2012 election analysis

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I love it when out of staters convince themselves Mitt Romney is the big cheese (or even semi-popular) up here in the Bay State.

And by that, I mean I hate it.  Romney has ~35% approval here.  Even my Republican relatives can't stand the guy.

Romney is unpopular everywhere except Utah. He would get crushed so badly if the GOP was ever stupid enough to nominate him.

[pbrower2a]

LOL at your MA prediction.

Why would it flip? I thought New Hampshire was Romney's homestate now... or is it Utah?

Massachusetts and New Hampshire would NOT flip if Gingrich or Romney was on the ticket. New Hampshire is more likely than Massachusetts, but still --not gonna happen.

New Hampshire and Maine could flip in fact Obama would lose Maine today. It's surprising but true. NH is as purple as it gets.

The Presidential election is in November 2012 -- almost 29 months from now. He doesn't yet have the campaign apparatus out of mothballs (don't expect that for almost two years), and the campaign ads have yet to start. We have no idea who the GOP nominee will be. Above all, much can and will happen in the next 29+ months -- and will.   

Can President Obama still lose the 2012 election? He most certainly can! But such will require significant failure that has yet to happen.

[Derek]

I love it when out of staters convince themselves Mitt Romney is the big cheese (or even semi-popular) up here in the Bay State.

And by that, I mean I hate it.  Romney has ~35% approval here.  Even my Republican relatives can't stand the guy.

It's no different than when they say the Kennedies are like royalty up there. The democrats couldn't even win an election being fought in Ted Kennedy's name. Scott Brown said it best, "it's not Ted Kennedy's seat, it's the people's seat."

[justW353]

I love it when out of staters convince themselves Mitt Romney is the big cheese (or even semi-popular) up here in the Bay State.

And by that, I mean I hate it.  Romney has ~35% approval here.  Even my Republican relatives can't stand the guy.

It's no different than when they say the Kennedies are like royalty up there. The democrats couldn't even win an election being fought in Ted Kennedy's name. Scott Brown said it best, "it's not Ted Kennedy's seat, it's the people's seat."

Yeah...No.

Teddy's legacy didn't lose that seat.  Coakley's stupidity lost that seat.

Also, Kennedies?

EDIT:  BTW, those same Republican relatives who hate Mitt Romney (and these are birthers) loved Teddy.  Not as a person, but as a politician.  He stood up for Massachusetts (with the exception of the Cape Wind Project, but I'll let it slide).

[milhouse24]

Mitt is not carrying MA, no one in MA likes him anymore.  He might carry NH.  He is a VP candidate but he won't be very useful in swing states.  I see him more as a Chief of Staff or cabinet member. 

[DS0816]

Mitt is not carrying MA, no one in MA likes him anymore.  He might carry NH.  He is a VP candidate but he won't be very useful in swing states.  I see him more as a Chief of Staff or cabinet member.  

A state that voted 9.5% more for Barack Obama than John McCain? …No. Mitt Romney won't be the 2012 Republican nominee. But pretending, for argument's sake, that he does win the nomination: if Romney wants to carry his home state, he should emerge from Utah. He's safer there.

[Derek]

Mitt is not carrying MA, no one in MA likes him anymore.  He might carry NH.  He is a VP candidate but he won't be very useful in swing states.  I see him more as a Chief of Staff or cabinet member.  

A state that voted 9.5% more for Barack Obama than John McCain? …No. Mitt Romney won't be the 2012 Republican nominee. But pretending, for argument's sake, that he does win the nomination: if Romney wants to carry his home state, he should emerge from Utah. He's safer there.

Do you know anything about swing states, especially IA and NH? They are used to hearing politicians and make their decision in the final days. Anyone not from Bush's party could have won in 2008. Plus being the elitist that he is, Obama is not the type of candidate that would be attractive to NH. Right now he's 50/50 there. As his numbers slide into the 30's and then into the 20's you'll see what I mean. Obama is nowhere near where he was a year and a half ago at this time and we won't let him get there again.

[milhouse24]

Mitt is not carrying MA, no one in MA likes him anymore.  He might carry NH.  He is a VP candidate but he won't be very useful in swing states.  I see him more as a Chief of Staff or cabinet member.  

A state that voted 9.5% more for Barack Obama than John McCain? …No. Mitt Romney won't be the 2012 Republican nominee. But pretending, for argument's sake, that he does win the nomination: if Romney wants to carry his home state, he should emerge from Utah. He's safer there.

Well you obviously didn't realize that NH turned blue because of John Kerry in 2004 but voted for Bush in 2000 against Gore!  So MItt has a better than slim chance of turning NH red if he has a strong get out the vote drive.  But I'm a Mitt doubter and he has no shot at turning other swing states.

[Derek]

I'm not sure if Kerry turned NH or if it was just voter turn out. That was one of the closest states in 2004 and really only 51-49 like alot of other battle ground states.

[DS0816]

Do you know anything about swing states, especially IA and NH? They are used to hearing politicians and make their decision in the final days. Anyone not from Bush's party could have won in 2008. Plus being the elitist that he is, Obama is not the type of candidate that would be attractive to NH. Right now he's 50/50 there. As his numbers slide into the 30's and then into the 20's you'll see what I mean. Obama is nowhere near where he was a year and a half ago at this time and we won't let him get there again.

Since you're into numbers, I'll take it you're also into reading.…

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
• http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1982
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_U.S._Presidential_election
• http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

[Derek]

Do you know anything about swing states, especially IA and NH? They are used to hearing politicians and make their decision in the final days. Anyone not from Bush's party could have won in 2008. Plus being the elitist that he is, Obama is not the type of candidate that would be attractive to NH. Right now he's 50/50 there. As his numbers slide into the 30's and then into the 20's you'll see what I mean. Obama is nowhere near where he was a year and a half ago at this time and we won't let him get there again.

Since you're into numbers, I'll take it you're also into reading.…

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
• http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1982
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_U.S._Presidential_election
• http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

I've read that before but since you've refreshed my memory let me say that history doesn't always repeat itself. Obama is no Reagan and no Clinton. Plus he's out of touch with the American people. They said Bush wouldn't be reelected after the 2002 midterms because history repeats itself and they were dead wrong.

[milhouse24]

I'm not sure if Kerry turned NH or if it was just voter turn out. That was one of the closest states in 2004 and really only 51-49 like alot of other battle ground states.

Okay, let me make this clear to you from first hand knowledge.  I lived in Boston in 2004 and I know for a fact that it was a very very strong get out the vote volunteer force from Boston going to NH every weekend.  So the fact that John Kerry was our homestate Senator got tons of volunteers off their butts and into NH to get the vote for Kerry, and then they got the vote out for Obama.  There is also a very large young college volunteer population that got out the vote for Obama calling and canvassing NH. 

Elections are won because of volunteer canvassing.  Obama flooded Iowa with volunteers from Chicago and he won.  Hillary flooded NH with NY volunteers and she won NH.  Butt Mr Mittens has no one left in Mass to alienate.  He has a very slim chance of turning NH red.  He might win the primary, but I'm sure Obama will have a very strong re-election campaign force in Boston and NH.  If a person has a strong ground game of volunteers they will have a better chance of winning that state.

[DS0816]

I’ve read that before but since you’ve refreshed my memory let me say that history doesn’t always repeat itself. Obama is no Reagan and no Clinton. Plus he’s out of touch with the American people. They said Bush wouldn’t be reelected after the 2002 midterms because history repeats itself and they were dead wrong.

A quick remark about George W. Bush: Though not a poster here at the time, I was in belief the 43rd president of the United States would win re-election in 2004. Reason: at that point, we weren’t at war in Iraq for long enough. (By the way: I don't recall too many predicting his defeat.)

With Barack Obama counting as a political-party pickup in Election 2008 — switching the White House from Republican to Democratic — how many party flips have there been where the [first-term-elected] candidate garnered 52.87% of the U.S. Popular Vote (or even more) … and then became [along with his party] unseated in the following election? (Go back to the Republican-vs.-Democratic party’s first election, in 1856.)

The answer: zero.

Your statement about President Obama — whose [first-election] popular vote was bigger than his [two-term] party-pickup predecessors, 1980 Ronald Reagan [50.75%] and 1992 Bill Clinton [43.01%], marked the greatest for a first-term-elected commander in chief since 1956 Dwight Eisenhower [55.18%] — being “out of touch with the American people” demonstrates one thing: wishful thinking.  

Responding with “history doesn’t always repeat itself,” you may like to strike a balance with your perspective by absorbing the following: “If we learn anything from history, it is that we learn nothing from history.”

Overlook whatever parts of electoral-politics history you may want, Derek, but some others like myself won’t be doing the same in our discussions on Election 2012.

[Derek]

I'm not sure if Kerry turned NH or if it was just voter turn out. That was one of the closest states in 2004 and really only 51-49 like alot of other battle ground states.

Okay, let me make this clear to you from first hand knowledge.  I lived in Boston in 2004 and I know for a fact that it was a very very strong get out the vote volunteer force from Boston going to NH every weekend.  So the fact that John Kerry was our homestate Senator got tons of volunteers off their butts and into NH to get the vote for Kerry, and then they got the vote out for Obama.  There is also a very large young college volunteer population that got out the vote for Obama calling and canvassing NH. 

Elections are won because of volunteer canvassing.  Obama flooded Iowa with volunteers from Chicago and he won.  Hillary flooded NH with NY volunteers and she won NH.  Butt Mr Mittens has no one left in Mass to alienate.  He has a very slim chance of turning NH red.  He might win the primary, but I'm sure Obama will have a very strong re-election campaign force in Boston and NH.  If a person has a strong ground game of volunteers they will have a better chance of winning that state.

That's true and NH isn't as hard as big states if you have a good grassroots game. However, will Obama's base be motivated with the direction his numbers are heading? If that were the case for Kerry then why did he win by less than 2 points?

[Derek]

I’ve read that before but since you’ve refreshed my memory let me say that history doesn’t always repeat itself. Obama is no Reagan and no Clinton. Plus he’s out of touch with the American people. They said Bush wouldn’t be reelected after the 2002 midterms because history repeats itself and they were dead wrong.

A quick remark about George W. Bush: Though not a poster here at the time, I was in belief the 43rd president of the United States would win re-election in 2004. Reason: at that point, we weren’t at war in Iraq for long enough. (By the way: I don't recall too many predicting his defeat.)

With Barack Obama counting as a political-party pickup in Election 2008 — switching the White House from Republican to Democratic — how many party flips have there been where the [first-term-elected] candidate garnered 52.87% of the U.S. Popular Vote (or even more) … and then became [along with his party] unseated in the following election? (Go back to the Republican-vs.-Democratic party’s first election, in 1856.)

The answer: zero.

Your statement about President Obama — whose [first-election] popular vote was bigger than his [two-term] party-pickup predecessors, 1980 Ronald Reagan [50.75%] and 1992 Bill Clinton [43.01%], marked the greatest for a first-term-elected commander in chief since 1956 Dwight Eisenhower [55.18%] — being “out of touch with the American people” demonstrates one thing: wishful thinking.  

Responding with “history doesn’t always repeat itself,” you may like to strike a balance with your perspective by absorbing the following: “If we learn anything from history, it is that we learn nothing from history.”

Overlook whatever parts of electoral-politics history you may want, Derek, but some others like myself won’t be doing the same in our discussions on Election 2012.

He is out of touch. Those common man farmers in the deep south and mid-west have nothing in common with a wine drinking, Harvard educated, city slicker, elitist, carpetbagger. You are the one who is doing wishful thinking.

[pbrower2a]

I’ve read that before but since you’ve refreshed my memory let me say that history doesn’t always repeat itself. Obama is no Reagan and no Clinton. Plus he’s out of touch with the American people. They said Bush wouldn’t be reelected after the 2002 midterms because history repeats itself and they were dead wrong.

A quick remark about George W. Bush: Though not a poster here at the time, I was in belief the 43rd president of the United States would win re-election in 2004. Reason: at that point, we weren’t at war in Iraq for long enough. (By the way: I don't recall too many predicting his defeat.)

With Barack Obama counting as a political-party pickup in Election 2008 — switching the White House from Republican to Democratic — how many party flips have there been where the [first-term-elected] candidate garnered 52.87% of the U.S. Popular Vote (or even more) … and then became [along with his party] unseated in the following election? (Go back to the Republican-vs.-Democratic party’s first election, in 1856.)

The answer: zero.

Your statement about President Obama — whose [first-election] popular vote was bigger than his [two-term] party-pickup predecessors, 1980 Ronald Reagan [50.75%] and 1992 Bill Clinton [43.01%], marked the greatest for a first-term-elected commander in chief since 1956 Dwight Eisenhower [55.18%] — being “out of touch with the American people” demonstrates one thing: wishful thinking.  

Responding with “history doesn’t always repeat itself,” you may like to strike a balance with your perspective by absorbing the following: “If we learn anything from history, it is that we learn nothing from history.”

Overlook whatever parts of electoral-politics history you may want, Derek, but some others like myself won’t be doing the same in our discussions on Election 2012.

He is out of touch. Those common man farmers in the deep south and mid-west have nothing in common with a wine drinking, Harvard educated, city slicker, elitist, carpetbagger. You are the one who is doing wishful thinking.

Maybe he listens to classical music and plays chess -- horror of horrors!

Obama obviously won without the most rural Midwestern states from North Dakota to Kansas and of course the Deep South; he can win without them in 2012 as well. The population in most of what you consider the Midwest  -- MN, IA, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH -- is heavily urban and suburban. Should Obama win six of those seven states, he wins in 2012. Five of the seven? Then he would need to win one of FL, GA, MO, or NC or both CO and NV.   

[Derek]

I’ve read that before but since you’ve refreshed my memory let me say that history doesn’t always repeat itself. Obama is no Reagan and no Clinton. Plus he’s out of touch with the American people. They said Bush wouldn’t be reelected after the 2002 midterms because history repeats itself and they were dead wrong.

A quick remark about George W. Bush: Though not a poster here at the time, I was in belief the 43rd president of the United States would win re-election in 2004. Reason: at that point, we weren’t at war in Iraq for long enough. (By the way: I don't recall too many predicting his defeat.)

With Barack Obama counting as a political-party pickup in Election 2008 — switching the White House from Republican to Democratic — how many party flips have there been where the [first-term-elected] candidate garnered 52.87% of the U.S. Popular Vote (or even more) … and then became [along with his party] unseated in the following election? (Go back to the Republican-vs.-Democratic party’s first election, in 1856.)

The answer: zero.

Your statement about President Obama — whose [first-election] popular vote was bigger than his [two-term] party-pickup predecessors, 1980 Ronald Reagan [50.75%] and 1992 Bill Clinton [43.01%], marked the greatest for a first-term-elected commander in chief since 1956 Dwight Eisenhower [55.18%] — being “out of touch with the American people” demonstrates one thing: wishful thinking.  

Responding with “history doesn’t always repeat itself,” you may like to strike a balance with your perspective by absorbing the following: “If we learn anything from history, it is that we learn nothing from history.”

Overlook whatever parts of electoral-politics history you may want, Derek, but some others like myself won’t be doing the same in our discussions on Election 2012.

He is out of touch. Those common man farmers in the deep south and mid-west have nothing in common with a wine drinking, Harvard educated, city slicker, elitist, carpetbagger. You are the one who is doing wishful thinking.

Maybe he listens to classical music and plays chess -- horror of horrors!

Obama obviously won without the most rural Midwestern states from North Dakota to Kansas and of course the Deep South; he can win without them in 2012 as well. The population in most of what you consider the Midwest  -- MN, IA, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH -- is heavily urban and suburban. Should Obama win six of those seven states, he wins in 2012. Five of the seven? Then he would need to win one of FL, GA, MO, or NC or both CO and NV.   

That's easier said than done though with approval ratings in the low 40's. His numbers have been plummeting. I doubt he'd win any of the states we're dealing with right now except for IL and MN right now.

[milhouse24]

I'm not sure if Kerry turned NH or if it was just voter turn out. That was one of the closest states in 2004 and really only 51-49 like alot of other battle ground states.

Okay, let me make this clear to you from first hand knowledge.  I lived in Boston in 2004 and I know for a fact that it was a very very strong get out the vote volunteer force from Boston going to NH every weekend.  So the fact that John Kerry was our homestate Senator got tons of volunteers off their butts and into NH to get the vote for Kerry, and then they got the vote out for Obama.  There is also a very large young college volunteer population that got out the vote for Obama calling and canvassing NH. 

Elections are won because of volunteer canvassing.  Obama flooded Iowa with volunteers from Chicago and he won.  Hillary flooded NH with NY volunteers and she won NH.  Butt Mr Mittens has no one left in Mass to alienate.  He has a very slim chance of turning NH red.  He might win the primary, but I'm sure Obama will have a very strong re-election campaign force in Boston and NH.  If a person has a strong ground game of volunteers they will have a better chance of winning that state.

That's true and NH isn't as hard as big states if you have a good grassroots game. However, will Obama's base be motivated with the direction his numbers are heading? If that were the case for Kerry then why did he win by less than 2 points?

Kerry beat a sitting President in NH, even after many voters voted for Bush in 2000.

So Romney could hypothetically win NH by 2 points against the sitting president Obama.  And please stop thinking that Mass voters will vote for Romney in 2012, everyone in Mass hates Romney, primarily because of quitting after 1 term.  Romney may be a big personality and has worked in the private sector, but he has less actual Political Experience than Obama in 2008.  Also, if Romney is so popular in MA, how did he lose to McCain in the NH primaries?

[Derek]

I'm not sure if Kerry turned NH or if it was just voter turn out. That was one of the closest states in 2004 and really only 51-49 like alot of other battle ground states.

Okay, let me make this clear to you from first hand knowledge.  I lived in Boston in 2004 and I know for a fact that it was a very very strong get out the vote volunteer force from Boston going to NH every weekend.  So the fact that John Kerry was our homestate Senator got tons of volunteers off their butts and into NH to get the vote for Kerry, and then they got the vote out for Obama.  There is also a very large young college volunteer population that got out the vote for Obama calling and canvassing NH. 

Elections are won because of volunteer canvassing.  Obama flooded Iowa with volunteers from Chicago and he won.  Hillary flooded NH with NY volunteers and she won NH.  Butt Mr Mittens has no one left in Mass to alienate.  He has a very slim chance of turning NH red.  He might win the primary, but I'm sure Obama will have a very strong re-election campaign force in Boston and NH.  If a person has a strong ground game of volunteers they will have a better chance of winning that state.

That's true and NH isn't as hard as big states if you have a good grassroots game. However, will Obama's base be motivated with the direction his numbers are heading? If that were the case for Kerry then why did he win by less than 2 points?

Kerry beat a sitting President in NH, even after many voters voted for Bush in 2000.

So Romney could hypothetically win NH by 2 points against the sitting president Obama.  And please stop thinking that Mass voters will vote for Romney in 2012, everyone in Mass hates Romney, primarily because of quitting after 1 term.  Romney may be a big personality and has worked in the private sector, but he has less actual Political Experience than Obama in 2008.  Also, if Romney is so popular in MA, how did he lose to McCain in the NH primaries?

I didn't say they like him in Massachusetts. I've never argued that Romney would win there. McCain is a seasoned veteran at primary politics and NH. He beat Bush there too. They like moderate candidates.