As Goes Ohio, So Goes the Nation or, Happy 2nd Term, President Obama!

I am not sure how to make sense of wildly varying polls on the presidential race. On the one hand, you've got polls such as the new Reason-Rupe survey giving Barack Obama a large 52 percent to 45 percent margin over Mitt Romney and various swing-state polls showing the president walking away with Florida, Ohio, and just about everywhere else. On the other hand, you've got polls such as Rasmussen calling it a tie in general and in swing states too.

Then there's Matt Mayer, a former Bush admin Homeland Security official and former head of the free-market Buckeye Institute, talking about Ohio with National Review:

I don’t want to be the one who contradicts Karl Rove’s view that Romney can win without Ohio, but he can’t. It isn’t just that historically no Republican has won the presidency without Ohio’s electoral votes that “proves” that point. It also is the fact that Ohio is a bell-weather state, so if a candidate cannot win Ohio — especially a candidate operating under a very-low-margin-of-error strategy — the likelihood that that candidate wins enough of the other five to nine toss-up states is not high. We are seeing that in the polling results in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia. The election isn’t over, but it appears that Romney will need a big Obama misstep to win.

Read the whole thing here. And read Mayer's devastating book about why state and local governments never cut spending, Taxpayers Don't Stand a Chance.

In 2011, Reason TV caught up with Mayer shortly after Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) released a budget that increased spending and regulatory hassles.

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.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    On the other hand, you've got polls such as Rasmussen calling it a tie in general and in swing states too.

    Rasmussen doesn't poll cell phone only users (1/3 of the populace). They will adjust their numbers prior to election day to portray an aura of accuracy.

  • ||

    What about the hot chic on the main page of reason? Why no comments about her?
    I scrolled all the way down and I didn't see anyone comment on her nice rack. The rifle is nice too.

    What? Are all of you guys blind???

  • Brandon Magoon||

    I have to admit she was half the reason I read this article first.

  • Carston||

    Same...

    I think that is the chick who played Palin in that porn...

  • Paul.||

    I'm getting my mailbox ready for all the bet packages I'll be receiving.

  • Pro Libertate||

    My opinion hasn't changed one iota. Continuing bad economy, open missteps abound, foreign policy obviously improved if we used a random policy generator. No way.

  • Paul.||

    I hope you win the bet. I fear you will not. I will spike the football as the entire stadium is engulfed in flames.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    foreign policy obviously improved if we used a random policy generator.

    I forget why, but my friend and I once developed a new economic framework called Tommunism. Instead of decisions being made by individuals or the government, they were all made by one Magic 8 Ball. We also had a set of Rules of Tommunism, none of which were numbered in an orderly manner. I think one involved something about negative density.

    ... We might have been a bit bored in that class.

  • Drake||

    "Romney will need a big Obama misstep to win."
    How many have we had over the last 3 and a half years? If the those polls are accurate, and I have my doubts, Obama voters are immune to "missteps".

  • Paul.||

    Obama voters are immune to "missteps".

    This. The recent middle east debacle should have been the single major Obama misstep of his entire eight years. Instead, he's been celebrated as having a savvy foreign policy and a right-thinking approach.

    And he evolved on the gays! (according to my gay friends and family members)

  • Doctor Whom||

    But he has evolved on the gays! His rhetoric is no longer quite so far to the right of Dick Cheney's as it used to be.

  • Tim||

    Romney is the Bob Dole of 2012.

  • Pro Libertate||

    And Obama is the Richard Nixon of 1976. No, that's the right date.

  • Tim||

    Then who is the Gerald Ford of 2012?

  • Paul.||

    Joe Biden.

  • o3||

    needs moar falling down

  • Pro Libertate||

    Chevy Chase.

  • ||

    Barack Obama is the Bill Clinton of Ronald Reagan.

  • Restoras||

    Look! Shiny Object!

  • R C Dean||

    If these results hold on election day, this will be yet another election that shows reports of the end of the mainstream DemOp media's power to control the discourse and influence events were premature.

  • T o n y||

    Or Romney could have just not insulted half the country.

  • R C Dean||

    It took the DemOp media to make that a bigger story than the administration's colossal failure in the Mideast, complete with amateurish coverup and blatant idiocy.

    That's Exhibit A, really, that the DemOp media is still overpowering the nonlegacy media.

  • BakedPenguin||

    This. If they followed the law regarding "in kind" contributions, I wonder how much the media's Obama campaigning would amount to.

  • o3||

    Does PornPalin say "DemOp media"?

  • T o n y||

    Or, Obama is good at this and Romney is spectacularly bad at it. He's only won that one election, right?

    Call it media bias, Chicago-style politics, or whatever, it's still just whining.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, he did it in private.

    I mean, the day someone invents a mind-reading device and aims it at politicians and throws the results up on YouTube is the day that our political system finally collapses altogether. Well, assuming you can actually pick up any signals on the thing.

  • Loki||

    the day someone invents a mind-reading device and aims it at politicians

    "The mind cannot be read.
    The mind you are attmpting to read might have been removed, had its contents emptied, or be temporarily unavailabe."

  • Restoras||

    So Shiny!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So what should Romney do RC?

    Actually get specific for once? He can't do that. Run on Romneycare and his record as a liberal governor?

    Talk about his offshoring gig at Bain?

    He offers nothing in terms of ideology.

  • R C Dean||

    So what should Romney do RC?

    Start campaigning against Obama's failed Presidency, and call it that.

    Net loss of jobs in his administration.

    Failed recovery.

    Increase in dependency.

    Increase in debt.

    Failure of ObamaCare (health costs are heading up, still).

    Illegal actions (Dream Act order, Libyan war, Welfare to work waivers, etc.).

    Failed foreign policy (Afghanistan deaths, "green on blue" attacks in Afghanistan, Libyan attack, Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt).

    Like I said, a very target-rich environment.

  • mgd||

    I'd add constitutional violations: the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments; and Section 2, Clause 2 and Section 3, Clause 5 of Article I.

  • Faceh||

    Why would he attack policies he fully intends to continue?

  • mgd||

    It worked for Obama in 2008.

  • R C Dean||

    Politicians do what works. If Obama wins, then Chicago-style machine politics will be firmly entrenched in DC.

    I'm sure running a campaign is harder than it looks, but holy crap, Obama has given Romney a target-rich environment. Romney doesn't seem to be taking advantage (although it could be the DemOp media is just ashcanning Romney trying to point out the dismal failures of the Obama administration).

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You really live in a bubble. Chicago style?

    You don't know about the two nastiest motherfuckers in knee-cap politics - Lee Atwater and Karl Rove? There would be no Bush presidencys without them.

  • The Hammer||

    Discussing opponents' tax returns, openly rewarding campaign fundraisers with kickbacks, having the Justice Department investigate critics and share info with a sympathetic media outlet, blaming an American citizen's video for the President's 763rd foreign policy failure...How many more examples do you need someone to read to you before you understand what "Chicago style" means?

  • Loki||

    How many more examples do you need someone to read to you before you understand what "Chicago style" means?

    It doesn't matter how many examples you come up with because understanding requires a functioning brain.

  • PapayaSF||

    Don't forget getting your opponent thrown off the ballot, and digging up your opponent's divorce records.

  • Restoras||

    Shiny Shiny!

  • ||

    I could beat Obama right now. You should be able to stand up and publicly state you are in favor of sacrificing and eating all first born children, and still be able to beat Obama right now.

    I truly don't get the polling. Makes no sense. But one thing is certain. If Mittens wins, these polling agencies are going to take one hell of a credibility hit.

  • T o n y||

    Mitt Romney is a horrible candidate. The only thing he had going for him was that he was the least horrible of many horrible candidates running in the GOP. Wasn't good enough.

    Why don't aircraft have windows that open?

  • tarran||

    Why don't aircraft have windows that open?

    The thing that's funny, is that that's actually the sort of humor we humorless yankee's engage.

    The fact that guys like Tony are too stupid to recognize yankee humor and get all butthurt is a fascinating window on their emotional fragility.

    Of course a substantial attack on Mitt based on policies would also nuke Obama - the two men are essentially proposing variants of the policies favored by Massachusetts 'Liberals'.

  • ||

    I just had to look it up. Clearly a joke, and I've seen left wing references to it all AM.

    Is that all they got? And it's working?

    Perhaps Americans have truly become too fucking stupid and irresponsible to select their leaders.

  • Loki||

    He literally can't even make a joke. But liberal media bias isn't real. Jesus H. Christ, I hate this fucking country and everyone in it.

  • T o n y||

    Awww. First, why was he joking about his wife's plane's emergency? Second, surely this is at least as fair game as Obama's 57 state thing, which Drudgeians are still using as evidence that he's an idiot.

  • RightNut||

    One was an obvious joke, the other was the supposed smartest man to ever set foot in the whitehouse making a dumb mistake. Neither matters as much as either side thinks. Its just funny to see Obama, who thinks so much of himself, make such a dumb mistake.

  • T o n y||

    It's completely absurd to think that Obama doesn't know how many states there are. Even more absurd is the thing still having legs in the Drudgeiverse.

    I'm rather surprised that there aren't a lot more videos out there the right can mock. Instead they hang onto the same thing for years.

  • RightNut||

    It's completely absurd to think that Romney doesn't know why plane windows don't roll down. Even more absurd is the thing having legs in the mediaverse.

    See what I did there?

    And if you ever visit a right wing website, you'll find they mock Obama for alot more than the 57 states flub.

  • Bill||

    Is it absurd to think that he thinks he can slow the rise of the oceans?

  • tarran||

    Awww. First, why was he joking about his wife's plane's emergency?

    It's called gallows humor tonykins.

    God, it's amazing how ignorant you are.

    "Why are French roads lined with trees?"

  • Loki||

    Riiight, making a joke, tasteless though it may have been, about his wife's plane's emergency landing is totally the same thing as screwing up a simple fact, the number of states in the US, that every elementary school child should know. You're right, that's totally the same thing. Objection withdrawn.

    BTW, your post doesn't exactly improve my opinion of this country or the people idiotic dickheads who inhabit it.

  • T o n y||

    FTR I think spending more than a moment's thought on either statement is a waste of life.

    My point was that Romney comes across as a weirdo, and now a blood-sucking plutocratic weirdo, and that's why the polls look the way they do.

  • Bill||

    I have little respect for Romney or Dan Quayle, but it seems to be quite common for the MSM to act like some of these people are really stupid and to keep harping on it far more than is necessary.

    It's one thing to poke a little fun at someone but then to keep it up for months or years and act like its a real thing is ridiculous. It's one thing for commenters on a blog to harp on something but when its the media picking sides its pretty sad.

    Quayle misspelled potato and corrected a kid at a spelling bee as I recall and tried to add an -e to it.

    But isn't the plural of potato spelled potatoes? Seems like the same kind of mistake as saying 57 states.

  • RightNut||

    I've always believed that in a democracy, people get the government they deserve. If a joke of a president like Obama can win reelection then America really has gone off the deep end.

  • Paul.||

    I heard some of that on NPR... it sounded like he was doing a bit of a deadpan standup routine.

    What scares me more is that Democrats actually thought he was serious.

  • o3||

    his wife was

  • gaijin||

    well, they also fell for the Paul Ryan 'stench' story, so be afraid!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Why don't aircraft have windows that open?

    Yes, having a president that's said that is clearly more of a concern than one who can't criticize murdering mobs without condemning the free speech of an American.

  • MJGreen||

    Why don't aircraft have windows that open?

    Have we all forgotten the time when Obama threatened to kill the Jonas brothers via drone? Why hasn't Obama been impeached yet!??

  • Mo||

    He would get my vote if he followed through on that.

  • Loki||

    Or the time he compared his bowling prowess to special olympians?

    That was just a joke, but Mitt Romney? Yeah, we're really supposed to believe that he's too fucking stupid to know why airplane windows don't roll down. /sarcastaball.

  • Knutsack||

    So people don't fall out onto any one of the fifty-seven states. Duh.

  • Old Johnnie Goggabie||

    One word: Demographics. Even if Mitt manages to pull this one out of the fire, the smart money says it'll be a long, long time before you see a Republican president again.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I listen to anyone who spells it bell-weather. And I don't want to live in a country that lives and dies by what Cincinnati or Cleveland does.

    The polling data is useless at this point in the process.

  • Nephilium||

    Hey... don't forget about Columbus... they're as much to blame as Cleveland and Cincinnati.

  • Mr. Soul||

    As Columbus goes, Ohio goes. Cleveland is blue, Cincinnati is Red. Columbus is red, 'cept Ohio State. The Delaware County subburbs will chose the president.

  • o3||

    "The polling data is useless at this point in the process"...just like climate chg data eh?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sure. Why not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I question how all these polls are taken.

    Are they taken over the phone?

    I have a thousand contacts in my phone. If you're calling me from somewhere I wasn't expecting to get a call from, and, for some strange reason, I accidentally pick up the phone and talk to you? I'd get rid of you as soon as I found out you were doing a survey.

    I'm sorry if this suggests that maybe Romney was right about his 47%, but it may be that these surveys overcount people who have an incredibly low opportunity cost in regards to their time. I mean, if the highest valued forgone alternative to talking to some stranger on the phone about politics is watching the Oprah Winfrey Network or getting stoned and playing video games? Then, yeah, you're probably hoping some stranger will call you and ask what you think about the presidential race.

    ...which could mean that Obama is just leading among incredibly lazy or bored people with not enough to do. Maybe Romney voters just have something better to do that stand around yapping on the phone about politics to strangers.

  • Killazontherun||

    But then, how do the incredibly lazy Obama supporters get their hands on phones? That sort of low value on the opportunity cost of time lifestyle doesn't pay for it self so it should even out in the polls. Oh, wait . . .

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I greatly value my time, because I want to spend it playing video games.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, that's different.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Point stands that people filter their calls these days, and they didn't used to.

    I bet at least half the American people don't answer their cell phones unless they recognize the number that's calling.

    And I bet it was a fraction of that just 8 years ago.

  • Loki||

    I don't answer my cell phone or land line unless I recognize the number. And some of the calls I've gotten lately have turned out to be stupid political polls. Mostly robo-calls, too, so you're not even talking to a real person.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Exactly!

    So if they're doing these polls by phone, they're getting the opinion of a certain slice of society...

    The slice that'll sit there and take robo calls!

    If that's an accurate gauge of where we are as as nation, I'll be surprised.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't talk to anyone who doesn't schedule an appointment three days in advance. Unless it's my bro spontaneously calling due to a blown call (and, no these calls didn't start three weeks ago, more like twenty years ago).

    My wife is a text freak, but then again, she likely gets enough of my actual voice at home.

  • T o n y||

    Well the only difference between those polls and the one's showing a tighter race is the latter don't call cell phones, so obviously that's even more of a skew.

    Pollsters strive to be as accurate as possible. Romney's had a very bad month. Everyone knows that. He's not done anything to turn it around. His bad polling should be predictable, and is his own fault.

  • T o n y||

    Oh the other difference is Rasmussen relies on outdated GOP ID numbers. The other polls ask people where they are, so the strong Dem advantage is coming from the polling data itself, it's not picked arbitrarily.

  • RightNut||

    You really believe Democratic advantage will be higher than 2008?

  • T o n y||

    I believe likely voter Republican self-identification has tanked even since then, since that's what the data show. That's why the disparity--Dems haven't gained in identification, the GOP has lost.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    Why am I not surprised that Tony failed Statistics 101?

    Suppose a poll asks a voter if she is male or female. And 65% of the respondents say female. Tony would then say that the population really is 65% female. After all, they ASKED them!

    But all it means that the poll oversampled females. It doesn't mean that women in the general population now outnumber men 2 to 1! It means they interviewed a small number of people relative to the population!

    A poll can only realistically interview a thousand people. Anyone who HAS passed Stat 101 knows that a small sample from a large population can show relatively large deviations from the averages.

    Then there's innumerates like Tony.

  • RightNut||

    I don't know about Reason-Rupe polls, but several of the major public polls that have come out recently are oversampling Democrats. Combine that with the fact most pollsters have a slight Democratic lean, and these high Obama numbers are not very surprising.

  • Paul.||

    Good news for Romney fans! I saw my second (two--total) Romney bumper sticker yesterday driving up Fauntlery in Seattle. Big white SUV. He looked confused and lost.

    That makes a 100% increase in the total number of Romney stickers I've seen since the campaign started.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Next time you see one (if you're not driving), could you snap a picture?

    I've never seen one before, and I'd be interested to see what they look like.

  • Paul.||

    I actually was thinking of it, but the traffic was moving and I never got stopped behind him at a light. But yeah, until about a month ago, I had never seen one.

    As a Seattleite, I only know what the Obama 2008 bumper sticker looks like.

  • o3||

    i saw one in akron too also on a SUV.

    course the fat old white woman driving immediately got on the freeway

  • Loki||

    Because only Romney supporters use the freeway. You heard it here folks!

  • o3||

    some use scooters instead

  • Loki||

    Are you actually a real person, or are all your posts the result of a cat walking across someone's keyboard somewhere? That would certainly explain a lot.

  • Spoonman.||

    They look boring and generic.

    I saw one one a white compact car on Cheltenham Avenue in Philadelphia.

    Driven by an old white guy, naturally, because...who else?

  • Mike M.||

    The reason why republicans almost never put political bumper stickers on their cars any more now is because the liberals have gone completely insane, and it's just not worth having some psychotic, deranged Obama-worhshipping pinko destroy your car over a stupid bumper sticker.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They used to put them on before. I've seen 'em since I was a little kid.

    Nobody feels all that great about Romney, but Romney's not the issue.

    Whether to reelect Obama is the issue.

  • Mike M.||

    They used to put them on before. I've seen 'em since I was a little kid.

    Yeah, as recently as ten years ago a republican could still safely put a bumper sticker on his car without having to worry about anything, because the liberals hadn't completely lost their minds minds yet. But those days are over; do that now and you're practically begging some lunatic like Shrieking Idiot to destroy your car in a demented fit of rage.

  • ||

    You got a gun, don't ya?

  • WTF||

    Gun don't help if you're not around to catch 'em.

  • T o n y||

    That's what Romney wants the issue to be. It could be the issue if he'd simply refrained from ever opening his mouth.

    Now it's about whether we want Obama or that creepy plutocrat in our living rooms for four years.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Barack Obama is a shit eating aardvark.

  • Rasilio||

    Wait, why is there an or in that last sentence?

  • T o n y||

    I don't find Obama remotely creepy.

  • henryknox||

    Better than trying to get into our wallets

  • BarryD||

    Also, body-colored bumpers are standard now.

    Only someone stupid would put a bumper sticker with an expiration date on the car's paint!

  • PapayaSF||

    I still haven't seen one in San Francisco and environs, which is no surprise. What is a surprise is that Obama 2012 stickers are actually rare. Four years ago they were everywhere.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    They can see into the future in San Fran? It really is weird on the left coast.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yuck-yuck. Seriously, there are nearly as many 2008 Obama stickers still around (not a lot) as there are 2012 ones.

  • Mr. Soul||

    if you supported Romney, would you put a sticker on your car? It only invites OWS types to harass you and shit on your car. Its the absence of Obama stickers that is telling. O is toast.

  • ||

    I don't think Romney can will by running as the anti-Barack-Obama.

    The thing is the many voters do not perceive Obama as having been "that bad". This may be partly because they just aren't aware of the dramatic increasing the ine national debt that he's caused, or it may be that they just don't realize what a big problem that is.

    But right now, Obama is something they are familiar and comfortable with. Romney is someone they don't really know. He needs to turn on the charm, so to speak, make them feel that he's the better man. he can't just say "date me because your on the rebound", because they aren't on the rebound.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think the only chance Romney has is to bash Obama--I just don't think he's done a very good job of that, yet. Romney's instincts are to try to impress people with what a great leader he's been, but getting rid of an incumbent doesn't work that way. The only question voters are asking themselves is whether they should reelect Obama...

    If this were a four years ago, when there wasn't an incumbent, it would be different.

    In the meantime, Romney's not taking advantage of really hitting Obama where it hurts--on his record and on the stupid things Obama has said.

    Why aren't their ads running during every football game ridiculing Obama for blaming unemployment on things like ATM machines?

  • ||

    He needs to hammer him on the deficit. Instead he's been running around saying stupid shit about welfare and trade with China.

    On the China thing he's obviously pandering. So is Obama. Neither one is going to start a trade war with China. Romney should be running the opposite direction saying "do we really want to get into a trade war with China? Who is Obama irresponsibly throwing this trade war rhetoric around when we would be violating our international trade agreements. We just subsidized our own auto industry to the tune of $70 billion. You can't throw stones if you live in glass houses."

    Instead Romney's all like "hey, I'll be even more of a bastard to China than Obama will be!".

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think Romney is pandering on China, too.

    It just seems to me that the country is hurting for lack of someone who will stand up and fight for capitalism--against Obama's outright hostility to capitalism.

    And instead of fighting for free trade, capitalism and private enterprise, I see Romney going around saying "me too" to everything Obama does.

    Romney's pandering alright. And who's he's pandering to are people who think capitalism is the problem, apparently. I just wish he would try to sell them a little more on the idea that Obama is the problem.

    That's what he needs to be concentrating on. The election isn't going to be about China or trade policy. It's just whether we should reelect Obama. Gotta attack Obama in a reelection campaign. Obama has nothing but unpopular programs to run on--gotta attack Obama on something real.

    And the China thing's a mirage.

  • Rasilio||

    That's because neither Obama or Romney are Capitalists.

    Both are very much corporatist technocrats who believe that the right combination of top men can solve all of the nations problems through public/private partnerships.

    Sure there are some small differences in the particular flavor of corporatism that each follows but none the less they are both extreme examples of corporatists.

    Of course the overwhelming majority of American Politicians are the same. You get a few outliers like Kucinich who is a Socialist, Santorum who is a Mercantilist, and Paul who is an actual Capitalist but in general America has become a Corporatist society and even large numbers of the American Public are buying into it.

  • Paul.||

    I haven't heard a single, clear position from Romney. Yet Obama supporters (member of my family said this to me last night) are shouting that he "hates the gays".

    The fact that something like this could actually get traction tells you a lot about the capability of delusion in your average Obama supporter.

  • The Hammer||

    It might also tell you a lot about Romney's absolute lack of clarity on any position.

  • ||

    He's not going to get those people anyway. People that delusional are firmly on TEAM BLUE.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why aren't their ads running during every football game ridiculing Obama for blaming unemployment on things like ATM machines?

    I mean, Jesus!

    Obama doesn't know how the productivity thingy works.

    Obama apparently thinks efficiency is a problem that holds the economy back, we've got video of him saying that--and Romney's running around free trade with China, why?

  • ||

    Right, but Romney can't just say "well Obama's dumb", he has to demonstrate his own accumen. Start talking about WTO agreements and how we violated them ourselves when we bailed out the auto industry. Point out how the auto bailout compromised our position when it comes to trade with China.

    Running on how he'll slap the Chinese with more tarriffs than Obama is just completetely WTF.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's the video clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBhg1v4bMo

    Obama wrote and produced Romney's best attack ad for him--and Romney refuses to run it!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Romney has until the election to learn how to go for the jugular. Barring that he's toast.

  • R C Dean||

    The thing is the many voters do not perceive Obama as having been "that bad".

    And so the Republic's doom is sealed.

  • Gladstone||

    The thing is the many voters do not perceive Obama as having been "that bad". This may be partly because they just aren't aware of the dramatic increasing the ine national debt that he's caused, or it may be that they just don't realize what a big problem that is.

    Is this due to what RC Dean calls the DemOp media?

  • Gladstone||

    Obama in the new Top Ten of Best US Presidents.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/g.....56e5e50b71

  • Gladstone||

    Looks like they don't think Obama is a "disaster" and I doubt they will think a second Obama term will be one either.

  • Fluffy||

    Did you even read your own link?

    It straight-up says that it doesn't matter how he's governed, just being black and getting elected means he's in.

    By that standard, US Grant should be considered a great President, because he was disabled (severe alcoholism and manic depression) and he managed to get elected.

  • Cytotoxic||

    UNCONTROLLABLE VOMITTING

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Dude, that's why they are going to vote to reelect him, why not judge his legacy on that basis too?

  • ||

    So you're saying I could still be president?

  • Gladstone||

    Oops. I wasn't refering to my personal opinion about Obama but the media's. RCDean was talking about the DemOp media and I think this is a good example of that.

  • Loki||

    By that standard, US Grant should be considered a great President, because he was disabled (severe alcoholism and manic depression) and he managed to get elected.

    Not to mention George W. Bush. He was funtionally retarded and managed to get elected. And managed to accomplish shit. Bad shit, but shit got done nonetheless.

  • Loki||

    *functionally retarded...

    When bashing someone else's intelligence it's a good idea to proof read one's post.

  • Paul.||

    I like how Obama's biggest achievement is "becoming president". Not what he's done while in office, but just getting there was enough to call it "done".

    Nobel prizes all around.

  • Gladstone||

    This is why I think Welch's hope that a second Obama term will be reviled is delusional.

    I mean libertarians are saying nice things about Carter and Clinton so what do you think the liberals will be saying about Obama?

    Also I don't they think it's a coincidence that the Fifties and Eighties (and the Seventies to a lesser extent) are reviled by the media. Which party held the White House through most of those decades?

  • Calidissident||

    The media hates the 50's unless the subject is tax rates and labor unions. Then, it's all about how we have to return to the glory days

  • Gladstone||

    That's because there is another narrative is that Big Government was perfectly fine from FDR until Reagan came in with his cuts. The fact this includes Nixon, segregation and the Fifties is elided.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, don't you remember how the executive experience that qualified him for the presidency he choose to point to was running a campaign for president?

  • The Hammer||

    This is according to the publication that did this?

    http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.....obama.html

    Yep, totally objective and rational source.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    #10 since 1900.

    That is plausible.

    That leaves out the true failures - Harding, Hoover, and Dumbya and not that many more.

    And they put Reagan at #9 - which I agree with.

  • FD||

    Wrong. Yet again.
    There is no means to determine #1, or #2 or #10 or whatever. Perhaps we can all play People's Magazine of Sexiest Man in the world.
    In fact, Obama is Bush, economically and militarily.
    And if you want to play degrees, which also is a despicable means of justifying evil, then go right ahead and argue until the cows come home.

    You are either a killer or you are not.
    You either believe in socialism or you do not.
    You either give favors to your corporate buddies or you do not.

    And they both did, and do.

  • The Derider||

    So Nick Gillespie believes in socialism because he supports a small amount of redistributive taxes?

    If Nick Gillespie can't be in your party, who can?

  • Calidissident||

    Harding is one of the most underrated presidents ever. Handled the 1920's Depression excellently, cutting spending and later taxes (or perhaps the tax cuts didn't occur till Coolidge, I'm not 100% sure), and the economy rebounded quickly, in contrast to the Great Depression (where Hoover and later FDR were meddling from the get go), despite the initial downturn being sharper than that of the Great Depression. Also pushed for an anti-lynching law that was blocked by Southern senators, and even gave a pro-civil rights speech in Birmingham, Alabama in the 1920's! And the scandals of his administration (most/all of which he wasn't involved in directly) pale in comparison to those of recent presidents

  • Loki||

    Actually I would rate Harding as one of the best presidents ever. Not as high as Washington, he goes to number one my list simply for turning down the offer to be made king for life and retiring to Mt. Vernon after 2 terms. Could anyone envision either Obamney or Rombama doing that? Me neither.

  • Gladstone||

    Didn't George III state that Washington's decision to retire to Mount Vernon in 1783 made him "the greatest man in the world"?

  • Restoras||

    Yeah well sure, but that was back in the day before tyranny had been eliminated. That could never happen now, epecially here.

  • Brandybuck||

    I spent some time in Ohio recently. It's a very conservative state. It's also a very big union state. Romney needs to court labor if he wants to win Ohio.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He should come out against private sector RTW. Principled and in keeping with limited government.

  • o3||

    auto bailout = too late

    so who's running vs hill in 16?

  • ||

    That's obviously why he's running those retarded ads about slapping tarriffs on China.

    Of course, being serious, Obama's not going to slap tarriffs on China either.
    They're both pandering.

  • Timon 19||

    OIHO?

  • o3||

    reversed image me thinks

  • R C Dean||

    Its not. When it first came out, this was confirmed.

  • ||

    tacocat is tacocat spelled backwards

  • Entropy Void||

    Its the 57th state, where all the 'tard Buckeyes live.

  • Loki||

    The election isn’t over, but it appears that Romney will need a big Obama misstep to win.

    A mistep like claiming that the "private sector is doing fine"?

    Or perhaps saying something like "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."?

    Or perhaps having a terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy on the 9/11 anniversary and then blaiming it on a stupid youtube video?

    Or how about attempting to pressure youtube into removing said video?

    Or not standing up more unequivocally for free speech in the face of muslim riots?

    If after all of the above Romney can't even pull out a slight lead even in Rasmussen's poll, he's pretty much fucked.

  • PapayaSF||

    Or the fact that Valerie Jarrett has a bigger security detail than the ambassador to Libya did?

  • tarran||

    No Republican has ever become president in my lifetime without pandering to the unions.

    Reagan promised to undo Carter's trucking deregulation.

    Bush promised to impose the tarrifs on "dumped" steel that Clinton refused to levy.

    etc.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'd be fine with Romney pandering to the unions about building the Keystone XL pipeline, expanding oil and gas drilling, etc.

  • ||

    Being in Texas, I find it strange that I still see more old McCain stickers on cars than I do current Romney ones. There really doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for him at all. Hell there are still more Ron Paul stickers and billboards than Romney ones. There are even more Obama stickers than Romney ones. I think my fellow Texans would rather sit this one out than vote for a liberal (by Texas GOP standards) yankee.

  • Gladstone||

    Does this mean Romney is the Alf Smith of our time?

  • FD||

    Point well taken.
    Setting aside my antipathy for the entire circus and any narcissistic fool who wears the moniker of "candidate," Romney (and his lieutenants) are utter campaign failures. Losers from the get-go. AndIi do mean from the very get-go.
    This was simple to win, most of the voting citizens wanted an alternative. But the so-called right's numbskulls can't even take a page (copy it!) from the Clinton/Carville strategy. Stay on point and hammer, hammer, hammer -- "economy, stupid." And never, but never, but never(!) refer to Obama as President. (Recall Clinton's insistence on saying Mr. Bush always and unapologetically.) And that's all there was too it.
    But the Republican dunces rather talk about immigration or "defense of marriage" or the foreign enemies or some other nonsense.
    Romney lost and deservedly so. Moronic campaign (or lack thereof).

  • ||

    I agree. This one should have been a slam-dunk, given all the shit that's gone down over the last four years. The one thing conservatives didn't count on was one of the (up until now; he could always turn it around I suppose) most poorly-run campaigns in recent memory.

  • Gladstone||

    Personally I think the US is fucked. Looks like the White House is becoming like California and Detroit where the Repubs can't win. And look how they are turning out.

    Also how come no one is commenting about the lack of a budget? Has Congress not passed a budget since 2006? How is this not a disaster? I mean Bismark only ruled without a budget for 4 years. And how does this not embolden a future American Dictatorship?

    The Democrats are certainly not going to suddenly become fiscal hawks if they can't even craft a budget let alone proposing something as "radical" as Paul Ryan's.

    I would be amused at the destruction of the US if I weren't a Canadian. I mean Obama is probably more popular here than in the US!

  • Calidissident||

    Well it's not like things went splendidly when the Republicans did win. The problem's a lot more complex than TEAM RED not winning

  • ||

    According to several long-time commenters on this very site, teh stakes are just too high this time around to not vote for Romney.

  • BarryD||

    That's certainly true.

    But the more changes there are in personnel in DC, the more time it takes for DC to settle into the real suck.

    Re-elect Obama, and the suck goes up exponentially for a while. Elect Romney, and it will flatten out for a while before rising again.

    Cynical, but realistic...

  • PapayaSF||

    Sad but true.

    Obama: "Let's keep going forward, towards the fast-approaching cliff!"

    Romney: "I'll consider tapping the brakes!"

  • Gladstone||

    LOL, that pretty accurately sums up the US political situation.

  • RightNut||

    It's pretty damn close.

  • DarrenM||

    Just to torture a metaphore, maybe Romney will slow down enough we can jump out. Obama would probably weld the doors shut.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A budget passed last August 2011.

  • ||

    That's not a "budget", that was a debt reduction agreement.

    A budget is an annual comprehensive spending plan. You roll all the spending for the year into one giant bill and pass it on an up or down vote. Congress did one every year up until 2006.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Budget Control Act of 2011 did exactly that. It stated that it replaced all prior budget resolutions.

  • Loki||

    No, dumbass, it was just another continuing resolution, not a real no shit budget. Moron.

  • ||

    Also how come no one is commenting about the lack of a budget? Has Congress not passed a budget since 2006? How is this not a disaster?

    Exactly. WHAT THE FUCK? Why is the RNC not running ads non-stop hammering on this very point?

  • FD||

    Because the RNC, like the DNC, is in the tank. They got their seat at the table (or bar for most Congressman).
    Most of the problems they promise to solve are unsolvable, short of true fascism; thus, they’ll market to constituents about how “they generally done good.”
    And I don’t blame their behavior since it’s their survival. I blame those who demand I follow them.
    Fix things?! What does that mean, when the citizen asks it? Fix Wall Street? Fix Education? Fix Unemployment, or Poverty, or meanness, or movies?
    You might as well try to fix the foliage season.
    But the Hannities will try to protect their brand of economic corporatism and “moral” intrusiveness; while the Matthews will cover for their statist cronyism and cover-ups.
    They’re in the club; life is good.

  • Gladstone||

    Because it frees them from having to pass a budget when they regain power?

    Also passing a budget means that spending and tax cuts can happen which are mean.

  • robc||

    I feel like I deserve a hat tip.

  • Gladstone||

    Well it's not like things went splendidly when the Republicans did win. The problem's a lot more complex than TEAM RED not winning.

    True. America has serious problems with Rotatavism. Of course what other country had two corrupt parties alternating power?

  • Romulus Augustus||

    I think the next release of unemployment numbers will settle matters.
    If unemployment ticks down (and, don't forget who controls the number and then "revises" them later) then we live with another four years of Obama. If up, then Romney has a chance. All you GOP fans out there must be sick about the increasing odds that the GOP not only won't win the Senate but may be lucky to hold level.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think the debates matter a lot. Of course, the GOP is at a disadvantage, having agreed to a slate of moderators who are all Democrats as far as I know.

  • FD||

    Part of the moderator job description.

  • PapayaSF||

    Apparently.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Election 2012: YOU LOSE!

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    And where is John?

  • T o n y||

    Follow the scent of whiskey and the sound of quiet sobbing.

  • tarran||

    Again, Tony demonstrates his ignorance: John is not a Romney supporter as he has repeatedly made clear.

  • T o n y||

    Yeah to John's credit he was clued in on Romney's soullessness and weakness as a candidate long before many of the Americans who are now tuning in. Obama winning with 8% unemployment due entirely to the fact that his opponent is Mitt Romney? Sounds like a good enough reason for some sorrow drowning.

  • T o n y||

    Not to mention the prospect of Romney dragging down Senate and House races.

  • PapayaSF||

    That's some tasty Kool-Aid you have there, Tony. This election is going to look more like 2010 than 2008, trust me.

  • T o n y||

    Nate Silver's post today describes how there's about a 20% chance of a Romney win, but also a 20% chance Obama could beat his 2008 popular vote count.

    To repeat, Romney winning is equally likely as Obama outperforming 2008.

    Senate and House races, while more specific in nature, are coattailed to an extent in a presidential year. 2012 being a presidential year, the likelihood is that the outcome will fall somewhere between 2008's and 2010's, unless Romney manages a miraculous turnaround or craters even more.

  • Restoras||

    That word, winning...I do not think it means what you think it means. As far as I can tell no one has won anything yet.

  • PapayaSF||

    I just have a really hard time believing the polls. Romney is no prize, but Obama is such a disaster on so many levels that I don't get it. It's especially weird that Obama's support is down among pretty much every group (whites, blacks, Hispanics, women, men, independents... you name it), Republican self-identification is up and Democratic self-identification is down, and yet Obama's ahead?

  • Raistlin Majere||

    The sad fact is that if Romney does win, that is a testament to just how shitty Obama really it. That's why I'm keeping an eye on Missouri as well. I Akin wins, how big of a loser must Clair McCaskil be!?

  • ||

    Now it's about whether we want Obama or that creepy plutocrat in our living rooms for four years.

    You put in an extraneous "or".

  • ||

    Oh, Hi! Ohio.

    If you get that, you're in no position to judge me.

  • Faceh||

    I've been pondering the situation and sometimes I have to wonder if the Republicans aren't intentionally throwing this one for some insane reason. I can get that you don't want to bring out the heavy hitters against an incumbent, but the complete and utter failure to throw together anything resembling an actual 'campaign' seems completely illogical for an experience political party. Perhaps they know something we don't. Maybe they're counting on Obama term 2 to be such an unmitigated disaster that it will keep Dems out of the White House for decades to come.
    And Mitt was willing to be the fall guy because the second after he gives his loser speech on November 6th, he can go cry into his massive piles of money.

    Or the Republicans just aren't equipped to run an effective campaign in the information era. Please somebody help me understand.

  • PapayaSF||

    I don't think Republicans are that strategically devious. It's just incompetence, plus having to work against the headwind of the mainstream media being Democratic operatives with bylines.

  • ||

    According to the Iowa Electronic Markets, which has not been wrong in the elections that it has covered, Obama will win. The Winner Take All market is not even close: 0.802 Obama to 0.186 Romney. The Vote Share Market is at: 0.536 Obama to 0.456 Romney. This race is Obama's to loose.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    So Obama is going to do better in the two-way split than he did in 2008? There's no way that's right.

  • jason||

    So the words are that Obama is going to be again in the white house.

  • BigT||

    I'm disappointed that Romney hasn't turned both his Olympic experience and his Bain capital experience into positives. Bain in particular has been painted by the media as 'outsourcing' but needs to be trumpeted as a triumph of capitalism - many small companies supported that went on to grow jobs and the economy while other un-deserving companies were allowed to go out of business. Compare it to Solyndra. Remind voters we don't need buggy-whips. Bain created probably 10 jobs for every one it either out-sourced or destroyed.

  • ZacJ||

    I've thought for a long time that Romney could not win (though I figured the republicans would never nominate him in the first place.) But what gets me is how the GOP will respond when Romney loses. Now Reason fans might assume that Americans will all just say the system is corrupt and become third party supporters in the future. That would be nice but it wont be reality.

    When Romney loses the republicans, who have never been fully in-love with him anyway, will immediately start declaring "You see, we should have gone with Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain." That's what they will say. Many of them still think that the only reason any of those four wasn't the nominee is because "the establishment" and the "liberal media" forced Romney on them and weren't going to accept a "true conservative." They wont be willing to admit that all of them (as well as Rick Perry) were morons and embarrassments to the country.

    Romney is an idiot and a terrible campaigner but he still was better than all of them and that is why he was the only one who didn't have a big surge followed by an embarrassing down fall. But republicans wont ever look at it that way. Things are only going to get more absurd when Romney loses. I'd love to think that people will start moving towards supporting people like Justin Amash or even Rand Paul would be an improvement but it probably wont happen.

  • XM||

    When Mccain lost, did you hear a chorus of "it should have been Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson" declarations from the GOP? Conservatives? No conservative publication really endorsed Santorum or Bachmann, other than sticking up for some of their conservative stance. "Romneycare" which was always problematic for them and libertarians.

    The problem isn't Republicans per se, it's the fact that the message of limited government doesn't really resonate with anyone outside of the immediate right. Every candidate in the primary sniped at each other for being the "big government" type. Ron Paul is supposed to be standard bearer for that movement and he couldn't beat Santorum.

    In a DEEP red state, the likes of Rand Paul and Gary Johnson will win elections. At the national stage, moderates like Romney will still take the cake for reasons that are becoming obvious.

  • fearsomepirate||

    Obama makes daily, even hourly missteps. But they're not reported as missteps. They are either reported as mere events without any connections made to his policies, or they are not reported. I'm not so much "blaming the media," as I don't see it as a separate institution from the Progressive Left, as I am crediting the Progressive Left for having a much better, more effective, well-established messaging machine than any would-be competitor.

  • exsanguine||

    I gave up on the electorate in 2008 when they chose this charlatan in the first place.

    The whole thing needs to crash and burn so that normal, reasonable, voters will arise and actually elect sensible politicians.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement