him. He won 2008 primarily because of historic turnout in the youth and black population. Hard to see how a President who only won because of historic turnout in 2008 wins a low turn out election in 2012 when he is much less popular.

    I go back and forth about what a second Obama term would mean, although I seriously doubt it will happen. It would be an utter and complete disaster. The question is would it be a disaster for just the country or for the Democratic party as a whole.

  • Paul||

    They haven't got a chance, not even if they tould reincarnate George Washington and nominate him.

    There's no way the Democrats would vote for a slave-owning white man.

  • ||

    Well, there's no way the present GOP would renominate Abraham Lincoln, who is part of the Democrat Trinity.

  • Paul||

    I have been voting in California for 15 years and I don’t think those machines are plugged into anything.

    Tim, you're a libertarian. It's you that's not plugged into anything.

  • Jose Rodriguez||

    Worst. Reply. Ever.

  • Jason Godesky ||

    Worst. Mexican. Ever.

  • protefeed||

    That was supposed to be humorous, Paul.

  • Paul||

    I uhh, know. My voting machines aren't plugged into anything either.

    You see, my joke was that I was pretending to be a liberal an... never mind. The jokes don't come with a roadmap.

  • ||

    Tim voted for Obama in 2008.

    So at least they were working then.

  • Paul||

    how the speaker personally received some benefit—no matter how meager or humiliating—thanks to the president’s leadership.

    And you guys keep laughing when Obama says directly to a questioner, "Send me your husband's resume (because your husband is too enfeebled to do it himself... or something)"

    That shit works. The president... the president is going to go over her husband's resume. You think those people are gonna give the finger to Obama and vote [cardboard cutout]? Fuck that.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I don't know. Obama seems like the guy who brags about how he can get you a job. Romney seems like the guy who can actually hire you.

  • Sam Rayburn||

    And enjoy firing you. :)

  • ||

    And pay you a pittance.

  • ||

    And brush you off the bottom of his shoe wonder what that sticky stuff is.

  • ||

    One of the talkers on Fox was going on about how the GOP better be nice to Ron Paul. If they piss him off, he won't run as a third party candidate himself, but if he supports Gary Johnson so that he gets around 3% or so, that could throw a close election.

  • Joe M||

    My thought is that Johnson will be making a huge plea to Paul supporters this summer and fall. And plenty of people in the unofficial Paul apparatus might encourage voting for Johnson because fuck it.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    I'd bet that plenty of people in both the official and unofficial Paul apparatus have no real love for the Republican establishment.

    It's unlikely that they will mobilize around an eventual non-Paul nominee and actively work for his campaign and help get out the vote etc.

    Those that don't go over to the LP and Gary Johnson will stay home.

  • ||

    Love is a two-way street.

  • Paul||

    The more close elections the GOP lose due to libertarian siphoning, the better. Let them lose the white house half a dozen times on that noise and libertarians won't be the outcasts they make us out to be.

  • ||

    I don't think we have six more cycles to give. Implosion will happen before then if we don't at least slow down the insanity.

  • Paul||

    Bring it on. My theory is that libertarians will fare better during a zombie apocalypse than everyone else.

  • Paul||

    Because Somalia!

  • Team Blue||

    Cutting even one penny of non-military spending will plunge us into ELEVENTY!!!1!one!!!-style Depressions.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Team Blue says that every day, basically.

  • WanT||

    Johnson should ask Paul to be his VP...

  • Realist||

    Why...VP ain't shit.

  • Paul||

    Personally, I await Obama's next book, The Audacity of Change.

  • ||

    The Voracity of Hope is still my recommended title.

  • Loki||

    The Fatuousness of Hope and Change

  • Loki||

    The irony of course being that most people buying the book probably wouldn't know what fatuousness means.

  • Hope & Changer||

    You callin me fat?

  • 16th amendment||

    How about "The Audacity of Hate" for hating/blaming the rich for not paying enough taxes.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The Paucity of Change would be more accurate.

  • ||

    More like looking under the sofa cushions for change.

