Politico:Paul Ryan: ’12 race like Carter vs. Reagan

[Incipimus iterum]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81441.html?hp=r5

[riceowl]

That's a pretty killer last sentence.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Its more like 1996 lol. The "Going in the Right Direction" poll is at a high,Obama leads in Swing States,Romney is NO Reagan.

[afleitch]

I hope the 'Carter led till the end' myth gets buried once and for all this year. It's always bugged me.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Also...Obama will do what Carter failed to do an that is...Win.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I knew that Ryan guy was a JJ impersonator!

[King]

GOP is digging itself in a hole by doubling down on saying this a referendum on Obama.  Not only have voters rejected it, but if he wins, Obama can say people approve his first term actions--including Obamacare.  It would be better if they just made this campaign more about Mitt.

[Yank2133]

GOP is digging itself in a hole by doubling down on saying this a referendum on Obama.  Not only have voters rejected it, but if he wins, Obama can say people approve his first term actions--including Obamacare.  It would be better if they just made this campaign more about Mitt.

That is a guarantee for landslide defeat.

[memphis]

Romney's planning to sell weapons to Iran?

[5280]

GOP is digging itself in a hole by doubling down on saying this a referendum on Obama.  Not only have voters rejected it, but if he wins, Obama can say people approve his first term actions--including Obamacare.  It would be better if they just made this campaign more about Mitt.

And expect the US to benefit in a 2nd Obama term?  Yeah right, Obama didn't address what he was going to do during his 2nd term at the DNC.

[Yank2133]

GOP is digging itself in a hole by doubling down on saying this a referendum on Obama.  Not only have voters rejected it, but if he wins, Obama can say people approve his first term actions--including Obamacare.  It would be better if they just made this campaign more about Mitt.

And expect the US to benefit in a 2nd Obama term?  Yeah right, Obama didn't address what he was going to do during his 2nd term at the DNC.

Obama is the incumbent, people already know where he stands.......Mitt as the challenger has to make the case for people to vote for him and so far he hasn't.

[Likely Voter]

Obviously this is something that plays well with the base to reassure them that things arent so bad. Of course a real analysis shows it to be a bad analogy but they have to say something.  

The more apt analogy is probably Kerry v Bush. Both were close races with the incumbent coming out of the conventions with a good lead. And Kerry was able to use the first debate to return it to a close race with a 4 point debate bounce. He was able to close the gap even more, but ended up losing 1.5 points...because he was so far behind going into late September. If Romney can keep Obama from opening up such a large lead this month and get a 4 point bounce out of the first debate, he can move to a small lead.

...it's possible

[mondale84]

Paul Ryan is such a moronic troll...

[J. J.]

Its more like 1996 lol. The "Going in the Right Direction" poll is at a high,Obama leads in Swing States,Romney is NO Reagan.

It hit a high around the convention, but has slipped slightly since:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track


Granted it is better than in the summer.

[5280]

All I can say is...

Thank god for 2 terms for presidents. Hopefully 2016 we can get better candidates on the GOP side.

[old timey villain]

GOP is digging itself in a hole by doubling down on saying this a referendum on Obama.  Not only have voters rejected it, but if he wins, Obama can say people approve his first term actions--including Obamacare.  It would be better if they just made this campaign more about Mitt.

And expect the US to benefit in a 2nd Obama term?  Yeah right, Obama didn't address what he was going to do during his 2nd term at the DNC.

Whether it's right or not, in an incumbent election, the burden of stating ones goals and initiatives once elected will always fall on the challenger. Most people assume that if they're going to change course in mid stream, they need to have a very compelling and clear reason for doing so.

People know what Obama's vision is and he's not going to change many people's minds about whether it's right or not. They've seen what he did the first four years which is usually enough for people determine if it's been successful or not- and whether they want four more years of it.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'm definitely seeing shades of 1948 in this election.

[Politico]

Its more like 1996 lol. The "Going in the Right Direction" poll is at a high

A high of 30-something percent (AKA Delusional Democrats)? LOL @ Democrats who cling to 8% unemployment and $4.00/gallon gasoline. Let's just replay John Kerry commercials from 2004 and call it a day, OK?

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and $4/gallon gasoline. Most of the electorate is not interested in more of this.

[Politico]

GOP is digging itself in a hole by doubling down on saying this a referendum on Obama.  Not only have voters rejected it, but if he wins, Obama can say people approve his first term actions--including Obamacare.  It would be better if they just made this campaign more about Mitt.

And expect the US to benefit in a 2nd Obama term?  Yeah right, Obama didn't address what he was going to do during his 2nd term at the DNC.

Obama is the incumbent, people already know where he stands.......Mitt as the challenger has to make the case for people to vote for him and so far he hasn't.

Neither did Reagan until the debate. Romney's goal is simple: Appear like a reasonable alternative to Obama. That is all. He does not need to give better speeches than Obama, or seem more likeable, or appear hipper. All he has to do is appear ready to be president. That's all it is going to take to win in this toxic environment. Many people may never admit to voting for Romney, but voting for Romney is what they will do when they are alone in that booth. People know Obama is likeable, but what matters is getting the job done and his attempt at the job just was not good enough. People do not want the next four years to look like the past four years, so they will NOT give Obama four more years. It's that simple so long as Romney appears to be a reasonable alternative in the debates.

Sit tight, folks. You didn't really think Mitt, a man of his means, has spent over half a decade on this only to blow it in the 11th hour, did you?

[Stranger in a strange land]

I hope the 'Carter led till the end' myth gets buried once and for all this year. It's always bugged me.

It won't. Neither will the "Dukakis led by 17 points in June/August/September" myth.

[Fritz]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read Politico's rantings.

Romney is behind, at this point.  You are free to delude yourself into believing that he is not behind, we don't care.  The simple fact is, Romney needs to do much, much more than simply "appear like a reasonable alternative."  He needs to hit a major home run, out of the ballpark, in the debates in order to win.  Obama does not have the same pressure: if both candidates do reasonably well, the status quo is maintained and Romney is still behind, Obama wins.  Simple as that.

[SPC]

I'm definitely seeing shades of 1948 in this election.

Wouldn't that require Romney to be ahead all year instead of behind all year?

[memphis]

I hope the 'Carter led till the end' myth gets buried once and for all this year. It's always bugged me.

It won't. Neither will the "Dukakis led by 17 points in June/August/September" myth.

You guys are forgetting the worst myth of all, which Romney is only perpetuating. "We always lose when we fail to choose a conservative."

[ChrisFromNJ]

I wasn't around in 1980 and can't speak to the similarity between the two races, but I can assure you that this comparison is based solely on wishful thinking, rather than a careful analysis of the facts of both elections.

[J. J.]

I wasn't around in 1980 and can't speak to the similarity between the two races, but I can assure you that this comparison is based solely on wishful thinking, rather than a careful analysis of the facts of both elections.

Yes, Gallup showed Reagan lower at this point, and Reagan had just made a remark that Carter started his campaign at the birthplace of the Klan.  It turned out to the birthplace of Helen Keller.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=886&dat=19800903&id=VZdOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r0wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6698,717129