Can Obama still win at this point?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Look at who he's facing. No matter how bad the economy gets a weak candidate doesn't suddenly stop being weak.

I wouldn't exactly call Romney a weak candidate.  Gingrich or Santorum would be weak candidates (sorry, Phil).  Mittens is a pretty formidable candidate.

Perhaps on paper he could conceivably come across that way, but as the guy is he's not formidable, and the fact that he seems that way is solely because Obama's not doing great.

[pbrower2a]

I'd say its still 50/50, but the O campaign has serious telltale signs of disaster.

-Desperate and extra-gimmicky fundraising: Sarah Jessica Parker, Pick the Celebrity, hes doing numerous fundraisers - more than even Bush did in his reelection effort and still didnt match Romney recently

The Republicans still have their superstars of asset ownership and bureaucratic power. Next!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She ends up with a good job. What is she supposed to do -- drop out of school to help support her family? Marry a sugar daddy who beats her? President Obama has been a fine President for supporting women's rights not only in formalities but in economics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought that "We've got your back!" was almost military language. Of course the President needs his Base to win. Almost everybody does negative ads of some kind -- just look at what Karl Rogue's group has been doing in Michigan. His Orwellian ads cause me to avoid watching the local news. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Dick "Mercenary" Morris?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dubya was culpable for the economic meltdown and for two budget-wrecking wars, one of which should have been prevented and one which was insane.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Wallace Democrats" have largely gone R even if they don't realize it yet; "Rockefeller Republicans" have largely gone D even if they don;t realize it yet. They were together politically in 1980, 1984, and 1984... and have found each other incompatible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don;t look so great for Republicans, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The tipping point has been reached on same-sex marriage or at least civil unions. This will do no harm to the President's chance of re-election. When support for same-sex marriage goes past 50%, then  a politician who opposes it had better have a compelling reason.
-NYT leaking national security secrets to make Obama look strong on defense

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A train wreck takes seconds to happen and huge resources to undo.

[nhmagic]

I'd say its still 50/50, but the O campaign has serious telltale signs of disaster.

-Desperate and extra-gimmicky fundraising: Sarah Jessica Parker, Pick the Celebrity, hes doing numerous fundraisers - more than even Bush did in his reelection effort and still didnt match Romney recently

The Republicans still have their superstars of asset ownership and bureaucratic power. Next!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She ends up with a good job. What is she supposed to do -- drop out of school to help support her family? Marry a sugar daddy who beats her? President Obama has been a fine President for supporting women's rights not only in formalities but in economics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought that "We've got your back!" was almost military language. Of course the President needs his Base to win. Almost everybody does negative ads of some kind -- just look at what Karl Rogue's group has been doing in Michigan. His Orwellian ads cause me to avoid watching the local news. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Dick "Mercenary" Morris?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dubya was culpable for the economic meltdown and for two budget-wrecking wars, one of which should have been prevented and one which was insane.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Wallace Democrats" have largely gone R even if they don't realize it yet; "Rockefeller Republicans" have largely gone D even if they don;t realize it yet. They were together politically in 1980, 1984, and 1984... and have found each other incompatible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don;t look so great for Republicans, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The tipping point has been reached on same-sex marriage or at least civil unions. This will do no harm to the President's chance of re-election. When support for same-sex marriage goes past 50%, then  a politician who opposes it had better have a compelling reason.
-NYT leaking national security secrets to make Obama look strong on defense

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A train wreck takes seconds to happen and huge resources to undo.

Im talking about telltale signs - Asset ownership/bureaucratic power are typical staples of an R campaign, just like evil rich people are for dems.  Staples aren't telltale signs.  Extra-gimmicky means that you have to supply something like a celebrity or a free ride on a mechanical bull, its desperate - thats the draw for someone to support you, not the message and not the candidate himself.

Back to gimmick advertising & extra-negativity: Julia, a made up character, is taught through her entire life to turn to the government when anything gets hard.  She is an emotional gimmick.  See: The Plumber, Joe on the republican side as an equally desperate gimmick once he was trotted around the stage.  His initial question to Obama meant something, but once he was deified, again he became the draw.  Not the candidate, not the message.  And obviously this is true for extra negative campaigning.

"We've got your back" as a telltale sign: If the ad had black people talking about their hardships in their families and how Obama fixed them, thats a different issue.  Instead, it portrayed them as soul singing, preaching characters who get hyped by an urban beat.  It's an appeal to the Sharpton sillyness that was rejected in 2008 because Obama wanted to portray himself as above that.  The president knows he has an enthusiasm issue with African Americans and so the campaign hopes that maybe if they make it a racial thing, then those people that they are justifiably afraid won't turn out, will turn out.  Also, Karl Rove is not the official Romney campaign.  He runs an outside group, Romney doesn't endorse the ad and therefore it can be whatever it wants.  The Obama campaign itself released the We've got your back ad.  It's desperate.

Uh nice try with Morris, but Im talking about Ed Rendell, James Carville, Bill Clinton himself, and various other dems.

In terms of telltale signs, inner-party blame begins when they sense disaster.  The "Dubya" did this and did that stuff has nothing to do with telltale signs of an impending disaster.  Inner-party blame, prior to an election, does have something to do with a disaster.  See John McCain for reference.

On polls: A pollster creates models of likely voters.  They base who they poll on those models.  Thus, if you are using models which show democrat likely voter turnout being larger than 2008 in a race we are pretty sure won't have a model like that and Romney is still beating him in certain states, then that means the pollster is doing everything they can to keep Obama ahead in polls.

On republicans: Yeah, that's true, but they control one half of one wing of government and marginally control the supreme court whenever Kennedy wakes up on the right side of bed.  Democrats failed to pass a budget when they had majority control and have failed to pass one in the senate when it only takes 51 votes.

On SSM: Yeah, what a nummy victory.  Gays wanting to feel legitimacy about their life and their cause have a president who won't come out on gay marriage because he's afraid it will hurt him in an election.  Then he comes out for it because hes got an enthusiasm problem with his base and needs to turn them out for an election.  Seriously, who plans an "evolution" on an issue over the course of two or three years.  I imagine Obama pouring endless nights saying to himself, support gay marriage, you know its right, you're evolving, you're evolving, Obama strains "urrrgh", Im a little bit more evolved,  oh yes, now im evolved, phew that was hard work.  And dont get me wrong, Romney has plenty of flip flops, but none so desperately calculated as this. 

[sentinel]

Elections have been won or lost in the few weeks before the election...we'll have to wait and see...

[Inverted Things]

I love how Obama's inevitable demise is forecasted the moment he isn't decisively leading Romney. Dukakis was leading Bush by double digits after the convention, remember.

probably not because it was a gallup poll...

I'd suggest reading the book Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman.

[nhmagic]

I'd say its still 50/50, but the O campaign has serious telltale signs of disaster.

-Desperate and extra-gimmicky fundraising: Sarah Jessica Parker, Pick the Celebrity, hes doing numerous fundraisers - more than even Bush did in his reelection effort and still didnt match Romney recently
-Negative and gimmick advertising: the life of Julia (a woman who for all intents and purposes is a deified welfare queen, having her entire life subsidized by the government), "We've got your back" - a stereotypical, almost racist, blaxploitation ad that screams he desperately needs his base, and the other negative tv ads on Romney I see daily
-The Clinton wing attacks - Bill's endorsement/non-endorsement of Romney and ruination of the let's go after Romney for Bain strategy, various former Clinton admin tv commentators smelling blood
-Non Clinton wing disappointment and blame game
-the slight polling shift, though I strongly believe that the heavy dem voter models inside the polls are insane
-the little things sticking out because of bad economic news, stuff that wouldnt if the economy were good
-Gimmick policy positions - like the "evolution" to supporting SSM in order to turn out gays, the "War on Women" pablum, etc.
-NYT leaking national security secrets to make Obama look strong on defense

Ain't lookin good...

A lot of that is subjective

If you look at things like economic indicators (which are still positive), favorability numbers and party support, Obama still has the edge.

And I think Romney's tactic of controlling the message by refusing to talk about things will backfire in the fall. It will eventually come off as off putting and sneaky to most people.

I'm kind of glad the race has tightened, as it makes the election more exciting, especially on the forum. But is 2012 really any different from other races? I mean, every year, the supporters of the challenger are convinced their guy has a shot, and they'll list a million reasons why. But honestly, incumbents rarely lose their reelection bids, and it takes very dramatic circumstances for the opposite to happen.

Sorry, I missed this earlier.  I'd say the bit about polls and the line about NYT leaks are both subjective, but the rest is somewhat plain to see.  On economic indicators: Obama rode a wave of goodwill from people expecting him to put the economy into a boom and from his base expecting him to pass all of the left's signature legislation in the span of a year.  He actually accomplished a lot on the latter end of that statement with Obamacare, Stimulus, DADT, Financial Reform and other sundry items.  None of it; however, impacted the first part of the statement and from my view it actually hampered the ability of the economy to recover sooner.  I can see why he has good favorability numbers - the man is the first president who hasn't had a sex, drugs, rock & roll scandal - his family is impeccable and that says a lot (though I've heard a lot of side rumors that say otherwise, but am not ready to believe them yet).  Also, people so believed in him that they just aren't ready to trash the guy from a popularity sense, but when they get into the voting booth, they're gonna vote for Romney. 

Funny thing about controlling the message - it's actually a good tactic.  I went to a presentation of one of our local pols. Colin Van Ostern. He's a bigwig democrat who worked directly with Obama on his messaging.  He said that a campaign should do everything it can to control the message and keep the message the same.  Obama's problems are multifold.  He has barely any control over his message.  It's all over the place.  Also what do you mean by candidates not talking to people?  Romney seems to be giving speeches and out on the trail, he has to be talking to someone.  He did a big thing in Stratham here in NH today.

I agree that most elections have relatively little impact.  2012 is different in the sense that what happens here actually does determine the future of the country for generations. See, what democrats don't understand about why republicans hate large scale legislation like Obamacare, is that if it turns out to be terrible it can never be eliminated.  Taxes can be raised, money can be spent or saved, but huge life-changing legislation has tentacles that change lifestyles and society.

BTW, I am still very skeptical of Romney's chances of winning.  I know someone who sat the race out who I would have preferred (and Im not saying because its too much riling of the forum) because the message was so clear and opposite that they would have beaten the president handily.  You're right, incumbents rarely are defeated, but usually its because they are able to use the majesty of the oval office and the presidency to their advantage.  I think, by giving too many primetime addresses, showing up on ESPN or other non-presidential venues, and being extra petty with things, Obama may have damaged his ability to use the incumbency to his advantage.  My good friend is an extreme leftist who complained that the president interupted her TV show.  She exclaimed, "He's always on TV".  She'll still vote for him, but I can imagine how too much exposure can hurt incumbency.