  • ||

    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/.....-election/

    77% say gas prices number one issue in the election. If that is even remotely correct, Obama is in trouble.

  • Paul||

    Obama: Energy Tax Credits!

  • Invisible Finger||

    Then the poll says 77% of Americans are too fucking stupid to be allowed near a voting booth.

    If 77% of the population is basically begging for price controls, then we're fucked regardless of political party.

  • ||

    begging for price controls

    I think they are begging for the keystone pipeline.

  • Realist||

    "Then the poll says 77% of Americans are too fucking stupid to be allowed near a voting booth.

    If 77% of the population is basically begging for price controls, then we're fucked regardless of political party."
    There ya go...somebody has it figured out.
    When everyone can vote, everyone if fucked!

  • Realist||

    ...should be is fucked.

  • Paul||

    Is it puzzling that a president who has overseen years of economic stagnation, rising unemployment, soaring energy costs, unprecedented waste, the decay of the real estate market, and an assault on the civil liberties of both Americans and non-Americans

    Liberals:

    1. Economic stagnation: rich people getting it in the shorts. Who cares
    2. Rising unemployment: It's going down!
    3. Soaring energy costs: We told you! They pay $6 a gallon in Europe! Democrats are for alternative energy which will solve this anyway. Subsidies for green energy!
    4. Decay of real estate market: DREGULASHUN!
    5. Assault on civil liberties: What? Oh, look! Citizen's United and corporations aren't people!

  • So...||

    ...no matter who wins, we're fucked.

    Just another presidential election cycle, in other words.

  • Realist||

    You thought it would be different this time?

  • ||

    I didn't pray enough before. My buddy Pat says it will work this time.

  • ||

    Santorum concurs. But he says that I have to buy an indulgence if I want to smoke pot.

  • Henry B. Torn||

    My how we have such short term memories! I seem to remember Ronald Reagan was down around 20 points around March of 1980 and many said he couldn't win!

  • ||

    And McCain was way ahead going into Fall 2008. There's no such thing as a "lock".

    I do wonder how many Reagan votes were anti-Carter votes. I'm guessing more than a few.

    I don't pretend to know what the future will bring. It does seem that a candidate with a "lock" 6 months out should at least be worried, though.

  • ||

    You're not a Ronald Reagan.

  • shrike||

    Most have the stench of Bush fresh in their nostrils.

    1- Iraq War disaster
    2- Medicare Part D unpaid for
    3- TARP
    4- $1.3 trillion deficit from surplus
    5- PATRIOT Act

    Even gas was higher in 2008 over today.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Gas was higher for one summer and then nosedived. Gas above three dollars is the new paradigm.

  • shrike||

    Geithner is busy putting the new margin limits for commodities dealers in. If I should have them they should too.

    Goldman says crude will fall $20/bbl.

  • ||

    Gas was down to under a buck-fifty where I live, a couple years ago, though.

    It really depends on what people remember -- and where gas sits later this year.

  • shrike||

    So lets keep cherry picking then -- (Obama numbers over q4 2008)

    +900 basis point improvement in GDP
    +450 on the S&P 500 Index - best ever for any President
    32 consecutive months of private sector job growth
    inflation nearly dead at 2% CPI
    interest rates near lows at 4%
    largest US monthly exports ever at $180 billion in October
    taxes at lows in terms of % GDP
    earnings of S&P 500 best ever at $102
    Banks are back to safe balance sheets
    stopped the Bush deficit at $1.3 trillion and will lower it

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Inflation is not 2% you lying sack, and you know it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    shrike is Team Blue, and worships dangerous multi-billionaires. The boy just ain't right in the head.

  • ||

    Stopped the Bush deficit?!?

    That's funny.

    But I didn't cherry pick. I'm saying that the electorate will, and what it picks is not always predictable.

    What I do know is that nobody gives a shit about the official CPI when what they buy is going up noticeably, nor the official unemployment rate when they don't have a job or think they won't, nor improvements in GDP unless they feel them directly.

  • ||

    stopped the Bush deficit at $1.3 trillion

    How did he "stop" the Bush deficit at $1.3TT, when it has been equal or higher every year he's been in office, and is trending up 2010 - 2012?

    and will lower it

  • Mo||

    We could get gas back down to those levels again if the bottom falls out of the economy.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Further irony: if Obama loses, your hero, Ben Bernanke, will be responsible.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why didn't Team Blue:

    1. Prevent us going into Iraq?
    2. NOT go along with Medicare Part D?
    3. NOT vote for TARP?
    4. NOT help spend us into even more deficits?
    5. Shitcan the "patriot" Act when they had a majority of power?

    Oh, and... fuck you, shrike.

  • shrike||

    :blink:

    Uh... Christ-fag.

  • Team Blue Fag||

    Will remain a Team Blue Fag

  • Tony||

    Good question. So your implicit suggestion is to vote for the Team who actually did all that?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, because NEITHER Team did all that.

    However, your Team supposedly cares about such things, so... why didn't they do any of that when they had all the Rings of Power?

    And don't give me that shit about "obstruction". They damn well could have at least done ONE thing on that list, if not more.

  • ||

    It's impossible to play the "obstructionist" republican card, because the majority of team blue's own members were voting in favor those things.

  • ||

    Not impossible. It will probably work.

  • ||

    In early to mid-March, 2008, gas was around $3.30/gallon.

    Today, its more like $3.50.

    Geez, shrike, do you ever check the prices you throw out to prove its better now than it was in 2008?

  • DK||

    I see Paul as the kingmaker:

    1) Paul runs 3rd party - Obama wins
    2) Paul endorses Johnson - Obama narrowly wins
    3) Paul (Ron or Rand) becomes VP - Romney wins
    4) Paul does nothing - Romney narrowly wins

    I suspect 4) is the most likely occurrence. And, I think it will be the lowest presidential turnout in our history.

  • Rich||

    Interesting. I have your comment entered into my calendar on November 6th.

  • ||

    5)Paul does nothing - Romney narrowly loses.

  • ¢||

    A good number of media outlets put their thumb on the side of the Democratic candidate every election. People must get that and discount accordingly; otherwise, we'd never see a GOP win at all.

    Unless the value of "thumb," regardless of how softly or strongly it's applied, is roughly constant. So the Republican only wins when his un-thumbed appeal is massive. Considering the proportionally huge amount that Americans self-identify as "conservative" over "liberal," and how far off the polled "center" Team Blue actually resides...

    PLAUSIBLE

    But also, self-identifiers are totally full of shit, so who knows.

    And also, yeah Obama is a fuckin' lock. Romney has no positive appeal to anybody except people who so want to love Obama but can't, because he's not entirely white.

    But—oops!—those people are all in New England. Where Romney practiced losing.

  • ||

    I don't really care for Romney, but I think that he will have enough time to demonstrate whether he has positive appeal, before November.

    Unless you are saying that he's not CAPABLE of having any positive appeal, I think the jury is still out.

  • ¢||

    And also, fuck the squirrels 900 times.

  • Liberty||

    ... I have to say, it is nice to see someone who hates Obama finally just admit that he's going to win this thing. Of all the wingnut rituals I don't understand, I think no.1 (for me, at least) is that whole: "Even Though We Are Constantly Victims of Everything, We're Always Winning/Will Win/Have Won No Matter What" thing.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    We aren't Republicans, dipshit.

  • shrike||

    But you pine for Bush/Romney over an obviously better president.

  • ||

    Who's Bush/Romney?

    And Obama obviously sucks. Whether he will suck less than Romney would suck, is not obvious.

  • ||

    Who's Bush/Romney?

    And Obama obviously sucks. Whether he will suck less than Romney would suck, is not obvious.

  • Loki||

    ...while you pine for Bushbama over a maybe marginally better alternative.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    WHAT "obviously better president"? We haven't had one of those in decades.

