Why Obama Can't Lose in 2012
NOTE: This hub was originally written in the summer of 2011. I have since done some new number crunching and decided to add an update. It will be at the bottom of this hub and deal with the chances of Obama compared to the last two incumbents to be voted out of office. A number of the facts cited in this article have changed and continued to develop. I added a second update to reflect the situation a of July 2012.
The media covers every Presidential Election like a horserace and part of the game for them is to manufacture the idea that the race is going to be a photo finish even when it is obvious what the outcome will be from the start. That is why even as the Republican primary looks more and more like a freak show every day they still beat the drum over how difficult it will be for Obama to get re-elected. Most Americans miss the fact that elections are childishly easy to predict when one makes a simple analysis of key factors. Political scientists have been able to predict the outcome of every two party race since the civil war using criteria that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual candidates or any of the issues. What follows is an analysis that shows that Barack Obama’s chances of losing the next election are almost non-existent.
IN THE REPUBLICANS FAVOR
1. High Unemployment: You hear the media say over and over again how much this matters but the truth is it doesn’t. In November of 1980 unemployment was 7.9% and Jimmy Carter lost. In November of 1984 unemployment was 7.4% and Ronald Reagan won by a landslide. In November of 1992 unemployment was 7.4% and George H. W. Bush lost. Three incumbents with almost identical unemployment and different results. The point is that the factor was not how high unemployment was, but how high it was a year or two before the election. In Carter and Bush’s case unemployment was much lower a year before the election. In Reagan’s case it was much higher. The current unemployment rate as of June of 2011 is 9.1%. It is estimated that by November of next year unemployment will be around 8.5% or lower. This is not as big a growth as Reagan was able to get but it isn’t a loss like Bush and Carter either.
2. Approval Ratings: This is another dubious claim about how Obama is going to lose. Obama’s approval ratings hover about even most of the time. His lowest approval rating while in office has been 41%. His highest has been 69%. His highest disapproval has been 52%. This isn’t exactly an abysmal approval record. The last president to not have their approval rating drop below 41% was JFK and he was assassinated three years into his term. Also, even Clinton and Reagan had higher disapproval ratings their first four years in office and both were re-elected. It seems nobody is thrilled with Obama, but with the exception of the Tea Party and Republican faithful nobody is terribly upset with him either. By contrast congress has an 18% approval rating which should tell you something.
IN OBAMA’s FAVOR
1. National Security: While he may seem vulnerable on the economy one place he isn’t is on national security. Republicans can’t appeal to the voters who think that Obama is too much of a hawk because they have a base full of hawks. Their only option is to try to appear tougher than he is which will be pretty hard since he got Bin Laden and hasn’t wavered much on the foreign policies of the Bush administration.
2. Weak GOP line-up: It says something when the frontrunner for the nomination is probably the third best candidate from last time. Mitt Romney has no charisma and when you look at Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich and Huntsman you have some of the most boring candidates you could imagine. The one current candidate who you can’t take your eyes off of and doesn’t put you to sleep is Michelle Bachman but part of the reason that she is so compelling is because of the crazy stuff that comes out of her mouth and she and Ron Paul would be the least electable in the general election for the same reasons they are the two most interesting in the primary. Incumbent presidents who have lost in recent history, particularly Carter and Bush Sr., had opponents who oozed charisma. There is a reason Ronald Reagan was a movie star and Bill Clinton banged all those chicks behind Hillary’s back and they are the same factors that got them elected. Reagan had no problem from Walter Mondale , Bill Clinton rolled right through Bob Dole and John Kerry couldn’t seem anything but out of touch when he campaigned against George W. Bush. Obama would beat any of the Republican hopefuls according to polls and that is before they even get the chance to debate or campaign.
3. No third party candidate: There are other reasons that Carter and Bush Sr. both lost re-election. Both of them had to contend with a third party candidate. Carter won his first term by beating Gerald Ford by less than 2 million votes. When he ran for the second time he lost to Reagan by a little over 8 million votes. If he had been able to get the nearly 6 million votes that John B. Anderson took as a third party candidate things would have been a lot closer. Another reason Reagan was able to win was because he energized the youth vote that made the difference. (sound like anybody else we know?) Bush had it even worse. He lost to Bill Clinton by about 5 million votes but Ross Perot took almost 20 million votes away. Most political scientists think that without Perot the race would have favored Bush over Clinton. By contrast, Obama beat McCain by just under 10 million votes and this was a much larger number of voters than Carter, Reagan, Bush sr., Clinton or Bush Jr. got over their opponents for their first terms. This means to win the popular vote the Republicans will have to convince 10 million people to vote for them or hope they stay home or vote for Nader instead. When you consider that Nader got less than a million votes last time that seems like a tall order. But presidential elections aren’t decided by popular vote so that moves us onto our next point.
The Electoral College
In the last election Barack Obama won 24 states and the District of Columbia by more than 5% of the vote and these would give him 285 electoral votes. McCain won 20 states by more than 5% of the vote and these would give the Republican nominee 167 electoral votes. That leaves us with six states that there was less than five percent difference in the vote and those states are Ohio (4.58% Obama), Florida (2.81% Obama), Indiana (1.03% Obama), Missouri (0.13% McCain), North Carolina (0.33% Obama) and Montana (2.25% McCain) and they have a total of 86 electoral votes in the next election.
Let’s be generous. Let’s say the Republican nominee wins Indiana, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina. That gives them 206 electoral votes to Obama’s 285. Now if the GOP nominee wants to get even closer their best chance to do it is to win Florida and Ohio but neither one will come easy. Obama will almost certainly have more money to spend and he won’t have to spend any of it trying to win red states because he already has the advantage. He will be able to spend most of it here on Florida and Ohio. Let’s say the Republican nominee gets lucky and wins Florida. Now they have 235 votes to Obama’s 285.
But Ohio went for Obama by almost five percent last time and that is tough enough to deal with since Ohio went for Bush in 2004 even though it was a much closer race there. Add to that the fact that Ohio’s Republican Governor, John Kasich , has a 30 percent approval rating and could be facing a recall, plus a referendum of his controversial union busting bill in 2012, then you see that a Republican has their hands full trying to win Ohio. But let’s be generous again. Miracles happen, so let’s give the Republicans Ohio. Now our Republican nominee has 253 votes and Obama has 285 votes. So even if the Republicans win all six key swing states next election, guess what, they still lose! And if you take the chance of the winning each state at 50/50 the chance of either Obama or the Republican winning all six is 0.78125%
But maybe you think that they could win all six states. Fine, we’ll go with it. Now in order to win, and this is after having to run expensive campaigns in all those swing states, the Republicans have to get another 17 electoral votes and they need to go to blue states to do it.
How about if Romney is your guy? He was governor of Massachusetts and if he wins that state you can add 11 more votes. Except that Massachusetts went to Obama by over 25%. What if Bachman wins the nomination? She can deliver Minnesota and its 10 votes right? Minnesota hasn’t gone Republican since Nixon in 1972, so good luck with that one.
How about Michigan (16.44%), Pennsylvania (10.31%), New Hampshire (9.61%) or Nevada (12.49%)? Maybe the Republicans have a chance in Colorado (8.5%) or Virginia (6.30%).
The idea that the GOP is going to win Michigan or Pennsylvania is just a pipe dream. While both states have lost a lot of jobs they certainly don’t think the Republicans will get them back. Both states are reliably blue. The Republicans have an outside chance of taking Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire but the thing is that this is after we have given them a pass on winning all six “purple states” from last election and they only have a less than 1% chance of even pulling that off. The Republicans could get the votes if they won Virginia and any of the other states or lost Virginia and won all three of the others. This makes the chances of you seeing a Republican in the White House in 2013 astronomically improbable.
So if you lean left the next time you hear someone talking about how Obama’s days are numbered you can just let it roll off your back. If you lean right and you still believe Obama is going to get booted next election you better buy a lottery ticket. You must be feeling lucky.
UPDATE OCTOBER 2011
A lot of this hub had assumed that Obama would win all the states that he won by over ten percent of the vote in 2008. It was pointed out to me that this was not true of Carter and George H. W. Bush. I insisted that they both had a third party candidate and this made all the difference but people keep objecting. So here are the numbers.
Carter won 9 states plus DC with more than ten percent of the vote. This is much less than the 17 plus DC that Obama won. Of those 9 states, Carter won 6 of them when he ran for re-election and lost all of the others. of the three he lost, two were incredibly close, by less then 1% of the vote. Anderson received over 2% of the vote in both of these states, more than enough to swing it to Reagan. In the third case, Massachusetts, Anderson received 12% of the vote, more than enough to swing it to Reagan. Carter also had a lot less support from the Democratic party than Obama has, and was running against a stronger opponent than Obama will.
George Bush won 26 states with over ten percent of the vote his first time. Of those 26, he won 14 of them. Of the 12 he lost Ross Perot got between 10-30 percent of the vote. That was more than enough to swing the vote to Clinton.
What we learn from this, even with a third party running, an incumbent can still win more than half of the states that they got more than 10% over their opponent the first time. Without an alternative, Obama will likely win all of them because all these states have voted Democrat in the last three elections at least. giving him 242 electoral votes. If we give the Republicans every single state they won last time, regardless of by what margin, they only get 179. This means all Obama has to do is win between one and five of the 11 states left (all of which he won last time) and he wins. This makes him the heavy favorite. Can he be defeated? It is possible, but not very likely.
UPDATE JULY 2012
There are a number of things that are different currently than what is portrayed in this article. The most significant is that Romney will have more money in the election thanks to the Super PACs. This gives him a much better chance than he would have without the Super PACs. However, the basic premise of this article still holds true in terms of the electoral map, and the other factors mentioned. My estimate of the unemployment rate at the time of the election, was higher than the unemployment rate we currently have, so this point still stands, as well as some others. It would be hard for Romney to win this election with the way the map is right now. Nearly everything would have to go in his favor.
Related
6 Reasons Why Your Vote for U.S. President Doesn't Matter
How Does the Electoral College Work?
![OBAMA WINS 2012!! D-58%/R-36% - Now How About 2016?-Hillary Clinton vs Rand Paul? [129*29] (3-18-2013)]()
OBAMA WINS 2012!! D-58%/R-36% - Now How About 2016?-Hillary Clinton vs Rand Paul? [129*29] (3-18-2013)
The 5 Reasons to Re-elect President Obama in 2012
The United States Has a Rich History of Rigged Elections
![OBAMA WINS 2012!! D-58%/R-36% - Now How About 2016?-Hillary Clinton vs Rand Paul? [129*29] (3-18-2013)](https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/6451841_f120.jpg)
Comments
- AUTHOR
Ho ho, such wit.
yep, satan won.
- AUTHOR
@ misterselmo
The suffix phile means love. As in Anglophile, Bibliophile, Cinephile.
I am puzzled exactly what you think you proved or argued here. I'm glad that whatever facility you are housed in is taking good care of you, but you obviously are not stable enough to handle the internet.
Good call Robe. I was directing people to your site for a while leading up to the election and nobody even read your page. I really do hate ignorance but it's their own fault.
I've been wondering... what is a robephile anyway? Do you molest robes?
Suck it up, bucky boy. Sometimes when you try to make a show of your learning by mocking some random guy, that random guy drags you down into the mud with him.
You're everything I said, I'm nothing you have claimed. That is the bottom line. Have a wonderful life.
- AUTHOR
I have written books.
Please, enlighten me. Who am I stealing from? You are the person who is backing yourself up with random quotes and blogs.
And yeah, you are an idiot. I don't really need to make that clear, your comments do that for me.
Pedantry, would be if I was attempting to use knowledge in a way that was not Utilitarian. This article was a strictly Utilitarian one. It's purpose was to predict an event.
It is also not pedantry for me to point out that you are misusing the words you have found in your thesaurus, because it is relevant to this conversation.
Do you have a life? A job? Hobbies? You do know the election is over? You do know I have already won this conversation? I'm just checking my money when I come on.
Every time you fart shit particles come out of your ass and stick to your underpants. When any person sits, they sit in their own feces. The only exceptions to this rule are, obviously, nudists... and yourself. The stick up your ass obstructs the normal operation of your lower digestive system and, thusssly, your shit comes out of your mouth.
Obviously you think that being a douchey, pretty-witty-and-gay intellectual-ista the be-all, end-all of human evolution. You're limited to a formal, rigid set of pre-defined rules that you had no part in making. The men who wrote the books on things you have merely studied, they were geniuses. You are a poor imitation of men who fearlessly navigated the dark waters of this life by torch light, guided by instinct alone. You fail to see is that you have peaked well short of the top of the mountain. You stick to roads paved by others. So no, I don't find you impressive. Only people who are too stupid to follow instructions would see you as brilliant. If my opinion of you is so low, imagine what I think of them?
You should sleep some more, take your time to think of a new way to compare me to a primitive humanoid. You haven't compared me to a monkey yet, I think. What about calling me a big, fat stupid dumb-head? That will put me in my place.
You may now engage in your own bland flavor of common pedantry. I do enjoy sharpening myself on the whetstone of your ignorant egotism.
- AUTHOR
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
I t helped make this more fun to read to know that you were likely writing it sitting in your own feces.
It was Eleanor Roosevelt who said the quote you mentioned. (an ironic person for you to quote, but you do not know the origin obviously.)
It's been said in various ways that great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people. I've been considering politics from a purely ideological standpoint, what ought to be as opposed to what is. What it is, ultimately, is a popularity contest. I was tempted to say pissing contest, but the distance someone can piss is at least quantifiable. It's not even a legitimate contest. It's who is has the best chance of taking Jenny the head cheerleader to prom. It is a circus designed to entertain the ignorant, indolent masses. It is a tool to give the restless an outlet, a way to feel counted when in reality their single vote is so without value that words fail.
Congratulations, you were able to read numbers and perform basic math operations to figure out who Jenny liked more. Nobody knew for sure if she was going to go out with the rich kid or the mysterious foreign exchanged student. But you guessed it right! And for that, I think you are deserving in every way of every bit of the reward that you earned yourself for guessing correctly.
And what's this? I see you're already starting to guess who Jenny is going to date in college after the foreign exchange student moves away.
Enjoy languishing in the lowest rung of human thought, pedant.
Mac: Either you're old as dirt or your parents named you after a sandwich. The moral of the story? Sand. Pound it.
Rob: Romney was close in some polls. I wanted to believe he could pull off a fluke victory. He could not. You were right. Incumbents, man. They have the advantage of bringing in the morons because people know who they are. I'll tell you a bit about mental disease, though. Politics. It is the science of mental disease.
I don't give a shit any more.
- AUTHOR
The Republicans have a tough road ahead for them. I think they are at an extreme disadvantage this next election unless the Democrats completely blow it, or the second Obama term is a disaster.
I think Indiana might not count as a swing state and it seems a fluke that Obama won it in 2008, but North Carolina might still be one, even though Romney won it, and Arizona and even Texas could be close next time.
There will probably be a battle for the direction of the Republican party but they will gradually move to the left. As they do this the Democrats will slowly move to the left of them in order to distinguish themselves. That seems where we are going right now, but anything can happen.
Did i just write "ofer" with an f??? Thats looks freakingly dumb even for a swiss
If i understood your point "the republican got fewer votes than McCain" right, one may add the turnout was significantly higher in 2008. Romney had about 0.5 Mio less than Mc Cain, but Obama lost ofer 6 Million votes compared to 2008. So i guess Romney lost (aswell) rather moderate votes than evangelical. Anyhow, after i had a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...
i already see hardly a chance for the Republicans in 2016 if they have not an outstanding candidate. The presidential elections became a bit "fixed". If you look at the last four elections, then only 10 States (!) didnt vote always for the same party. 18 States and DC voted always democratic (with alltogether 242 electors at the momentanous distribution) and 22 States always vote Republican (with 180 electors).
If we assume the political landscape in these states not changing dramatically in the next four years, then only 10 possible "swingstates" remain with 116 electors (of which 8 voted democratic in 2012): Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Indiana, Florida, Colorado and New Hampshire. If the Democrats only win Florida but loose all other nine, they already had 271 electors!
So the Republicans could win 7 states back and keep all won in 2012, and still would loose although winning then 31 States out of 50...
Thats am useful tool for such "mind games":
- AUTHOR
This is a dicey subject.
The evangelical vote was bigger in 2012 then in 2008, and 2004, yet the Republican got fewer votes than McCain.
Even though acceptance of gay marriage is greater among whites, it is making strides in the black community and among Latinos. There are a lot of African American and Hispanic social conservatives who still vote Democrat based on economics.
It seems like any tact the Republicans take will cut off some potential voters while trying to get another demographic.
Its interesting, till the 1940s the blacks always voted republican, but then the democrats made a "on the long sight", clever strategical move to sacrifice the pro segregation white votes in the "solid south" in exchange for the strong support of the blacks (and other minorities). I guess for some decades this made it more likely a republican be elected. But with the demographic and social shift, the point is reached where the democrats now have the principal advantage. The main base of Republican voters, elder whites and conservative christians is not enough to win an election anymore.
I assume the GOP will now (even more) strongly oppose gay-marriage. With this topic you can not only win votes amongst white conservatives, i have the impressions blacks and hispanics are even more homophobe than the average white.
- AUTHOR
Yes, my father is a 60 year old white man who voted for Obama. That definitely is not common in the US.
As an european i stumbled about this thread months ago, and it prooved absolutely true. Congratulation. One point astonished me as an european (never been in america): The (still) enormous ethnic dimension of us elections. If you look at the results from states like Alabama, there about 99% of blacks voted for Obama, and about 95% of Whites voted for Romney... the counties with a black mayority there were exactely the same who voted for Obama. I know its of course different in other parts of the USA (regarding the white vote), but hence the Republicans got aswell only about 30% of hispanic votes, i don`t see how the Republicans can win any further presidential elections without changing principally their current perception amongst ethnic minorities. Esp. given the demographic changes. Bush 2004 was the last president ever winning with white votes only.
- AUTHOR
It is tempting to gloat, because the Republicans seem so shocked that they lost. I knew the Republicans were going to lose 2010 big. I didn't want it, and I wasn't rooting for it, but I could not deny that it was happening.
bgarrett5 - since you called my analysis moronic, then please allow me to point out I was correct.
Not 100% correct on which states Obama would win, I actually underestimated that. But look at some of the exit polling, the electorate blam's Bush for the mess. So no, it was not a "talking point."
Just an FYI - the entire Republican party is so out of touch with the electorate.
You stated: "Romney will win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan Wisconsin and possibly Pennsylvania. Romney will win 307 to 231 or it will be Romney 327 to Obama 211. If you’re a liberal enjoy these final months of mediocrity because this chump is getting voted out by a landslide."
- Well you got North Carolina correct, congratulations!
- AUTHOR
You do know the election is over?
So at least I gathered an important point in the middle of your psychobabble, Jimmy Carter was almost charismatic.
- AUTHOR
@Mac
I think MisterSelmo may have some kind of mental disorder at this point. In that case he is lucky Obama won.
@MisterSelmo
I predicted the election over a year in advance. There wasn't even a Republican nominee at that point. The week before the election though I predicted Obama would get 290 electoral votes, which I was wrong about. He won more, but I wanted to give Romney a chance.
Why is this person still posting comments? The author used statistics to correctly guess the outcome of this election and also put you in your place repeatedly. $$$ for everyone.
Obama goes into the race the 4:1 favorite. Romney emerges as a surprise underdog challenger late in the game but, as expected, loses. I hear tomorrow the sun will rise.
Well, looks like the president pulled it off. Too bad I never made any predictions, pedant.
I don't like Obama's lazy lifestyle, his unaccomplished past - a blank resume -, his lies about going to Columbia & Harvard. However, I do believe he will win - easily. It's about 7am on the left coast. Numbers coming in seem to show a dead heat...but O will win. Vegas has O at almost -500 today. Yesterday, O was -320. Obviously some very BIG wisegay $$$ has come down on Obama. I'd never bet against odds that spike like that.
Some good news tho: Republicans will win the House. All Mr. O can o is what he's basically done his entire life: NOTHING. He''ll party with Jay-z and Snoop Dog; he'll play golf and basketball; and him and Michelle will go on LOTS of vacations. Mr. O already be retired...
- AUTHOR
You know, I won't be as tasteless as you are but I would point out that the number of Americans killed by terrorists when Bush was president far outnumbers the ones that were killed while Obama was president.
By Republican standards, Obama has been tougher than Bush in some respects. He got Bin Laden when Bush didn't even seem to care about him.
I hate drone strikes, but he does them, and if Romney was President he would do more of them. (and if you want to be disgusted look up double tap drone strikes.)
Romney will almost certainly make us less safe, by creating more anti-America hysteria overseas and getting us involved in unnecessary conflicts.
Obama is solid on national security is he? Tell Chris Stevens. This article is a joke.
Obama is solid on national security is he? Tell Christ Stevens. This article is a joke.
- AUTHOR
20 Comments. Well, you do know how to keep things short.
- AUTHOR
Yes, my comments lack humor. Yeeeeeeesssssss
Your comments would be hilarious even if I wasn't making fun of them, and that is not intentional.
That is why I stopped. You just repeat the same thing in rebuttal after I already destroyed that point. And you will just keep coming back too. You just can't help yourself.
Enjoy it until Tuesday.
Well now you've finally stopped rebutting every single thing I say. It seems you have suddenly evolved the ability to summarize all of your feelings with short, simple sentences. Imagine that. Next thing you know, you'll be omitting extraneous words and infusing your comments with humor.
Wait, what's this...
"Also, you learn want to know what a metaphor is."
Okay, I take back everything good I said. You're hopeless.
- AUTHOR
I didn't read these posts. I started to but then I realized they cover the same ground I already covered, so the only thing I'd be doing is repeating myself over again.
I have been trying to finish my second novel since August, so I'm going to do that. I'm thinking November might be the time it actually meets my standards. I'm sure yo have a project that is equally important somewhere.
Thanks for giving me more money again.
I just found a website where a guy labels all of the ways to always win in an argument.
http://www.tontoandfriends.com/2008/03/how-to-win-...
He lays out specialized techniques that grant victory in any argument. It's interesting to note that criticizing someone's grammar to invalidate their argument is listed just above rick-rolling somebody and just after using a straw man. On the same page are such elite strategies as editing a wikipedia link back up your argument (admittedly hilarious) and just talking so much shit that you win by default. Why bother with all this mumbo jumbo? You should have just posted a funny picture of Eric Estrada with a caption that says, "You're gay!"
Here is something I found with google. You should try googling things some time. It's great:
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You're begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You're being defensive.
and another poster named "demon2091tb" responded...
"Exaggeration, Red herrings, Ad hock, etc etc, = Blowing something out of perportion, changing the subject during argument to destract the arguee, and just outright making and telling more information than ever need be."
He can't spell worth a damn, but more people than just me realize that arrogant, sarcastic douche nuggets have been bullshitting their way through virtual confrontations since damn near the dawn of time. Your genius is nothing more than predictable ass hattery. You don't even have a sense of humor... which is half of the point of being alive.
Now that's a single sentence with a spelling error. That seems to be more your speed. Hahahahaha.
Never make the mistake of beleiving your own bullshit.
Tell us again, Mr. Robephile, how smart you are?
- AUTHOR
Yep, the one thing somebody can tell is that you don't give a shit.
Obviously you know a number of things. The first, is that I am smarter than you are. That is why you constantly use insults like "elitist" and comebacks about how competent and detailed my responses are.
The internet is full of people who are proud of being stupid. This is the definition of defensive.
You do have only one point, that the title is hyperbole. However, the content of the article is not hyperbole. So this is a tiny criticism that you choose to continue to make over and over and over.....
As for being insulted, if you are gong to wave your dick in the air expect people to point out how tiny it is. You took it upon yourself to attack somebody on the internet, and then you got your ass handed to you. Then you started bitching about being criticized even though criticizing was your sole purpose in commenting. (this is accidental irony)
There is no benefit in you commenting here. However, as I have pointed out it does benefit me. In fact, I expect you will just keep commenting as long as I respond. That is fine with me, because for the next week that will still make me money and increase my traffic. You however, are doing it because of ego and apparently because you have nothing else to do.
I look forward to your next comment.
The length of my original post is indicative of how many shits I give about posting on some random stranger's blog. Typically, people don't respond to every single comment. Trust me. I have experience with this. I intentionally used short sentences so as to not distract from my one, and only, point: Obama can lose and you are wrong. I never expected a high school english teacher to come through and grade me for my grammar.
Now, about grammar. My feelings about being grammatticaly correct can best be summed up by analogy. I don't care how many pieces of corn appear in my shit. I feel that spelling and grammar errors mean about as much as pieces of corn in an otherwise perfectly healthy dump. That is, absolutely nothing. Regularity is my only aim. If somebody comes through and grades my turds Grade A or Grade C it really means nothing to me.
But you're a turd grader of the highest order and I can accept that. I can also accept that you respond to absolutely every sentence I type as if we were posting on some obscure web forum topic back in the mid-90's. This is your style. You are details oriented and incredibly defensive. I've encountered dozens of people just like you through my many years of arguing on the internet. You're always pithy, always right. You have no sense of humor but yet you return again and again to apologies for the obvious bullshit that fills your posts.
"I wasn't being dishonest, I was using hyperbole (of course) you just aren't sophisticated enough to understand it (ad hominem) because you are an idiotic moron who lives in a cave (childish insult)." ... "Oh, I was only using juvenile personal attacks and name-calling because the other guy started it".
You have so many explanations for your incorrect, stupid or otherwise childish behavior that I really don't know what to say. I mean, I guess I could spend the rest of eternity trying to explain to you that you actually started calling me names, first. I mean, I could technically sit here all day and try to get the point across that I typed a simple, declarative sentence into my computer and from that moment your asshole snapped so tight that even light can't escape and you began attacking me as though it actually mattered...
But it doesn't.
I never let people attack me without defending myself, as a general rule. But in your case I'm going to make an exception. Two reasons. One, nobody I know is ever going to see this little non-blog of yours. So who really cares? Secondly, I have shit to do.
Seriously, accidental irony? Samuel clemens? Hyperbole? Making fun of someone you know dick about?
- AUTHOR
Show one ad hominem anywhere on my responses.
I did call you a moron, but this was only at the end of my responses and it had nothing to do with my argument. I just happen to think you are a moron. If I said, "I don't need to address your points because you are a moron," that would be an ad hominem.
Oh, here are your ad hominems:
#1:
" Elitist people: even when they're wrong, you're still the idiot."
This is an ad hominem because it is an insult as an argument.
#2:
"Here, let me practice some hyperbole:
I am God.
I Literally Know Everything in the World.
I can Shatter Bricks with my Bare Hands.
You know who else knows how to use hyperbole? Fucking children."
This is also ad hominem because it is an insult as an argument.
My insults at you are all results of your attacks on me. For instance, you call me stupid and then write a comment where the grammar is so bad I can barely read it. I would not make fun of somebody if they had bad grammar if the purpose of their comment was not to call somebody else stupid. There is irony in that, so it begs to be made fun of.
That is why I am making fun of you. Because of accidental irony.
You're not funny and you resort to ad hominem bullshit whenever challenged. It's like arguing with a middle-aged english teacher. You call me all kinds of names and then try to take the high road. In short: you never had me, you never had your car.
- AUTHOR
@MisterSelmo
"Then again, you're a two-bit, professional-asshole-wannabe internet troll. With a blog. (truth)"
First of all, this is not a blog. I do not have a blog. I have never had a blog. (truth) Second of all, a troll is somebody who posts on the internet strictly to get attention and to start fights. I do it for money.
"Since when did over-exaggeration, sarcasm and being a smart-ass become the pinnacle of human wit?"
I don't know. I'll ask Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain and get back to you.
"Speaking of wit. Congrats on your little performance here, I really like how you managed to impress Mom Kat with "insanely awesome wit". Why don't you lecture her on grammar? Because you're full of shit."
There is nothing wrong with her grammar. She writes in complete sentences. I think you are referring to her use of the phrase "insanely awesome" which is not a grammatical error.
"Next time someone posts their opinion, try to act like an adult."
Yes, if there is one thing you have proven with your comments it is how much of an adult you are. I'm sure that everybody reading them can see it.
Once again, thanks for giving me money. Also comments increase my presence on Google, so thanks for putting all your comments in two to four separate comments. This assures that more people will see this article and I'll make even more money!
- AUTHOR
@Estacy
Next time you come here try not to use something that has been debunked thoroughly.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/f...
And Obama can lose in 2012. The title of your post should have been, "Why Obama Probably Won't Lose in 2012". That would require intellectual honesty, though.
Next time someone posts their opinion, try to act like an adult.
Okay, so you have established that I am a moronic, ignorant, uneducated, witless, cave-dwelling idiot with no grasp of the english language and an inability to write in complete sentences. I'm waiting for you to tell me that I don't even understand english...
Oh wait.
See, it's obvious that I am not sophisticated enough to understand how ungodly brilliant you have to be to say complete, utter donkey-dick bullshit in order to get attention for your blog. I expect as much from tabloid writers, teenagers and complete morons but not from someone who claims to be an intellectual. Hyperbole. Why not just interpret everything you say as hyperbole, then?
Here, let me practice some hyperbole:
I am God.
I Literally Know Everything in the World.
I can Shatter Bricks with my Bare Hands.
You know who else knows how to use hyperbole? Fucking children.
"I am so hungry I can eat the whole box of cereal!"
"You're the bestest mom in the whole world!"
Since when did over-exaggeration, sarcasm and being a smart-ass become the pinnacle of human wit?
Speaking of wit. Congrats on your little performance here, I really like how you managed to impress Mom Kat with "insanely awesome wit". Why don't you lecture her on grammar? Because you're full of shit.
I really am looking forward to your response. (sarcasm)
You're going to literally destroy my face with your insanely awesome wit. (hyperbole)
Then again, you're a two-bit, professional-asshole-wannabe internet troll. With a blog. (truth)
1. National Security: While he may seem vulnerable on the economy one place he isn’t is on national security. Republicans can’t appeal to the voters who think that Obama is too much of a hawk because they have a base full of hawks. Their only option is to try to appear tougher than he is which will be pretty hard since he got Bin Laden and hasn’t wavered much on the foreign policies of the Bush administration. - In light of the recent attacks on US soil and the death of our citizens and "Fast and Furious"scandal resulting in the death of border guards, do you still believe Obama is the best choice on national security, and why?
- AUTHOR
Thanks.
I'm usually nicer but the comments on this article have broken down my politeness.
I keep coming back just to read the comments! LOL... Robephiles you have an insanely awesome wit and I am in awe of your rebuttal skills.
- AUTHOR
Nowhere in this article do I say what you claimed. All somebody would have to do to know that is to read it.
Incidentally, I have made a large amount of money from this article. In fact, every time you come back and comment I make money.
I did enjoy you explaining grammar, straw men and hyperbole to me, though.
So now that my points have been destroyed, and you have illustrated that I am a moron in every imaginable way, please explain how that makes you not wrong for saying that Obama has absolutely no possible chance of losing the upcoming election.
- AUTHOR
"I guess my humiliatingly poor grammar caused me to misinterpret the premise of this article to be "Why Obama Can't Lose in 2012"."
The title of an article is not its premise. It is its title. Titles are usually bold and provocative, sometimes featuring hyperbole. I'm glad you decided to spend your first day outside of your cave reading my article.
"...though now that I think about it, maybe you should make a blog teaching people English instead of politics, since you seem to have a better grasp of the former."
I can write in complete sentences. This is about statistics. That is math. So you suck at Reading comprehension, writing skills, math land logic. 4 t0 0 my win.
" Elitist people: even when they're wrong, you're still the idiot."
Having a basic grasp of your language is hardly elitist. You might as well replace the word elitist with "smart" or competent" . Also this is an example of a logical fallacy. Your previous comment was also based on a logical fallacy called a straw man. There is an irony to being proud of your own ignorance while calling somebody else an idiot.
"If you can't argue with what someone says, argue with the way they say it."
Thank You. You see how totally misinterpreting my article and criticizing it because of its title is stupid.
I did address your points you moron. I also pointed out what an idiot you are. Your points have nothing to do with my article. It took me five seconds to destroy them. I only responded in the same spirit that you commented.
If you can't argue with what someone says, argue with the way they say it.
Elitist people: even when they're wrong, you're still the idiot.
...though now that I think about it, maybe you should make a blog teaching people English instead of politics, since you seem to have a better grasp of the former.
I guess my humiliatingly poor grammar caused me to misinterpret the premise of this article to be "Why Obama Can't Lose in 2012".
- AUTHOR
@misterselmo
If you need something to be embarrassed by, may I suggest your grammar.
Nowhere does this article suggest that "our country is not divided." Though 40% of the country never votes, so I think the idea of there being this clear split is where the stupidity lies.
The premise of this article, since you need it explained to you, is that incumbents have a huge statistical advantage in elections.
Our country is divided. Recall Bush/Gore. Assuming that Obama's election changed that is stupid. Not only can he lose, it now seems probable. But unlike you, with this page, I'm not going to make a definitive statement because it would be embarrassing to be wrong.
- AUTHOR
Ohhhhh.....snarky!
The polls are moving toward Obama's direction in a number of states, Ohio, New Hampshire and Colorado. That is a pretty good indicator. Plus, his approval rating hit 53% in Gallup last week and is still hovering around 50on all the poll averages. To be clear in 2004 Bush's approval rating was 48% the day of the election.
The way it is now Obama would have more than enough to win if he just wins in the states that he has a comfortable lead in.
I am looking forward to your post elections reasons why Obama lost.
- AUTHOR
I wrote this long before there were any odds. Romney's chances of winning are better than I would have suspected but right now I'd say it is about 75% Obama 25% Romney.
Robephiles, are you familiar with FiveThirtyEight at The New York Times. It currently has Obama's odds of winning at a little over 70%.
- AUTHOR
@Sandra M.
I have said it before and I will say it again. The number of explanation points a person uses is a good indicator of how much bull is in their claim.
The unemployment numbers are not merely compiled on the number of people getting unemployment benefits. They are compiled using numbers of people who are seeking unemployment.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where
The Republicans love those uninformed "independent" voters because they will believe anything.
Sandra ~ I haven't worked since January of this year and I never applied for benefits... so why don't I just ask myself. I'm taking responsibility for what I can do instead and not blaming someone else for it. I babysit, make crafts to sell, write here, and a couple of other things to help pitch in to the family budget. And my family qualifies as "below poverty" so it isn't that my hubby is bringing in enough that it doesn't matter.
I still think he's doing a fine job and I still want him to win and be our president for another 4 years. We're all entitled to our reasons, opinions, and our choices.
are you serious? The unemployment if down only because so many people no longer qualify for unemployment benefits! No one wants the public to know because the truth is that unemployment is up to about 14% and in some states it can be higher. See how many people you can ask who are unemployed and no longer gets benefits. I too voted for Obama but NOT this time!!!!!!!!!
I hope with all of my being that you are correct. I voted for President Obama 4 years ago and fully intend to vote for him again. I think he has done a fantastic job with the mess he inherited and in my humble opinion is by far the best president in my lifetime (so far).
The thought of Romney winning makes my skin crawl, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that I really, really want to believe that President Obama will in fact win the election and serve as our president for another term. Hearing that he wins is going to be a ridiculously happy day in this household.
Great article by the way.
Robephiles- Maybe you're right, we'll have to check back on the polls in a week because the reputations of the polls are more important the closer you get to the election.
- AUTHOR
@wba108@yahoo.com
A statistician would know that an outliner, like the recent Gallup poll, would normally be thrown out.
If we are going to go by polls, as of today Obama will win: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada.
He also might win Colorado and New Hampshire but those states alone are more than enough to win it for him. State wide polls are likely to be more accurate in those states then any national poll at calling the election.
The most likely "upset" would be Romney wins the popular vote and Obama still wins the election. In that event Republicans won't have any room to complain but I'm sure they would anyway.
Latest on realclearpolitics has New Mexico with almost a 10pt lead now Romney has to win so many swing states to get to 270 Obama only has a to win a few.
"How about Michigan (16.44%), Pennsylvania (10.31%), New Hampshire (9.61%) or Nevada (12.49%)? Maybe the Republicans have a chance in Colorado (8.5%) or Virginia (6.30%).
The idea that the GOP is going to win Michigan or Pennsylvania is just a pipe dream."
That GOP pipe dream of winning Pennsylvania is fast becoming reality and so is Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado. The recent Gallup poll had Romney up 52% to 45%. Never in the history of the Gallup polls has any candidate lost with that kind of lead at this point in the election.
- AUTHOR
Morals....do you mean?
Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
The country is in the worst shape i have ever seen.The goverment does not have money.obama is taking it from people who work.How can any of you who work want to keep up all the freeloaders that he is taking care off. What about morals.You can say what you like,but you know right from wrong.
- AUTHOR
@ohiodale
I actually mention that the trend of unemployment going up or down, not the rate of unemployment is the main factor in how unemployment effects elections. Bush ran his campaign against Kerry on his national security chops and the idea that Kerry "could not protect Americans." Also the fact that we were at war and it was some how unpatriotic to not vote for the President at war. That was not ME who used that as a strategy, that was Bush who used it. The economy was not a big issue in the 2004 election. Independent voters who chose Bush said the number one factor was that they did not "trust Kerry". They weren't talking about the economy when they said this.
@Ken Burgess
It is actually a misnomer to say that Obama out spent Romney. Obama bought more ads than Romney, which isn't the same as outspending him. The reason for this is that Obama raised more money directly to his campaign, while Romney raised more money for the Super Pacs. Ads for a campaign can be purchased at a much lower rate than ads for a PAC can, so this allowed Obama to buy more ads for less money. Secondly, Romney paid his staff much more than Obama paid his staff. So basically Romney, who is supposed to be a great businessman, raised more money and then squandered it.
On your second point, only on a superficial level is this election similar to Carter-Reagan. As for "unrest" in the middle east being a factor, there has been unrest in the middle east since World War I. Obama has had no major national security failures like Carter had.
Reagan did see a rise in the polls after the debates. So has every other challenger, including Mondale, Dole and Kerry, all of whom lost. If you knew your history, you would know that Carter originally refused to be a part of the debates because Reagan initially insisted that Anderson be a part of them. This probably really hurt Carter. Carter ran an incompetent campaign, and as I pointed out, Romney is running an incompetent campaign.
Nice plug for yourself, but I don't like to read people who get their analysis straight from CNN.
A couple of points I will add, Obama has outspent Romney in all the battleground states by a 58 to 42 margin. I was surprised to learn this the other night when CNN pointed it out, these amounts took in not only what the campaigns spent, but the PACs as well.
So while Romney may have somehow taken in more money, he has been significantly outspent by Obama (and PACs).
And as you point out about a 3rd party, they can impact an election and distort how they compare to today's election, certianly a good example of this is the Bush - Clinton election, where billionaire Perot had a negative impact on turn out for Bush.
If you want a good comparative election to this one, the Carter - Reagan election would be the closest you could find in living memory... complete with dangerous unrest in the Middle East, an economy on the brink, and a Republican candidate that up until the debates America generally did not trust/believe in.
If you want some more analysis on the debates, and the candidates, please check out my articles/hubs.
When Regan won his second term, unemployment was at 7.4% but unemployment was trending down. Bush lost his second term unemployment was trending up. I do not think most americans consider Obama strong on defense. He cut $500 billon from the defense budget, we had two terrorist attacks of which Obama has done nothing. In fact Obama tried to hide the fact Ft Hood and the Libya attacks had anything to do with terrorism. Obama may win but your arguments are not that good and are crasping at straw, just like many liberal talking points. I hear not a single new idea from Obama. Liberal ideas are old and stale. Even if Obama wins, the country is trending conservative and will continue to move more conservative. I do not have the time to address each of your so-called arguments.
- AUTHOR
My head is exploding.
@brad Truman, Johnson, Clinton (Are you really that ignorant)
@jody Nothing you have said is even remotely true. Even Romney's "virtues" are dubious. He has more skeletons in his closet than any Presidential candidate in my life time.
Secondly, most of these "radicals" Obama surrounds himself with are people who worked for the Bush administration as well. In fact, whenever Obama is given the chance to add somebody who is liked by the left to his administration he opts for a "safe" choice that Republicans might approve of. (though they never do.) You people really need to take your meds like your doctor tells you.
My head is exploding! Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Our dollar has lost 30% of its value..48 million on food stamps....small business is dwindling..media says Romney doesn't connect! Let's all take a deep breath and use our brain..Obama hasn't done a damn thing good for our country. Count me in for a guy that became rich because he is educated and smart and a good business man, good family man and gives millions to charity...my god...help me understand why anyone but a slacker would vote for Obama who surrounds himself with radicals, socialists, communists....WAKE UP!!!
He would be the second democrat incumbent to get re-elected since FDR. Democrat presidents don't get re-elected b/c they are utter trash.
We'll find out soon enough. I hope he's looking for a new job at McDonalds by January. Then he'll find out what life is really like for the little people. We do need a change, and that change is getting him out of office. End of story.
msb132abc
Your last line read, “Besides, everyone knows that Bush got us here, why would Bush policies part two get us out?” That sounds like a moronic msnbc/obama admin talking point. Very original on your part, do you have any original thoughts of your own? You’re not bias at all are you?
Let me tell you what independents see. They see a guy in the White House that is in way over his head. They see gasoline prices 100% higher than they were 4 years ago. They see an unemployment rate that says 8.4%, but they know its really around 17%. They see that they are out of a job or their spouse is currently out of work. They see higher prices at the grocery store. They see that our National Debt is at 16 trillion and will be at 20 trillion by 2016. They see over 700 billion dollars being raided from medicare to pay for obamacare. They see a President travel around the world apologizing for the greatness of the USA. They see that Obama can’t run on his record and his only play to smear the other guy. Independents are not stupid and you’re right, they will see it.
All those polls you see on Real Clear Politics are polling 7% more dems than republicans. Even the Fox News poll is polling 7% more Dems than Republicans. Mitt Romney has thousands of people show up to see him at campaign stumps while hundreds show up to see obama. The DNC has to give away free tickets to see obama speak on Thursday night.
Romney will win every swing state including Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania.
Game Over, obama loses by a landslide and he already knows it.
bgarret and Chuck:
Re: Rasmussen - they had a good year in 2008, but if they were the most accurate is debatable actually. Nevertheless, this was one good year, they did not do very well in other years, such as 2010. Other looks at Rasmussen demonstrates they have a Republican bias of about 4 points.
I personally use Real Clear Politics as it averages all the polls. Looking at RCP, it would be difficult, not impossible, but difficult for Romney to win. Obama had a healthy lead in enough swing states as of three weeks ago. However, it has tightened, and now it is a dead heat with a statistically insignificant lead for Obama. That's good for Romney.
However, this is Romney's bump time: the VP pick and the convention. Now it is going to shift for Obama as he gets his convention bump. If Romney couldn't pull ahead in any swings after his bump period, I don't think he can do it without a big October surprise that goes in his favor.
As I am writing this, golden boy Ryan is looking like a big liar, and not so golden right now. You may not see it because you are very partisan, but enough Independents will see it.
Obama is not losing any ground in New England, definitely not CT with an average of over 9% and 8% even by Rasmussen. Statistically, Romney has no chance and Obama does not need to buy ads except for maybe New Hampshire, that is the only New Eng worry, in New Hamp, he has had an ave lead of over 3%, 3% is the margin of error, so he should be okay there. And if not, they only have 4 electoral votes.
Florida edges in Obama's favor, but I think that Romney will take Florida.
Wisconsin edges Obama, the ryan pick has tightened that up. Although I think Obama will take Wisconsin because as it is Ryan's home state, the pick should have given Romney the edge, and it did not.
Nevada has also been averaging over 3% for Obama for a while and is holding steady. I think Obama safely has Nevada now.
I think Obama has Nevada and New Hampshire. I think Romney has Florida and North Carolina. Iowa is a dead heat, but I give that to Romney.
That leaves Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio (plus, I gave away Florida, Iowa and NC to Romney here even though they are dead heats and not certain for Romney). These 5 remaining states are statistically tied but showing a slight edge for Obama. This is after the bumps for the VP pick and the convention.
Obama wins on the likeable and relateable factors, so when the debates come, people will naturally be more inclined toward Obama. Only deep partisans or low information voters think that Obamacare and gay rights are things to run from, etc. etc.
Besides, Obamacare is Romneycare. I call it for Obama, although I admit it is a little bit of wishful thinking pushing me in that direction. In reality, it is a dead heat, but I think that Obama will win on being more likeable, relateable, and trustworthy.
Besides, everyone knows that Bush got us here, why would Bush policies part two get us out?
According to the newest Rasmussen Report I've seen (8/30/12) the President's numbers break down like this:
Job Approval: 49%
Foreign Policy: 50%
Economy: 40%
From a campaign standpoint, he's going to have a very rough go of it. He's losing ground in New England (Connecticut particularly) which means he's going to need larger ad buys out of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, three ridiculously expensive media markets.
The same is true out west, where he will need to spend, both time and a great deal of money in NV, NM, and CO. To be clear, when we say NV, we really only mean Vegas (because that's where the ad buy will come from), and when we say CO, we really mean Denver (same reason).
Another thing you need to take into consideration is the likelihood of Democrats in tough races starting to run away from the President on issues like "Obamacare" and Gay Rights. Party loyalty is great, but if Obama's numbers continue to decline, and Romney gets the kind of bump most people are expecting after the convention, then it's going to be like the last 45 minutes of Titanic in the DCCC.
The Democrats went negative too early, in my humble opinion. They don't have any ammo left for if things go poorly in the debates (which, at least in the VP debates they will, Biden is going to get creamed).
Robephiles bio says he is a writer of fiction. When I first read this article I knew there was something fictitious about it. It’s like the eight year old kid that hopes his beloved Seattle Seahawks can win the super bowl this year. Make no doubt about it, Obama is toast this November. Rasmussen polls got the most accurate grade in 2008 for polling the electoral college turnout. Today (8/31/12) Rasmussen has Romney up 45% to Obama 44% in the general election poll. Another key factor in all these polls you see Romney and Obama neck to neck really does not tell the whole story. The pollsters are polling 7% more democrats based on the 2008 general election turnout. The GOP is fired up and will show up to the polls on Election Day.
I live in Central Florida and I can tell you that Obama is in serious trouble. I personally know at least 30 people who voted for Obama who say they will not make the same mistake again. Obama can’t run on his record and good luck demonizing Mr. No Skeletons in My Closet Romney and I’m a boy scout Paul Ryan. These guys are all about action and making things happen. Obama’s speeches have grown tired just like his slogans. People are really hurting out there and Obama will be gone in January 2013.
Also, don’t forget about gasoline being double the price from when Obama took office. The unemployment rate has been up over 8% for 44 months. Even with Carter having interest rates over 18%, houses were still worth more than they owed. Class warfare and wealth distribution are un-American ideas that Americans won’t accept.
Romney will win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan Wisconsin and possibly Pennsylvania. Romney will win 307 to 231 or it will be Romney 327 to Obama 211. If you’re a liberal enjoy these final months of mediocrity because this chump is getting voted out by a landslide.
I actually stumbled over this article, because I was afraid this whole voter-fraud-manipulation could cost the democrats valuable votes. Your article calmed me down but I'm not sure whether I so easily accept your argument as true because it is or because I can't see past my wishful thinking.
Given your involvement I suppose you know that Republicans are claiming there is voter fraud problem (even though that's bogus). Now they set laws in place to 'control' voter fraud, which in reality only keeps a large number of democratic voters from voting.
Don't you think this will have an effect on the election outcome?
My second concern is that one of your main arguments is Obama's popularity in the first election. It is true that Obama won the election with a great majority, but why?
Bush had practically destroyed the country and people were striving for a critical change. Obama had the perfect slogan and it was believable that Obama would be different from any prior president. But his first term has only showed us that he's human and that he couldn't magically fix everything over night. People are disappointed because Obama didn't meet their silly silly expectations.
If there's one thing we learn from history, it's that things become popular in waves of opposite extremes. Look at literature for example. One period of literature/art is usually followed by one that is very opposite. The same goes for politics. People are always disappointed with what they have, so not knowing how to fix the problem, they assume it's at the other extreme.
After first world war, the allies forced Germany to have their first 'liberal' government in place. At the same time people suffered from unemployment and a hyperinflation that was caused by the war and the reparations Germany had to pay. The most simple conclusion was 'a liberal government in place - we're starving - liberal government is bad'. They had a 'left' government, they were unsatisfied (even though the reasons had nothing to do with the left government), so they were striving for an extreme right. This was one of the key factors in the election of Hitler and the NSDAP.
I think Obama's election was the result of people hating Bush more so than people liking Obama. In the next election the same thig could happen. Technically Obama did a fair job but all that people see is that their life is not how they want it to be. If you pair their dissatisfaction with their little political knowledge, then there is a good chance people will elect Romney out of frustration.
What are your thoughts on that?
There is a 3rd party candidate and he use to be a republican but now he's running as a libertarian. He is polling from 5% to 13% in different states and from everything i've read is that he will cost Romney 5 swing states and these are states Romney has to win but you don't really hear about this on the news but I know Romney is probably shaking in his boots. Obama (2012)
OBAMA WINS EASILY NOT EVEN CLOSE DEAL WITH IT FOLKS !
- AUTHOR
Math has a well documented liberal bias.
Liberal bias bullcrap .. Obama's a goner. Period.
- AUTHOR
The point of this article is that an Obama loss would be a statistical anomaly based on trends from the last few decades of presidential elections. The only main factor about this election that is different than previous elections is the existence of Super PACs. If Obama were to lose, it would be safe to say that this was the factor that swung things in Romney's favor.
well its almost a year later and I guess if obama already has it in the bag and has all the electoral votes he needs, then romney should donate his raised money to charity and simply walk away. the gop shouldnt even have bothered. thanks for letting me know what will automatically happen in november.
- AUTHOR
Ha!
"The food here is horrible...and such small portion."
I really hope you were being ironic on purpose, I really do.
This is about the dumbest analysis I have ever read and it needs an update...quickly.
obama wins the election & everyone moves on. i dont think the GOP has what it takes
People who think Obama is destroying the country get their information from Fox News, people that believe Obama is surely but slowly repairing our economy get their feelings from common sense, numbers and satistics. Its pretty simple actually.
The only thing I can say I really hope President Obama loses the re-election. The man is destroying this country!
- AUTHOR
Okay, where to begin...
I never make a "Republican fruitcake" argument. The closest thing I come to is saying that Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul would not do well in the general election which is true because Paul says what he really thinks and he doesn't care about making it paletable to anybody. Bachman makes way too many flubs, and is simply too socially conservative. Nowhere do I call her a "fruitcake" but I say she says "crazy things" which she does. I say the GOP line up is weak and it is. Even most Republicans feel that way and are disappointed that a number of potential canidates chose not to run.
If you actually don't think that charisma, charm, warmth and relatability are good traits for a politician to have when running for office then fine. I suggest you start a career as a campaign manager and see how well you do. There is a reason that politicians used to kiss babies. Ironically, just after accusing me of making an ad hominem attack you make one at me.
When examining my unemployment argument you first of all miss the point completely. My entire point was that Carter's situation is completely different than Obama's. My entire point is that Carter also was weak on national security and other issues. It is the Republicans who constantly compare Obama to Jimmy Carter. (You guys started it before he even took office by the way) so thank you for making my whole argument for me. Obama is not Jimmy Carter. I win again so let's move on.
Also I bring up that unemployment was higher a year before the election in Reagan's case and lower in Carter and Bush Sr's case. In 1982 unemployment peaked at 10.9% and fell to 7.4% by the election. In Obama's case unemployment peaked in 2010 and has been going down since then. we have no idea what will happen in 2012 but if unemployment goes up it hurts Obama and if it goes down it helps him. But even if it goes up he is still strong on national security (unlike Carter) and has no Perot to play spoiler (unlike Bush.)
You are right that
Obama has to defend his record and it is a checkered record but it isn't all bad either. Carter had an approval rating in the 30s when he ran for re-election. So far Obama's lowest approval has been 41 which is better than even Clinton and Reagan. Your entire logic seems to be "I'm pissed so everybody else will be pissed" which isn't very sound. In 2004 the Democrats beleived strongly that they could get Bush out and what happened? They won one new state but lost three others and while Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 he won it in 2004. Obama won the popular vote by well over 9 MILLION PEOPLE! You know who was the last President to win that by that margin? Nixon during his re-ection. Do you know who was the last to win by that margin during his first election? Nobody. Reagan was the closest but Obama won election by more votes then any first term president in the history of the United States. THAT MEANS SOMETHING. What it means is that it will be hard to beat him. Those numbers are real people and that means the GOP has to win their votes by putting up a canidate that they beleive is better qualified than Obama. And you said so yourself. Everybody who voted for Obama is stupid. They are all drolling idiots who are barely able to feed themselves. So since they are all so stupid they will probably just vote for Obama again. If only they were smart enough to see evolution is a fraud and that gay marriage is destroying the country then you would have a point but you said it. Almost 70 Americans are such complete and utter morons that they don't know a black man is not supposed to be president so by your own logic Obama is most surely going to win.
The reason I did not respond to your points is that not many of them can be taken seriously. Your "Republican fruitcake" argument falls stillborn. This is the one that progressives who are impressed with their own self-importance and intelligence wield that invokes smirks from the clubhouse and little else. It hardly qualifies as an argument.
Actually, your best arguments are the "third candidate" argument and the charisma one, the "Pied Piper Argument." Since progressives are led around by the nose by beautiful people (remember "Camelot"), I think you're onto something.
Your unemployment argument has problems. With Carter, unemployment was not the only issue in play. We had 20+% interest rates among other things when the nation decided to toss Carter for Reagan. And foreign policy (the Iranian hostage situation and the relinquishing of the Panama Canal) also played a major factor. Yes, unemployment rates were about the same from 1980 to 1984 but you have to remember that unemployment rates were coming down in 1984. They had climbed shortly after Reagan invoked a recession with his tight fiscal policies shortly after coming into office (he lost the Senate in the 1982 midterm election because of it).
As for your state-by-state analysis, this is of little help. President Obama is no longer a fresh face that can wow the faithful. He is a candidate with a record. If the economy continues to go south, it won't matter much what the Republicans put up for a candidate; they will take him. Obama doesn't have Bush to beat up on now; he has to defend his record.
Here's Obama's problem: serious people (people who are not as easily manipulated by "charisma" and who voted for him last time) don't think he's up to the task of dealing with our economic problems. Americans reelected a goon like Clinton because he governed during good economic times. The president does not have that luxury.
- AUTHOR
Yes, because that is what people want a more conservative president. I don't know why you would even comment if you weren't going to attempt to counter any of the points I have made.
A more conservative canidate can't win Ohio and that is one of the states that will be crucial to win an election. A more conservative canidate would also have a hard time winning in several of the states that would be needed to flip the election over.
Also one of the points that I made that never gets made is that Obama won the popular vote by the largest number of votes of any first term president in the history of our country. Part of that is because of increased population and high voter turn out but that is an enormous amount of voters to have to flip over to the GOP.
The base of conservatives is irrelevent. 30 percent of the country always votes Republican. Another 30 always votes Democrat. It is the other 40 percent that decides elections. Not "the troops".
If the economy is headed south and if the Republican Party elect a conservative candidate that the troops can rally around, one that they are jazzed about, then Obama is a one-term president.
102