Mitt Romney: unelectable?

[nursebenjamin]

Does Mitt Romney's flavor of Christianity make him unelectable to the office of President?

[JohnPaul]

It seems to me, with the second slow implosion of Gingrich, that Romeny is looking quite nominatable and I think that means by extension, he is also looking electable, even if he does have some hills to climb.

I still think he loses to Obama, even if unemployment is over 8%, but if I were a betting man I would lay something less than $10,000 that he gets the nomination.

Why in the world do you think he would lose to Obama?

Frankly, from the polls, etc., I think Obama would lose to a stuffed elephant.

What polls are you looking at? The polls I have seen have Obama beating Gingrich, Perry, and even Romney, although that one is the closest. I have seen some recent polls saying an "unnamed republican" has a slight lead on Obama but unfortunately, the Republicans can't nominate "Unnamed."

a two point spread is a statistical dead heat...

and as soon as any of the Republicans gets that nomination, S/he WILL be the 'unnamed Republican.' you talk about.

I'll admit that my views on this are my opinions, (the 'etc.' here) but this early in the game?

In Obama's first term, and up for his second term re-election, as the INCUMBENT...and he's in a statistical dead heat against an opponent who doesn't even have the nomination?

C'mon.

He's in trouble.

I see in the Tabloids that ex-president Clinton has called Obama "the worst president ever" and is urging Hillary to resign before Obama pulls her down with him. Obama has responded with "Racist!!

John"

[Goat]

[quote="JohnPaul"
I see in the Tabloids that ex-president Clinton has called Obama "the worst president ever" and is urging Hillary to resign before Obama pulls her down with him. Obama has responded with "Racist!!

John"[/quote]

I am sure that when you get your political information from The National Enquirer, you get all sorts of accurate information.

[micatala]

It seems to me, with the second slow implosion of Gingrich, that Romeny is looking quite nominatable and I think that means by extension, he is also looking electable, even if he does have some hills to climb.

I still think he loses to Obama, even if unemployment is over 8%, but if I were a betting man I would lay something less than $10,000 that he gets the nomination.

Why in the world do you think he would lose to Obama?

Frankly, from the polls, etc., I think Obama would lose to a stuffed elephant.

What polls are you looking at? The polls I have seen have Obama beating Gingrich, Perry, and even Romney, although that one is the closest. I have seen some recent polls saying an "unnamed republican" has a slight lead on Obama but unfortunately, the Republicans can't nominate "Unnamed."

a two point spread is a statistical dead heat...

and as soon as any of the Republicans gets that nomination, S/he WILL be the 'unnamed Republican.' you talk about.

I'll admit that my views on this are my opinions, (the 'etc.' here) but this early in the game?

In Obama's first term, and up for his second term re-election, as the INCUMBENT...and he's in a statistical dead heat against an opponent who doesn't even have the nomination?

C'mon.

He's in trouble.

I see in the Tabloids that ex-president Clinton has called Obama "the worst president ever" and is urging Hillary to resign before Obama pulls her down with him. Obama has responded with "Racist!!

John"

I would agree with dianaiad that Obama has a significant fight on his hands. Clearly he would like to be in a stronger position.

I would disagree that somehow Romney would magically inherit the "unnamed Republican's" poll numbers. Why would he? The named reps are polling lower because they look worse to people than Obama. The "unnamed" poll does indicate a lot of dissatisfaction with Obama and a desire for someone else, but that does not translate to any given Republican beating Obama. Would dianaiad think that Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann would magically inherit the unnamed poll numbers if they were nominated??



I would also point out that Obama's approval numbers have been pretty close to Reagan's to this point in their Presidencies.

Obama is nationally at 47%.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... csp=34news

Interestingly, he is reported at 49% in South Dakota, which is a pretty strongly red state. One possible reason for this would be that SD has not been hit as hard by the recession and has low unemployment.

See http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... 05-31.html for historical approval numbers. Reagan was under Obama through 9 quarters. He didn't crack 50% on his way up towards reelection until the end of 1983, the corresponding point to today in Obama's Presidency.


The biggest obstacle to Obama's reelection is the economy. If that continues to improve, I think he gets reelected. Reports today are that it is improving but is still fragile and could get knocked off track by events in Europe or a significant nuclear crisis with Iran or North Korea. Unemployment is forecast to be about 8.5% on election day. High, but if it is trending down even slightly, that will help Obama.

I think people in general realize we have been through the worst economic period in many, many decades and that the situation we have been through is not Obama's fault. Polls I have seen indicate they assign the blame for the recession to Bush or at least do not blame Obama, as they should. Consider what has happened prior to and during Obama's administration.

1) We lost a total of something over 8 million jobs from December 2007 through the bottom of the recession in early 2009. We were losing about 700 to 800 thousand per month in early 2009. We have now gained over 100,000 each of the last five months, the first time that has happened since 2006.
2) We had a nearly unprecedented financial crisis along with the recesssion.
3) and an unprecedented housing crisis that most analysts say will take several more years to correct. We just have too many houses under water and in foreclosure.
4) The Dow was under 8000 as I recall for a while. It is now over 12,000.
5) GDP is up and is forecast to increase 2.4% next year. Not great, but a lot better than huge negatives.

So, frankly, I think Obama has done pretty well. I have seen no one give me any reason to think anyone else could have done better given the situation we were in and the incredibly partisan obstuctionist tactics the Republicans have been engaged in since very early in Obama's term.




As far as what the tabloids are reporting, well, I have to ask JohnPaul why he would put any stock in such reports.

[dianaiad]

I would agree with dianaiad that Obama has a significant fight on his hands. Clearly he would like to be in a stronger position.

I would disagree that somehow Romney would magically inherit the "unnamed Republican's" poll numbers. Why would he?

It's the 'anybody but Obama' thing. The problem with the polls here is that "any Republican' is measuring Obama...and the other polls are measuring the candidates themselves.

So yeah, I think Romney would inherit the 'unnamed Republicans' poll numbers, because those who would prefer another Republican would STILL rather have 'anybody but Obama."

The named reps are polling lower because they look worse to people than Obama. The "unnamed" poll does indicate a lot of dissatisfaction with Obama and a desire for someone else, but that does not translate to any given Republican beating Obama. Would dianaiad think that Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann would magically inherit the unnamed poll numbers if they were nominated??

Michele Bachman? She would get my vote as 'anybody but Obama,' but Ron Paul?

....................I'm afraid that he just might be the only person I know of that I would rather have Obama than. Well, maybe Herman Cain.

I would also point out that Obama's approval numbers have been pretty close to Reagan's to this point in their Presidencies.

Obama is nationally at 47%.

I would also like to point out that Obama's numbers are heavily influenced by groups loyal to him for things other than his politics...unlike Reagan, who had no such help from minorities. I think that, when push comes to shove, more people will vote for political stands than might be comfortable for the Democrats.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... csp=34news

Interestingly, he is reported at 49% in South Dakota, which is a pretty strongly red state. One possible reason for this would be that SD has not been hit as hard by the recession and has low unemployment.

See http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... 05-31.html for historical approval numbers. Reagan was under Obama through 9 quarters. He didn't crack 50% on his way up towards reelection until the end of 1983, the corresponding point to today in Obama's Presidency.

This is true....but Reagan DID improve. Obama isn't going to, not really. Too much is going against him.

The biggest obstacle to Obama's reelection is the economy. If that continues to improve, I think he gets reelected. Reports today are that it is improving but is still fragile and could get knocked off track by events in Europe or a significant nuclear crisis with Iran or North Korea. Unemployment is forecast to be about 8.5% on election day. High, but if it is trending down even slightly, that will help Obama.

You are, unfortunately, right. I don't get that, to be honest; every time I turn around, my opinion of the intelligence of American voters gets knocked down a step or three.

I think people in general realize we have been through the worst economic period in many, many decades and that the situation we have been through is not Obama's fault.

Yes it is.

Well, not his alone, but it IS mostly the fault of Democrats. Democratically controlled congress, Democrat obstructionism, the series of Big Lies.....

and RINO Republicans.

Polls I have seen indicate they assign the blame for the recession to Bush or at least do not blame Obama, as they should. Consider what has happened prior to and during Obama's administration.

You mean, when the Democrats were mostly in charge?

1) We lost a total of something over 8 million jobs from December 2007 through the bottom of the recession in early 2009. We were losing about 700 to 800 thousand per month in early 2009. We have now gained over 100,000 each of the last five months, the first time that has happened since 2006.

I don't have one yet. And that IS the fault of Democrats. Absolutely.

2) We had a nearly unprecedented financial crisis along with the recesssion.
3) and an unprecedented housing crisis that most analysts say will take several more years to correct. We just have too many houses under water and in foreclosure.
4) The Dow was under 8000 as I recall for a while. It is now over 12,000.
5) GDP is up and is forecast to increase 2.4% next year. Not great, but a lot better than huge negatives.

So, frankly, I think Obama has done pretty well. I have seen no one give me any reason to think anyone else could have done better given the situation we were in and the incredibly partisan obstuctionist tactics the Republicans have been engaged in since very early in Obama's term.

Now THERE is an example of the "Big Lie" (TM) I'm talking about. The Democrats have had total control of Congress for four years, control of the Administration for three, and a really good hold on the judicial branch for quite awhile. The control of Congress was filibuster proof...and the obstructionism was from the DEMOCRAT side. They refused to allow stuff to come out of committee, had it all their own way, shoved things down the throats of the USA that....

remember the "we have to pass it in order to find out what's in it?" Pelosi quote?

PULEEZE don't give me the 'Republican obstructionism" line. The Democrats have been in charge of the bull dozer. Don't go blaming the folks it ran over for the damage it caused.





As far as what the tabloids are reporting, well, I have to ask JohnPaul why he would put any stock in such reports.[/quote]

[micatala]

I would agree with dianaiad that Obama has a significant fight on his hands. Clearly he would like to be in a stronger position.

I would disagree that somehow Romney would magically inherit the "unnamed Republican's" poll numbers. Why would he?

It's the 'anybody but Obama' thing. The problem with the polls here is that "any Republican' is measuring Obama...and the other polls are measuring the candidates themselves.

So yeah, I think Romney would inherit the 'unnamed Republicans' poll numbers, because those who would prefer another Republican would STILL rather have 'anybody but Obama."

Why? Romney has his own numbers. Why would he inherit numbers from an "unnamed Republican?" IF he would, would any other Republican from Gingrich to Paul also suddenly jump from their current numbers to "unnamed" Republican just because they get nominated? I am not talking about all the Republican getting behind one candidate. The polls already have made it a two person race.

The named reps are polling lower because they look worse to people than Obama. The "unnamed" poll does indicate a lot of dissatisfaction with Obama and a desire for someone else, but that does not translate to any given Republican beating Obama. Would dianaiad think that Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann would magically inherit the unnamed poll numbers if they were nominated??

Michele Bachman? She would get my vote as 'anybody but Obama,' but Ron Paul?

....................I'm afraid that he just might be the only person I know of that I would rather have Obama than. Well, maybe Herman Cain.

I acknowledge your opinions but you are not answering the question.

Why would or would not Bachmann or Paul inherit the "unnamed Republican" numbers?

I would also point out that Obama's approval numbers have been pretty close to Reagan's to this point in their Presidencies.

Obama is nationally at 47%.

I would also like to point out that Obama's numbers are heavily influenced by groups loyal to him for things other than his politics...unlike Reagan, who had no such help from minorities. I think that, when push comes to shove, more people will vote for political stands than might be comfortable for the Democrats.

Well, you might have a small point, but I doubt that this dynamic has much effect on the poll numbers. For one, ANY democrat typically gets around 90% of the black vote, and a large majority of the Latino vote. Obama's numbers among blacks were about 5 percentage points higher than Kerry's or Clinton's or Gore's as I recall, and blacks are what, 12 to 15% of the population. So Obama doesn't even get a full percentage point bump from that phenomenon.

That does not equate to "heavily influenced" by any stretch of the imagination.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... csp=34news

Interestingly, he is reported at 49% in South Dakota, which is a pretty strongly red state. One possible reason for this would be that SD has not been hit as hard by the recession and has low unemployment.

See http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... 05-31.html for historical approval numbers. Reagan was under Obama through 9 quarters. He didn't crack 50% on his way up towards reelection until the end of 1983, the corresponding point to today in Obama's Presidency.

This is true....but Reagan DID improve. Obama isn't going to, not really. Too much is going against him.

I am not sure what you mean by "improved" here.

I would agree the economy is not likely to improve as much over the next year as it did during Reagan's term, but again, the problems Obama faced were an order of magnitude worse than what Reagan faced.

I think people in general realize we have been through the worst economic period in many, many decades and that the situation we have been through is not Obama's fault.

Yes it is.

Well, not his alone, but it IS mostly the fault of Democrats. Democratically controlled congress, Democrat obstructionism, the series of Big Lies.....

and RINO Republicans.

No, it is not.

YOu have given us no reason to believe Obama, with or without a democratically controlled congress, has done any worse than anyone else would have done. You have given us no reasonable estimates on how long it should take to get out of hole as big as the one Obama faced when he came into office.

So, no, the current situation because of the severity of it is not Obama's fault. Again, it took us 10 years or more to recover from the Great Depression and this is not that bad, but it is way worse than the Reagan or Bush situations.

Polls I have seen indicate they assign the blame for the recession to Bush or at least do not blame Obama, as they should. Consider what has happened prior to and during Obama's administration.

You mean, when the Democrats were mostly in charge?

Again, I am not interested really in blaming Bush, I am only interested in a non-partisan objective appraisal of Obama and what he should be held accountable for. I don't place all the blame for the current recession on Bush, but I place very little on Obama and I think that is absolutely objectively justifiable.

1) We lost a total of something over 8 million jobs from December 2007 through the bottom of the recession in early 2009. We were losing about 700 to 800 thousand per month in early 2009. We have now gained over 100,000 each of the last five months, the first time that has happened since 2006.

I don't have one yet. And that IS the fault of Democrats. Absolutely.

I commisserate with your job status, if that is what you are referring to.

HOwever, I have to disagree with your assignment of blame. Again, can you give me ANY reason to think if John McCain had been elected, or if the Republicans had controlled the congress throughout the last 3 years that the overall situation, or your personal one, would be any better?

2) We had a nearly unprecedented financial crisis along with the recesssion.
3) and an unprecedented housing crisis that most analysts say will take several more years to correct. We just have too many houses under water and in foreclosure.
4) The Dow was under 8000 as I recall for a while. It is now over 12,000.
5) GDP is up and is forecast to increase 2.4% next year. Not great, but a lot better than huge negatives.

So, frankly, I think Obama has done pretty well. I have seen no one give me any reason to think anyone else could have done better given the situation we were in and the incredibly partisan obstuctionist tactics the Republicans have been engaged in since very early in Obama's term.

Now THERE is an example of the "Big Lie" (TM) I'm talking about. The Democrats have had total control of Congress for four years, control of the Administration for three, and a really good hold on the judicial branch for quite awhile. The control of Congress was filibuster proof...and the obstructionism was from the DEMOCRAT side. They refused to allow stuff to come out of committee, had it all their own way, shoved things down the throats of the USA that....

I addressed this all in the Herman Cain thread.

First of all, there is no such thing as filibuster proof.

Seconly, the dems had 60 votes in the Senate for barely a year, not four.

Thirdly, the Republicans have employed the filibuster techniques literally hundreds of times, dozens of times more than previous congresses.

Finally, you are again focusing on the blame game and ignoring the larger more important points. If you want to say the democrats, over the long term of a decade or more deserve some blame or that they have been hypocritcal, I will accept that.


However, you still have not taken into account the severity of the situation as of January 2009 or given us any reason to think anyone could have done better.

PULEEZE don't give me the 'Republican obstructionism" line. The Democrats have been in charge of the bull dozer. Don't go blaming the folks it ran over for the damage it caused.

Again, perhaps I should have left out that comment as it was not central to my point. My only point in bringing it up is that the Republicans have been much more obstuctionist than previous congresses, and that can be documented by their unprecedented use of the filibuster, never mind their other tactics. They do deserve the label.


However, I'll lay aside that portion of the discussion.

I will stand by my points that Obama has done relatively well, and that neither he (nor anyone else in fact currently serving) has much responsibility for the fact that our economy is not where we would like it to be.



I am perfectly willing to accept a critique of Obama's actual policies as compared to other policies that might have been followed. However, any legitimate assignment of responsibility has to take into account

1) The severity of the situation as of January 2009.
2) Provide a reason why a certain period of time should be sufficient to correct that situation.



NO ONE on this forum has come close to doing both of these, and for the most part, neither have Obama's critics. All I here is blanket assumptions that "things would be better if Obama was not in charge" or "it's the dems and Obama's fault for the way things are now," and I am challenging these unsubstantiated assertions and those who make them.


Where is the actual evidence taking into account 1 and 2 above to back up these types of claims????

[JohnPaul]

JohnPaul wrote:

I see in the Tabloids that ex-president Clinton has called Obama "the worst president ever" and is urging Hillary to resign before Obama pulls her down with him. Obama has responded with "Racist!!

micatala wrote:

As far as what the tabloids are reporting, well, I have to ask JohnPaul why he would put any stock in such reports.

I noticed the story about Clinton's comment about Obama while waiting in the checkout line at the supermarket, and that same afternoon I heard it briefly mentioned on CNN. If I had not already seen it in the supermarket Tabloid, I would have missed it on CNN. I inserted it here to provide a little Human Interest balance to all the scholarly blah-blah. It seems to have struck a nerve with a couple of people.

I suspect this may be one of the most important stories in the campaign so far. Bill and Hillary Clinton still have a lot of political clout and they can do a lot of damage to Obama. It is especially interesting that Obama is already playing the Racist card so early in the game. He must be really desperate!

John

[micatala]

JohnPaul wrote:

I see in the Tabloids that ex-president Clinton has called Obama "the worst president ever" and is urging Hillary to resign before Obama pulls her down with him. Obama has responded with "Racist!!

micatala wrote:

As far as what the tabloids are reporting, well, I have to ask JohnPaul why he would put any stock in such reports.

I noticed the story about Clinton's comment about Obama while waiting in the checkout line at the supermarket, and that same afternoon I heard it briefly mentioned on CNN. If I had not already seen it in the supermarket Tabloid, I would have missed it on CNN. I inserted it here to provide a little Human Interest balance to all the scholarly blah-blah. It seems to have struck a nerve with a couple of people.

I suspect this may be one of the most important stories in the campaign so far. Bill and Hillary Clinton still have a lot of political clout and they can do a lot of damage to Obama. It is especially interesting that Obama is already playing the Racist card so early in the game. He must be really desperate!

John

When did this happen? Nothing at all comes up over the past several months when I searched on CNN.

And what exactly did CNN say when they "mentioned" this claim?

[JohnPaul]

JohnPaul wrote:

I see in the Tabloids that ex-president Clinton has called Obama "the worst president ever" and is urging Hillary to resign before Obama pulls her down with him. Obama has responded with "Racist!!

micatala wrote:

As far as what the tabloids are reporting, well, I have to ask JohnPaul why he would put any stock in such reports.

I noticed the story about Clinton's comment about Obama while waiting in the checkout line at the supermarket, and that same afternoon I heard it briefly mentioned on CNN. If I had not already seen it in the supermarket Tabloid, I would have missed it on CNN. I inserted it here to provide a little Human Interest balance to all the scholarly blah-blah. It seems to have struck a nerve with a couple of people.

I suspect this may be one of the most important stories in the campaign so far. Bill and Hillary Clinton still have a lot of political clout and they can do a lot of damage to Obama. It is especially interesting that Obama is already playing the Racist card so early in the game. He must be really desperate!

John

When did this happen? Nothing at all comes up over the past several months when I searched on CNN.

And what exactly did CNN say when they "mentioned" this claim?

Here is the story from the Globe. I can't find it on CNN either, but I am sure I heard the TV yesterday (from another room) talking about urging Hillary to resign. However, I will withdraw my claim about CNN for now, since I can't be sure it was the same story. If the Globe story is false, it should certainly result in a lawsuit.

Saturday, December 17, 2011 Obama To Clinton: "You're A Racist." Clinton Calls Obama: "The Worst President Ever."
Only one week after reporting that Michelle Obama may be having a "steamy secret affair" with a Secret Service agent, The Globe has just unleashed another bombshell that may very well sink the foundering Obama Regime. According to the Globe, long-standing tensions between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton reached the boiling point during a recent golf outing at Andrews Air Force Base.

According to multiple unnamed sources, Clinton has been confiding to close pals that Obama is "the worst President ever" and his presidency is a "sinking ship" that is "taking the Democratic party and the country down with him," and when Obama confronted him on the comments, Clinton looked him in the eye and said; "Yes, it's a fact." The Globe reports: "At that point, the source adds, Obama went ballistic and told the ex-Prez; 'Then you are a racist and no different than the rest of them.'"

John

[micatala]

Yes, you already said you saw this in a tabloid.

And why would we put any credence in such a report?

The fact that neither of us could find anything about this on CNN speaks volume.

So does the fact that the report you cite here also throws in mention of a steamy affair by Michelle Obama.

Hmmm.


I am just wondering.


Does Rupert Murdoch own the Globe?



At any rate, yes you can find this report all over the right wing blogosphere. Again, why should we put any credence in this report? Does any legitimate news organization back up with these alleged unnamed sources from the golf course say?


And even if Bill and Obama were having a spat, why on earth would that be one of the most important stories of the campaign season?

[JohnPaul]

Yes, you already said you saw this in a tabloid.

And why would we put any credence in such a report?

The fact that neither of us could find anything about this on CNN speaks volume.

So does the fact that the report you cite here also throws in mention of a steamy affair by Michelle Obama.

Hmmm.


I am just wondering.


Does Rupert Murdoch own the Globe?



At any rate, yes you can find this report all over the right wing blogosphere. Again, why should we put any credence in this report? Does any legitimate news organization back up with these alleged unnamed sources from the golf course say?


And even if Bill and Obama were having a spat, why on earth would that be one of the most important stories of the campaign season?

Does it matter whether the report has any "credence" in the liberal media? It is certainly no secret that there has long been much more than a "spat" between Clinton and Obama, and Clinton certainly has more credence in the Democratic Party than Obama does. All Obama ever had going for him was the novelty of his dark skin, and now that that has worn off, what is left? Even some Democrats are saying "Anybody but Obama!"

Hillary has already said she will not serve a second term as Sec. of State if Obama is elected again. If she has any good sense and hopes to run for the presidency in 2016, she will resign before the coming election smears her forever.

John