  • ||

    Calvin Coolidge

    1923-1929

  • ||

    I should point out that Coolidge was a Governor of Massachusetts....

    Of course that is the only thing he shares with Romney.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sad we have to go that far back to find even a half-assed decent president...

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Silent Cal had balls of steel, he didn't bust any old strike he busted a fucking police union strike. In this day and age, people would be tripping over themselves to equate him with Joseph Kony or General Butt Naked.

  • Barack the Jaunty Future King||

    You missed a bit of semen there, shrike.

  • Warren Buffett||

    He's completely incompetent. Ask George, the boy just can't swallow a load to save his life.

  • ||

    Not all of us do. Many of us see where Obama went wrong, but know Mitt & Company would be even worse.

  • ||

    I merely dislike him. He's an improvement over W (any random asshole would have been), albeit a slight one. I admit that he'll beat Romney.

  • protefeed||

    Peters, using numbers from the California secretary of state’s office, shows that in 2010 Republicans won 44 percent of the votes, yet only 35 percent of the state Assembly seats. Democrats in that year won 65 percent of the Assembly seats while turning out only 54 percent of the vote. Given the big gains made by Democrats in the most recent redistricting, that gap will probably widen this year. Would it make sense for other political machines around the country to watch and copy the California model?

    Oh, for fuck's sake, Tim. Winner take all electoral systems almost always magnify vote leads, since losing a district 55-45 means you get 0% of the representation in that district.

    In Hawaii, it's about 60% to 35% in votes for Democrats, but 90% Democrats in the legislature.

  • 16th amendment||

    Here's how Romney can win. Around September introduce a bill to suppress Rush Limbaugh. Call it the end hate speech act or whatever. This will energize the republicans and get them out to vote. With voter turnout at 75%, the republicans are sure to win.

  • ||

    I hear so many people say they are voting for team red so as not to "waste" their vote on a candidate whom they could actually support. As long as enough people do this, team incumbent (red or blue) will always win. And we will always have more of the same.

    One of these days my head will explode and then it just won't matter any more.

  • protefeed||

    I keep pointing out to such GOPers in Hawaii that, by that insane logic, they are wasting their vote unless they vote for Obama, since Obama is sure to win Hawaii.

    And watch them twist and move the goalposts.

  • Robert||

    Mr. Cavanaugh grossly underestimates the power of voting against rather than for. Romney and the GOP field in general isn't drawing many votes in the primaries because so many voters are indifferent to who the Republicans nominate, they just know that they'll vote for whomever it is against Obama. In fact, I would tend to take the low primary turnout as evidence of the very unison and motiv'n of that opposition. Whether it will be enough to defeat Obama, I don't know, but that's really all this election will be, a referendum on Obama, not about who they might like better.

  • Mike M.||

    This. It's true that conservatives don't care much for Romney at all, but they will reluctantly vote for him in November anyway, because every conservative instinctively understands that the last remaining vestiges of freedom in this country won't survive five more years of the maniac we have now.

    But if by some miracle Obama does get reelected, the biggest reason will be because he's the first president in the history of this country to serve completely unscrutinized by the so-called mainstream media.

  • ||

    There's a chance that you're correct. But most people wish a pox on both houses.

  • ||

    Bwhahahahahahahah!!!!

    Tim thinks this will be an election of Romney vs Obama.

    This is an election of Obama vs a shitty economy and high gas prices.

    Romney will not so much win but simply walk in after Obama loses.

  • protefeed||

    Ummm ... Romney hasn't won the primary. That isn't a lock yet.

  • ||

    Insert "who ever gets the GOP nomination and it is 99% likely to be Romney" for "Romney".

    Also go fuck yourself. The article I am commenting on is about Romney vs Obama.

  • Robert||

    OK, then substitute whoever the GOP nominates for Romney above.

  • Mike M.||

    Yep. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that the most similar election to this one in terms of dynamics is Reagan vs. Carter.

    In spite of the horrendous economy, Carter was actually leading Reagan in all the polls virtually all the way up to November, with the so-called mainstream media desperately trying to convince people that Reagan was a dangerous loon.

    In the end, it turned out that all Reagan had to do was convince people that he wasn't in fact a dangerous loon. He did just that, and we all know how the actual election turned out.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm not even sure they were actually convinced. "3 out of 5 Americans prefer nuclear war to four more years of Carter."

  • Tony||

    Except Romney is the complete opposite of Ronald Reagan and Obama the complete opposite of Carter in every important way, namely personality and presentation.

  • Bill||

    Yep. Elections are often about personalities and mind-numbingly stupid sound bites.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hold on one jiffy.

    If Romney is the "exact opposite of Reagan", then why don't Democrats just vote for him?

  • ||

    And he was a dangerous loon. War on Drugs as a smokescreen for Iran/Contra. He got lucky on the breakup of the USSR. Our present course will destroy us in a similar manner. I voted for Ed Clark.

  • ||

    President Obama in November. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Obama beating Romney handily in a one-to-one contest, with Obama drawing 50 percent support to Romney’s 44 percent.

    This is exactly worthless. the republicans are putting each other though a meat grinder right now with the primaries....primaries everyone will have forgotten 30 days from now.

  • ||

    Even though it's pretty much certain that Paul's out, I can't help wondering about the benefits a Ron Paul presidency would have brought us. It could have been our first true reversal since the ravages of FDR.

  • ||

    Boy, you would think Romney is the worst presidential nominee since that guy who lost in the 1830's. Who was that, Johnny Bumford of the Whig party?

    And yet, here he is, beating back a "true conservative" Ron Paul, a social conservative in Santorum, and the "experienced statesman" from the feel good Clinton era that is Gingrich. Romney dueled with Paul in VA and beat him by a respectable margin. Someone must like him.

    Mitt Romney won't be able to resort to compassionate conservatism as Bush did. The tea party set the stage for him. Honestly, you have to much to lose by saying "Both sides are bad" and opting for some third party manifesto writer / Milton Friedman quoter who has achieved nothing of importance in his life.

  • ||

    And no, I'm not talking about Ron Paul

  • Hugo Longbone||

    go tongue your mother's asshole, Gary Johnson for power broker.

  • ||

    I'll go with you, XM.

  • ||

    Given the big gains made by Democrats in the most recent redistricting, that gap will probably widen this year.

    Soooo...meanwhile in the rest of the county where republicans have majority control of their state houses one would think this would favor Romney not Obama.

    Also who gives a shit about California...everyone knows it is going for Obama no matter where the fucking lines are drawn.

    In fact what the fuck?!?! How do redistricted lines have anything to do with a US presidential race?!?!

  • ||

    The last leg of a decades-long real-estate hyperinflation was just starting to ravage the economy.

    In 2004!?!?!

    Tim, what the fuck???

    I think Cavanaugh is trolling us.

  • ||

    Like all recent presidential elections, what really matters in this election is how the candidates are doing in the swing states: OH, FL, MO, NH, CO, NM, NV, VA, NC (and possibly WI this year). If Obama is polling well in those states right now, then it's probably over for the GOP.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    I agree with Tim C. I think Obama is going to do a second term as well. Mitt is just uninspiring and he is taking on the incumbent president.

  • Realist||

    Democracy: A form of government where fucking idiots with no integrity are elected to power, by fucking idiots with no integrity.

  • ||

    The one plus Romney has is that at one time or another he has been for or against whatever is the huge spending/liberty raping bill du jour is. Obama ran as anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and even seemed to be for tackling the deficit. He's done the exact opposite. So the choice is between a waffler or a liar? I'm staying home.

  • ||

    Of course, at one time or another he's probably also been for the bill du jour, also.

  • Robert||

    I'll take the liar if he lied when he said bad things. I'll take the waffler if the liar lied when he said good things.

  • ||

    Actually I will vote for Gary Johnson should he receive the LP nod (I am the 0.5%).

  • ||

    I have no problem voting Libertarian.

  • ||

    Same here.

    But i think this article is not about who people want to win, but more about predicting which d-bag will win.

  • ||

    if you and your libertarian friends would come to the table, romney would make room for your economic concerns. but i sense that remaining defiant is more pleasurable

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    What if your economic concern is that you don't want universal health care with an individual mandate?

  • smartass||

    So you choose to remain defiant.

    Stopit!

  • ||

    Actually Rhomney covered this.

    Federal government can't do it but states can.

  • Commentariat GOP Shill||

    Been promised that for ages. "I promise this time it will be different!"

    Fuck that.

    And, of course, my full repudiation of the GOP makes me a GOP shill.

  • ||

    You are describing a national case of "battered wife syndrome" --- a nation of people who define abuse as love, destruction of personal liberty as being taken care of, and being lied to as "for our own good", I guess we really do get what we deserve. God help us!

  • Canman||

    I think a noticable jolt of inflation could make Obama toast. Of course, it will eventually make the rest of us toast too!

  • ||

    I think Obama is a radical, and yes I think the repub will win by a landslide, hiher gas prices and Obamas Economy and stance on illegals will bury him, hes not your grandfathers dm, hes a radical, scary last term

  • ||

    By now the scare has become slight nausea. I'm prepared for the worst whoever wins.

  • ||

    I think President Romney will win , Obama has failed us on the keystone and health care bill, and dont think he knows what he is doing. Obama believes in a european style America, way to liberal

  • ||

    Obam will be a one term President, he would be very dangerous his last term, and signing executive orders with out congress is pushing it to far, the man is arrogant , no way he can win with the majority wanting to repeal his health care bill that he rammed down our throats that will cost 5 times more than they projeted with the illegals on it. glad to see him go

  • ||

    You WOULD be glad to see him go IF he were going.

  • tdpwells||

    "There are small states such as Vermont and largish ones such as Virginia and Ohio where Romney has more than doubled his 2008 performance."

    On this point and speaking just to Ohio, my home state, in 2008 the primary was later in the year (June iirc) when McCain was already pretty much set in stone as the candidate - therefore not many bothered wasting their time voting in that primary. Not sure you can make that comparison from 2008 to now because of it. The 2008 primary in Ohio was more about the Dem ticket than the Rep one because Hillary was still battling Obama that late in the game.

  • ||

    Let's see now, 44% approval 56% disapproval, unemployment at record levels (the real number that is), Solyndra, fast and furious, and gas prices through the roof,,, he is lock alright, to go back and crawl under the rock he came out of.

  • ||

    Another MSM BS story!

  • ||

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....cking_poll

    Numbers > libertarian butthurt

  • ||

    Why Obama's not a lock: He's spent so much time dividing the country he hasn't left enough voters for himself. He seems to aggravate more than he keeps.

  • ||

    Funny how many friends one can buy with three trillion borrowed dollars.

  • ||

    Every college student gets Obama money.Every sick,unemployed,minority,public employee,green worker,scientific researcher, and union worker gets Obama money. One big party financed by our grandchildren.

  • ||

    If you are basing this on an ABC WSJ poll that samples Republicans at 27%, you are indeed in an alternate universe. Nice try spreading the propoganda though.

  • Don McDermott||

    A number of obvious flaws to this argument. The first being the already exposed internal polling data of the NBC/Wall St. Journal poll which puts Obama's positives above his negatives. Recent data shows him with a 43% approval rating.
    Secondly, if the Democrats are so clever at manipulating the public and getting out the vote, why did they take a bath of historic proportions in 2010?
    My opinion is that only the media are uninspired (and really threatened) by the Romney campaign. Because of the alvalanche of negative reporting on Romney, it will take time for the public to learn enough to embrace him, but embrace him they will when he gets anything like equal media time of a balanced or impartial nature.
    Lastly, the author's cynacism makes him a poor analyist.

  • ||

    You're delusional, Cavanaugh.

    The reason for the low primary turnout has nothing to do with apathy about the election...only about the primary. And the reason for that apathy is that the majority of Republican voters could care less who the nominee is. He won't be Obama...that's enough for right now.

    And when election day comes around, those "apathetic" Republicans will flood the voting precints in order to vote for Not-Obama...whoever he may be.

  • TallDave||

    Um, you might want to check the crosstabs on that NBC poll, Tim.

    Do you really think the 2012 election is going to be 27-20 Dems?

  • ||

    Five dollar gas and 8+ percent unemployment: Barack loses. Six dollar gas? He loses and flees the country with Moochelle Antoinette and the hundreds of millions he and his Chicagoland thug pals looted from the treasury.

  • ||

    TIM TIM TIM, what a Liberal progressive point of view and the ONLY poll of value is RAS-M period. You are on a fools errand if you truly believe the slop you are aspiring in writing.

  • ||

    Tim doesn't get it. I have a favorite in the Republican primary. I will probably vote but if for some reason I cannot or it's inconvenient, no big deal. Why? Because I will crawl over glass to vote for ANY of them in the general election against Obama. Like Newt said in one of the early debates (back when there were 9 candiddates), ANY of them is SO MUCH BETTER than O that it's patently obvious.

    Can you believe that ANYONE who voted for McCain will switch to the big O? But millions will switch away from him to ANY Republican that's now up for consideration.

  • jt||

    No evidence at all that Romney can beat Obama.NONE AT ALL!

    Rassmusen on 3/9/12: "In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, Mitt Romney now leads President Obama 47% to 45%. If Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads 47% to 44%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m."

  • ||

    Wow, I'm voting for Johnson in November, but I'm going to enjoy the sheer amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth from all the "ZOMG!!1! Obummer's reelection is unpossible!!1!one!1!" crowd come November.

  • Palousitics||

    RE: Washington state. The large discrepancy between 2008 and 2012 numbers is explained by the fact that in 2008, both non-binding GOP caucuses AND a statewide blanket primary were held. This year there were only caucuses.

  • ||

    Obama will win if the economy is doing well. People won't want to take the chance.

    However, forget the 6 point gap now between Romney and Obama. It means nothing as long as there are other potential Repubs in the race.

    Also, once he receives the nomination he will rise up in people's estimation. The nominating process has been a knock-down drag it out fight, and no one looks good now. But, the winner will look strong when its over. And, the winner is strong. It is tough. Really tough.

    The American people vote for the strongest man, not the best candidate.

  • ||

    To a lot of people, Romney looks like the guy who laid you off, and then got a multi-million dollar bonus.

    After all, he like to be able to fire people!

  • McCoy||

    SHOCK POLL: ROMNEY 48% OBAMA 43%...
    http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....cking_poll

  • ||

    Tim doesn't get it. I have a favorite in the Republican primary. I will probably vote but if for some reason I cannot or it's inconvenient, no big deal. Why? novo 7 aurora Aino 7 Paladin Ainol Novo 7 Elf Because teclast a10t I will crawl over glass to vote for ANY of them in the general election against Obama. Like Newt said in one of the early debates (back when there were 9 candiddates), ANY of them is SO MUCH BETTER than O that it's patently obvious.
    jxd s601
    jxd s9000
    Can you believe that ANYONE who voted for McCain will switch to the big O? But millions will switch away from him to ANY Republican that's now up for consideration.

  • ||

    Has anyone considered that Mitt's "Wall Street Experience" makes him look like part of the problem?

    After all, It was Wall Street that crashed the economy. And the're still getting BONUS PAY.

    I've never gotten BONUS PAY for fucking up!

  • ||

    Has anyone considered that Mitt's "Wall Street Experience" makes him look like part of the problem?

    After all, It was Wall Street that crashed the economy. And the're still getting BONUS PAY.

    I've never gotten BONUS PAY for fucking up!

  • ||

    Reason writers usually get it right. But the low turnout is because most Republicans perceive that Romney will get it and have decided to not bother until it comes time to vote against Obama. The winner will depend on the economy.. Just like it always does.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement