Althouse: "Registered voters in 12 key swing states are almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney..."

January 30, 2012

"Registered voters in 12 key swing states are almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney..."

"... while giving a 14-percentage-point lead to Obama over Newt Gingrich. Swing-state voters also prefer Obama to Ron Paul and to Rick Santorum. Registered voters nationally express similar preferences, although Paul does slightly better at the national level than he does in the swing states."

Gallup.

160 comments:

Geoff Matthews said...: I thought that Gingrich said he was leading Obama in the polls?; 1/30/12, 12:28 PM
cubanbob said...: The only polls to take seriously are after labor day.
Until then most people don't really consider who they are going to vote for (or against) or even if they are going to vote. Until then the polls are snapshots that are good for that moment but are not really predictive.; 1/30/12, 12:30 PM
Andy said...: If this election comes down to turnout, the Republicans are going to be glad they went with the uninspiring unprincipled unlikeable Mitt Romney whose one redeeming quality seems to be that he isn't Newt Gingrich.; 1/30/12, 12:32 PM
ricpic said...: Romney is too "nice" to return the blows from Obama and his surrogates should Mitt be the Republican nominee. That plus the mere hint of the R word would neuter him. Newt would return every blow and then some. Which makes these Gallup numbers contextless (if there is such a word).; 1/30/12, 12:33 PM
traditionalguy said...: Sounds great. All we have to do is hold the election today.

That will avoid the coming 6 months of OWS marches based on the dry runs in Madison seen every night on the evening news. The hope will be that smiling Obama and mother Michelle can calm them down, while Mitt will ignore them and promise nothing at all.; 1/30/12, 12:38 PM
MadisonMan said...: Crap. Wisconsin is a swing state again. Here comes the blizzard of ads. I guess I'll stick to Downton Abbey and Antiques Roadshow 'til November.; 1/30/12, 12:39 PM
Spread Eagle said...: Yeah, now. Wait until after the lamestream media gets done working Mittens over like a Waring blender we'll see.; 1/30/12, 12:41 PM
test said...: Ultimate this is why Romney will win. Newt's negatives are too high for him to be elected. The difference between Newt and Romney is miniscule compared to the difference between either of them and Obama. Most people voting in the primary want whoever has the best chance of beating Obama, and Newt isn't it.; 1/30/12, 12:42 PM
deborah said...: Newt is hosed. At the last debate he looked like a sullen kid who hadn't done his homework.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEA5QGYJFQ; 1/30/12, 12:43 PM
KCFleming said...: "Registered voters in 12 key swing states are almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney... ... while giving a 14-percentage-point lead to Obama over Newt Gingrich.

Gallup."

Gulp.; 1/30/12, 12:43 PM
shiloh said...: Smitten w/mittens Althouse, keep hope alive! :D

But pace yourself as the actual presidential general election starts (7) mos. from now ...

take care

>

Andy, re: turnout, Reps are hoping the (29) million 2008 Obama voters who stayed home in 2010 will also stay home in 2012.

Again, keep hope alive!; 1/30/12, 12:46 PM
KCFleming said...: If the POTUS can do this bad of a job and still garner 50%, the US is totally screwed.

I mean, seriously.

Does Obama have to declare Mao's birthday a holiday for that moronic half to get the picture?; 1/30/12, 12:46 PM
ic said...: What the hell is wrong with those people who still support Obama?

Ricpic: "Newt would return every blow.." So? Mafia would return every blow, are we going to elect a Godfather? For goodness sake, Newt was bought to shill for Freddie, globsl warming, any profitable "causes", he expanded earmarked spendings, he's ruthless and narcissistic. We already have a narcissist in the White House, we don't need another one. Their SOB is bad, we don't want another SOB, even he's ours.

Romney is uninspiring, unprincipled, unlikeable. Newt is inspiring, principled, likeable?; 1/30/12, 12:48 PM
edutcher said...: Gallup has always been a little soft for GodZero.

Wait for Rasmussen.

Also keep in mind, Zero has been pretty much out of sight (except for SOTU, after which he dropped a couple of points). His numbers always crater once he's in the public eye.; 1/30/12, 12:49 PM
KCFleming said...: @Shiloh

Actually Reps are hoping the 29 million 2008 Obama fake voters who "stayed home" in 2010 don't rise from the dead, or vote multiple times, etc. etc., in 2012.

You know, an actual count, not a Franken vote among them.; 1/30/12, 12:49 PM
shiloh said...: "fake voters"

As Althouse lemmings continue to whine and please continue, as always.; 1/30/12, 12:52 PM
Alex said...: The problem I have with most voters is they are generally ignorant of how the political system works. Most don't even know who their own governor/congressman/state senator is. They are aware of the POTUS incumbent and might vote against POTUS if they are feeling scared enough. That's the general level of sophistication of the "Swing voter".; 1/30/12, 12:56 PM
ricpic said...: ic - Newt's a fighter. Over time people come to respect a fighter they don't necessarily like. Not leftists. People. You've got to win over the non-aligned. See even a speck of fire in Mitt?; 1/30/12, 12:56 PM
Calypso Facto said...: What the hell is wrong with those people who still support Obama?

Seriously. Those people who had Obama '12 stickers on their cars in 2009 already should really be checked for any sign of brain activity. Talk about giving up any pretense of rational decision making...; 1/30/12, 1:00 PM
Palladian said...: "ic - Newt's a fighter. Over time people come to respect a fighter they don't necessarily like. Not leftists. People. You've got to win over the non-aligned. See even a speck of fire in Mitt?"

The last thing needed when the house is burning down is more "fire".; 1/30/12, 1:04 PM
Chuck66 said...: AA and readers......any thoughts on Obama's forcing religious institutions to pay for the birth control, sterlization, abortions, etc for their employees? Will this have an effect in November? The people who want this kind of mandates from the Fed'l govt are already voting for Obama.

Will this give ammo to the anti-Obamacare folks?

Isn't this exactly what we said 2 years ago....the now the fed'l gov't has full control of our health care and will make decisions that people don't want?; 1/30/12, 1:04 PM
Chuck66 said...: Calyso.....just to remind everyone what these people are like, go back to that video...YouTube search "Creepy Obama kids".; 1/30/12, 1:06 PM
test said...: "ic said...
What the hell is wrong with those people who still support Obama?"

Nothing's wrong with them. They're voting in their own best interests. Democrats make no apologies that their goal is not to make everyone better off, but rather to take from those with resources and give them to those who vote Democratic.; 1/30/12, 1:06 PM
shiloh said...: "pretense of rational decision making..."

At one point in time the 2012 Rep/teabagger wannabe process was lead by trump, bachmann, perry, Cain and newt lol. Talk about childish fickleness. :D

Rational decision makin' indeed! :-P

Oh the humanity re: conservative 2012 slim pickins'; 1/30/12, 1:06 PM
MikeR said...: After Romney gets the nomination, this kind of thing really makes it hard for me to imagine that Obama can be re-elected. I really don't see why Romney's numbers won't be the ones to improve as people get used to him as the candidate. The president's numbers should be fixed in stone.; 1/30/12, 1:10 PM
David said...: Geoff Matthews said...
I thought that Gingrich said he was leading Obama in the polls?

He's leading Malia.; 1/30/12, 1:11 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: "Registered voters" is not a great metric. A better one is "likely voters". "Registered voters" usually shows a higher approval for Dems than shows up on election day.; 1/30/12, 1:13 PM
David said...: I really don't see why Romney's numbers won't be the ones to improve as people get used to him as the candidate.

The trashing of his weird crazy prejudiced different religion and evil ill-gotten and unfair wealth has just begun.

Plus America wants diversity, except where it involves Mormons and successful businessmen.; 1/30/12, 1:16 PM
Dan in Philly said...: Romney will be our president in a year.; 1/30/12, 1:18 PM
Andy said...: I really don't see why Romney's numbers won't be the ones to improve as people get used to him as the candidate.

This would be true except that the more people get to know Romney the less they like him. I think it's that thing where he seems not quite human that turns people off. Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions.; 1/30/12, 1:18 PM
Henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/30/12, 1:21 PM
Chuck66 said...: "Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions."

Actually the companies were poorly run and heading towards bankruptcy. His firms rescued them and saved as many jobs as possible.

How many people work for Allis-Chalmers or Schlitz these days? Wouldn't it have been nice for someone to have come in during their dark days and save something of these companies?; 1/30/12, 1:24 PM
Henry said...: ricpic wrote Newt's a fighter. Over time people come to respect a fighter they don't necessarily like.

Yet Obama won by convincing a lot of people that he was a new kind of non-confrontational politician. Even when he fought, esp. vs. the Clintons, he fought by proxy and his proxies used insidious smears that generated no respect.

It's easy to see that McCain's fuzzy-headedness did him no favors, but his candidacy suffered from multiple flaws.

I think you have a point, but it's just part of a much bigger picture. Hillary Clinton was probably the best fighter in either primary and certainly earned some respect for it, but in the end, Clinton didn't win.

And frankly, I think your faith in Newt Gingrich is wildly misplaced. Enlisting Gingrich as your candidate because he's a fighter is like hiring Mike Tyson as your heart surgeon because he's not squeamish.; 1/30/12, 1:24 PM
Brummagem Joe said...: And Obama hasn't even launched his campaign really. The election wil come down to turnout. If it's over 125 million Obama is home, less and it becomes more problematic. Personally I think it will be much the same as 2008 ie. 132 million.; 1/30/12, 1:26 PM
shiloh said...: 2010 was a ((("wave"))) election for Republicans, much like 1994 w/the political winds totally in the Reps favor.

And yet ...

kasich got 49% in Ohio
Rick Scott got 49% in FL
Toomey go 51% in PA
Kirk got 48% in IL

etc. etc. as always, presidential elections come down to choices and a personal "connection" w/the voters.

mittens is a top 1% of the 1% w/no discernible human personality.

Good luck w/that Reps! :); 1/30/12, 1:26 PM
Brian Brown said...: Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions.

Yeah, because like that's what Romney says!

Aren't you embarrassed to say such stupid things?; 1/30/12, 1:27 PM
Cedarford said...: At this stage, Romney running roughly even against an incumbent is a great indicator or the candidates strength and the incumbent President's relative weakness.
As cubanbob, notes, however, this is subject to serious change given the Conventions, if Obamacare is found unconstitutional, once the 100s of millions brushing on a billion in Obamafunds plus his 2008 media lapdogs start really hitting it hard.

But a good indicator of Romney's relative strength at present time, Ron Pauls strong head-to-head against Obama (Paul only trails Obama by 5 points in current polls and matches Obama in net positive feelings voters have - Paul at +4, Obama at +5, ...and Romney at +7)
As well as a damning indicator of Newt Gingrich's negatives with voters.."Noot!!, Noot!" is at MINUS 18 points in negative vs positive feelings voters have of the guy and he trails Obama by 13-16 points in head-to-head polls.; 1/30/12, 1:27 PM
Thorley Winston said...: ic - Newt's a fighter. Over time people come to respect a fighter they don't necessarily like.

Yes and that time is usually after the fighter has lost. Or after they’re dead.
Neither of which is likely to be particularly helpful.; 1/30/12, 1:28 PM
Triangle Man said...: @MadisonMan

Wisconsin is the state most representative of the Nation as a whole (i.e. the most average on several indicators). At least, that was true as of three or four years ago. We should just have the election for President here and be done with it.; 1/30/12, 1:30 PM
mccullough said...: Obama's Huey Long 2012 campaign will be a loser. He's going to lose to Romney and he knows it.; 1/30/12, 1:30 PM
Peter said...: "Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions."

Romney will be savaged as a "millionaire's millionare." They'll do everything short of drawing charactures of hook-nosed Jewish bankers.

BUT, many of us would love to see him do some serious Creative Destruction" to federal programs.

As for Bain Capital, is it's aproach not better than an economy dominated by has-been industrial dinosaurs like the UAW's General Motors?; 1/30/12, 1:31 PM
Triangle Man said...: It's easy to see that McCain's fuzzy-headedness did him no favors, but his candidacy suffered from multiple flaws.

McCain was also portrayed as a hot head and erratic, qualities that Gingrich shares.; 1/30/12, 1:32 PM
Brian Brown said...: shiloh said...
2010 was a ((("wave"))) election for Republicans, much like 1994 w/the political winds totally in the Reps favor.

And yet ...

29 of the nation’s states have Republican governors.

Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures and gained more than 650 seats. ( In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction. )

Russ Feingold, proud liberal, is out of office.

Barney Frank won't run again.

North Carolina’s Democratic governor, Bev Perdue just announced that she won’t run for a second term.

Ben Nelson won't run again.

And yet you're posting voting %

Loser.; 1/30/12, 1:32 PM
shiloh said...: Jay, as mentioned to your fearless leader, smitten w/mittens Althouse.

Keep hope alive!

take care little buddy ...; 1/30/12, 1:38 PM
Andy said...: Romney will be savaged as a "millionaire's millionare."

Like this miami herald political cartoon?; 1/30/12, 1:39 PM
Chuck66 said...: "Wisconsin is the state most representative of the Nation as a whole (i.e. the most average on several indicators). At least, that was true as of three or four years ago. We should just have the election for President here and be done with it."

And what's cool about that...if we dont' like who won, we can just have a do-over election 12 months later.; 1/30/12, 1:41 PM
edutcher said...: shiloh said...

"pretense of rational decision making..."

At one point in time the 2012 Rep/teabagger wannabe process was lead by trump, bachmann, perry, Cain and newt lol. Talk about childish fickleness. :D

Kos' little liar can make all the faces he wants. The process is called vetting.

Had there been some on the Demo side last time, the Demos wouldn't be faced with an epic loss that will confine them to the back benches for a generation.

Oh the humanity re: conservative 2012 slim pickins'

Hell of a lot slimmer for the Lefties. All they have is GodZero, Dr Evil, and guys like Hatman and shiloh.

PS Don't forget, when shiloh says whining, he's means the truth is being told.; 1/30/12, 1:41 PM
Revenant said...: Newt would return every blow and then some.

Which is, of course, part of the problem.

Newt's great if your goal is to engage in a partisan pissing match, which is what a lot of Democrats and Republicans are looking forward to this year.

But swing voters hate that crap, because for the most part they think both of you are a bunch of jerks.; 1/30/12, 1:44 PM
Chuck66 said...: Agree with Rev.....recall Bob Dole coming across as an angry crank during the 1996 election. It didn't do him any favors. Most people like a fighter if he/she is on your side. But the general population may not see that as a good quality.

Jim Oberstar lost in Minnesota after being in the house for 40 years partially because he lost his temper during a debate and insulted the audience as being "members of the flat earth society".

The vetting thing.....if the Democrats weren't obsessed with the dark hue to Obama's skin, they would have nominated Hillary. She would have had many of the same policies, but not come across as incompetent.; 1/30/12, 1:49 PM
X said...: And Obama hasn't even launched his campaign really.

this may be a new contender for the most retarded statement on the internet.; 1/30/12, 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...: "The last thing needed when the house is burning down is more "fire"."

Backfires are a common tool.; 1/30/12, 1:52 PM
Revenant said...: Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies

You really do enjoy trolling, don't you?; 1/30/12, 1:53 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: This would be true except that the more people get to know Romney the less they like him. I think it's that thing where he seems not quite human that turns people off. Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions.

And, yet, Obama himself has shown himself not all that likable, and his wife even less so - though by 1996, many already knew that Hillary! wasn't likable, but her husband was reelected anyway, because he was.

The side of Romney that may play well is that he sounds happy more than either Obama or Gingrich. I don't see Obama as the least up beat or happy, and surely isn't being the least bit inspirational. None of FDR's fireside chats to buck up the American people. If Romney can keep that going, in the face of probably a billion or so being spent by Obama and his allies to demean him, and the MSM piling on and carrying water for the Dems, as usual, then he has a good chance of winning.

As for how he got rich - I understand that you get your talking points from those who really don't understand this sort of stuff, but this sort of meme that you and they are trying to push here is getting harder and harder to justify. Go get an MBA, and then come back and debate this issue.

You also need to be thinking about why he brought that up. Ultimately, he will (probably) be running against someone who has no interest or ability to cut spending, regardless of how wasteful the federal spending. None, whatsoever. Rather, Obama seems to think that we can borrow more than a trillion dollars a year and give it to his political cronies, and that will get us out of the recession. Romney is setting himself up as the green eye shades guy, who can find a lot of the waste and can cut it out.

As an aside, I have never answered the question to my own satisfaction of whether President Obama is catastrophically illiterate and ignorant when it comes to economics, or he just figures that the role of government is to pay off those who got him elected. As has been repeatedly pointed out, he learned his politics in Chicago, and that is how it has always worked there (I remember 40 years ago hearing about how you got a driver's license there - by leaving some $20s on the seat when taking your driving test).; 1/30/12, 1:53 PM
edutcher said...: Barry Dauphin said...

"Registered voters" is not a great metric. A better one is "likely voters". "Registered voters" usually shows a higher approval for Dems than shows up on election day.

Good point.

Rasmussen only surveys likely voters, which makes his polls considered the most accurate.; 1/30/12, 1:56 PM
Henry said...: I must say that Andy R's faith in negative campaigning is entertaining.; 1/30/12, 1:56 PM
SteveR said...: ....Mitt Romney whose one redeeming quality seems to be that he isn't Newt Gingrich

....Mitt Romney whose one redeeming quality seems to be that he isn't Barack Obama

Fixed; 1/30/12, 1:59 PM
Cedarford said...: Henry - "I think your faith in Newt Gingrich is wildly misplaced. Enlisting Gingrich as your candidate because he's a fighter is like hiring Mike Tyson as your heart surgeon because he's not squeamish."

Bwaaah!!

There is also some truth to Americans seeing the most successful Presidents as "nice guys" that they also know are steely and tough behind the scenes.

FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, Clinton had "nice guy" images, but were absolutely in charge and could be ruthless on people that opposed issues near and dear to them.

Truman, LBJ, Nixon as well as failed candidates like Goldwater did not have "nice guy" images...the public perception was of Angry Fighters. All had big loss of support. Newt would be in their class...and even though Truman and growingly, Nixon, are seen as consequential Presidents that got a lot of things right, it didn't help with voters at the time and their image at the end of their time hurt not just them, but their whole Party's prospects.

Then you have the "nice but squishy" ones...Ford, Bush I, Carter, Bush II, Obama. Guys inept or not (Bush I was NOT inept)...that suffered from an inability to defend themselves or lead behind the scenes.

With Romney, there is a lot of good signs he is not in the "nice but squishy" camp, but in the camp of the nice guys who can push back and who are tough taskmasters behind the scenes demanding results. Besides his business background with tough choices and hard calls, he issued 600 vetoes in Massachusetts and was described by Democrats as "relentless - the boxing match that never ends". As a Bishop leading 600 stakeholders in his younger days, he was characterized as "caring, nice, but strict and demanding while he walked the walk himself". When he took over the Olympics - he gutted officials sumptuous meals and accomodations, slashed other costs, demanded full workdays and replaced paid people with volunteers. "He was friendly, but absolutely ruthless about making the Olympics a success, whatever that took. He was everywhere, hands on."; 1/30/12, 2:04 PM
yashu said...: Enlisting Gingrich as your candidate because he's a fighter is like hiring Mike Tyson as your heart surgeon because he's not squeamish.

LOL

Also, I don't think this comparison of McCain & Romney (going soft on Obama) holds. The reason McCain was soft on Obama in 2008 was that the latter would be the First Black President Ever, a historic chance for national reconciliation & overcoming racism & healing the wounds of the past & blablabla. I really don't think McCain wanted to win; he didn't want to be responsible for thwarting all that wonderful wonderfulness. He didn't want to be the historic bad guy.

All that turned out to horsepuckey, but that's how the country felt at the time. The situation now is entirely different. The "First Black President" election only happens once; it happened; if that's what it took to "prove" the USA wasn't racist, well it was proved, and you don't have to prove the same thing twice.

Now O is just an incumbent as shitty as any other, maybe shittier than any other ever. If Romney's the nominee, he's going into the general election to take Obama down. In his own style-- not Gingrich's, or Palin's, not the kind of fire-breather many conservatives might like to see-- but just as ruthless. And more likely to be effective in the general than a rabblerousing demagogue whose platform mostly consists of railing against The Establishment (who are out to get Me, Newt the great).; 1/30/12, 2:09 PM
Joaquin said...: Romney will win if and only if all Republicans get behind him. If the Republicans 'splinter' Obama will win.; 1/30/12, 2:10 PM
Chuck66 said...: Someone mentioned here before.....Bush should have lost 2000 (and lets not even talk about 2004). But Gore came across as an arogant bore. Remember the debate? Where Gore appeared to be trying to physically intimdate Bush?

To win people over, you don't bash the other viewpoints. Instead you have to conveince people that you are on their side and have their best interests in mind. If you are not likable, people will not feel like you care about them.; 1/30/12, 2:12 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Obama supporters make the mistake of thinking that Romney vs. Gingrich will still be the primary media focus in six months.; 1/30/12, 2:16 PM
ic said...: ricpic: Newt is a fighter.

What does he fight for? Another million bucks from Freddie?

Fighters have a cause. What is his?

Frankly, what the hell has he done that did not profit him personally? What kind of fighter was he to throw a tantrum when Clinton made him exit Airforce One at the back of the plane? His behavior was embarrassing.

Can you imagine what Obama could goad him into saying and doing in a debate? A red faced Newt vs a smiling confident Obama. A sweaty Nixon vs a cool JFK. Reagan annihilated Carter with "there you go again", dismantled Mondale with not holding his young age and inexperience against him. Newt is no Reagan. Newt is not even in Nixon's league.

Can Newt attack Obamacare? No, he was one of the first politicians to push for personal mandate. Can he attack Obama's crony capitalism? No, he profited as a crony, that 1.5 million bucks Freddie kickback. Can he rage against how Freddie and Fannie caused the housing collapse? No, he profited from the housing collapse. How is he going to defend capitalism, the non-crony kind? He fell for the global warming scam, the green energy scam. He is a fool who is too smart for us.

He is a fighter. For what?; 1/30/12, 2:19 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Oh the humanity re: conservative 2012 slim pickins'

Slim Pickens was indeed a conservative, but he's been dead for about 30 years so he can't run in 2012 for the GOP.

Sorry Shiloh. Good try.; 1/30/12, 2:22 PM
Chuck66 said...: I like listening to Newt when he is on a role. That is why he is a great political commentator.

But remember, AFSCME is supporting Newt for the Republican nomination. That shows what they think about his odds against Obama.; 1/30/12, 2:22 PM
Geoff Matthews said...: To review the Dem's primary in 2008, you had:

A guy who earned his money arguing bad science (and seances) in court, was a one-term senator, and failed VP candidate.
And he cheated on his wife while she had cancer.

A guy who was the mayor of Cleveland and a far-left congressman. He also believes in UFOs.
But his wife is hot.

A carpetbagger who was on the short end of her second term in the senate, and only got that because of who her husband is.

A guy who served in the senate less than a term, had done little of note as a politician, but gives a good speech.

2004 was even worse.

These things can be spun any-which-way.; 1/30/12, 2:30 PM
Chuck66 said...: "A guy who served in the senate less than a term, had done little of note as a politician, but gives a good speech."

But he had one HUGE thing that made him qualified in the eyes of the equal outcomes crowd....he has a dark hue to his skin.; 1/30/12, 2:36 PM
Cedarford said...: Yashu - "The "First Black President" election only happens once; it happened; if that's what it took to "prove" the USA wasn't racist, well it was proved, and you don't have to prove the same thing twice."

Smart commentary, Yashu.
I am reminded that Bill Bennett once said that in sports, the real blow for advancing blacks in management was not when the baseball owners hired the 1st black baseball manager...But when that 1st black baseball player was replaced for not doing a good job - and no one screamed "racist!" about Frank Robinson being replaced.; 1/30/12, 2:38 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Someone mentioned here before.....Bush should have lost 2000 (and lets not even talk about 2004). But Gore came across as an arogant bore. Remember the debate? Where Gore appeared to be trying to physically intimdate Bush?

Interestingly, I mentioned at the time, that the photo of the federal SWAT agent apparently (but not really) pointing a machine gun at Elián González might just swing the next election. And, Florida was close enough, that it just might have.; 1/30/12, 3:03 PM
shiloh said...: "Sorry Shiloh. Good try."

Indeed I ♥ Willard, as one should know better than to slip one by you. :D

>

btw, Althouse has already given up on mittens, though she still tries to put on a happy face! :)

ok, ok, females can be quite fickle :-P depending on any particular moment in time lol.

Take care Althouse lemmings as she leads you fools like puppets on a string!

Apologies to puppets ...; 1/30/12, 3:04 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: The lesson here is never ever give up on Willard. There's a reason he's never lost a race! It's called bouncebackability.

Go Willard!; 1/30/12, 3:09 PM
shiloh said...: "There's a reason he's never lost a race! It's called bouncebackability."

I ♥ Willard, I hesitate to mention this to you because of my liberal empathy :-P but Willard lost several races in 2008 to that other well known RINO, McCain.

Please try to cope the best you can w/this "new" revelation. :D

take care; 1/30/12, 3:13 PM
Carol_Herman said...: We're going to see obscene amounts of money spent on negative ads.

Rush Limbaugh is right in pointing out the GOP benefits IF their candidate, ahead, is not so easy to identify right now. Because?

Because Obama is loaded for bear! IF Romney is going to be the nominee (which I happen to doubt) ... then all the vested interests will attack Romney until election day.

The whole thing is going to be negative. Wall to wall.

But if Romney doesn't look like he's exactly in? Then the field opens. (Even the "draft Jeb Bush" horns will begin to blow.)

While if Newt stays in? He draws off some of the hostility; and right there you're going to see shooting occurring in all directions! Expensive ads.

Plus, there's a real appetite for a circus where the high wire acts do not use nets.; 1/30/12, 3:19 PM
Carol_Herman said...: You know, there's a rule about "turn out." It's like Bob Dole's run. People who aren't enthused don't vote.

And, lots of people won't vote unless they think they're voting for a winnah.; 1/30/12, 3:21 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: I ♥ Willard, I hesitate to mention this to you because of my liberal empathy :-P but Willard lost several races in 2008 to that other well known RINO, McCain.

No sir. Willard withdrew from the race in a strategic maneuver to set himself up for a real election race in 2012. 2008 was nothing more than a practice run so it doesn't count against Willard's perfect election record.

Bouncebackability. Willard's got it. Florida will prove it. Just you wait.; 1/30/12, 3:28 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Plus, there's a real appetite for a circus where the high wire acts do not use nets.

I like the high wire acts but clowns scare me. :(; 1/30/12, 3:30 PM
shiloh said...: I ♥ Willard

Whereas I will agree w/you that Willard is very strategic er cagey er flexible er how she "we" say, open to new information lol ie ...

an elitist, flip/flopping fool who has no core principles, but that's just my impression and I may lack the total picture re: mittens gathered by the media over the past (30+) years.

The truth is out there ...; 1/30/12, 3:38 PM
Rauf Arshad said...: creating blog like this is some thing a person seek knowledger even i am doing blogging for many years but can not create a single good blog you have done that thing in your blog have a very nice year of 2012

Themadnews.com
Grandprixz.com; 1/30/12, 3:39 PM
PaulV said...: MR has been toughened up by the Newtster and will able to use Obama's video mistatement against him. ABO voters will be more energized than the hopechangey voters; 1/30/12, 3:52 PM
edutcher said...: shiloh said...

an elitist, flip/flopping fool who has no core principles,

Perfect description of his horse

Barack Hussein Obama, mm, mm, mm.; 1/30/12, 4:04 PM
traditionalguy said...: Newt fight for whoever hires him.

What the problem with that?

The question is how well he fights for the conservatives. Palin Thompson and Cain think he will fight for us very well.

If only the mega-rich are good fighters, then I would understand the silly objection to the working man Gingrich, or the working woman Palin, or the working man Thompson running for money.

And we know the super-rich Romney never cares about money, right?; 1/30/12, 4:13 PM
Thorley Winston said...: With Romney, there is a lot of good signs he is not in the "nice but squishy" camp, but in the camp of the nice guys who can push back and who are tough taskmasters behind the scenes demanding results.
According to his Wikipedia entry, Romney issued nearly a thousand vetoes during his term as governor of Massachusetts. That sounds to me like someone who knows how to push back.; 1/30/12, 4:14 PM
Revenant said...: The question is how well he fights for the conservatives.

That question was answered in the mid-90s: "badly".

the working man Gingrich

He's been a college professor, a politician, and a lobbyist. He's exactly as much a "working man" as Barack Obama and less of one than Romney, Paul, or even Santorum.; 1/30/12, 4:22 PM
MadisonMan said...: We should just have the election for President here and be done with it.

I admit it's good for the media here. Maybe Walker foresaw this and some of the 250K new jobs he promised were political consultants trying to manage Mitt's message for Milwaukee, Madison, Minocqua and Marshfield.; 1/30/12, 4:49 PM
Chuck66 said...: Caterpillar is having Exodus build equipement for them in Superior, resulting in about 250 new jobs.

Now for the life of me, I can't figure out why they don't just build the stuff in East Peoria Illinois, but instead are going to Wisconsin to do this manufacturing. What makes Wisconsin better to do business in than Illinois? Anyone got any theories?; 1/30/12, 4:53 PM
Blair said...: Reagan trailed Carter by 20 points as late as March 1980. I don't think it matters. I'd be interested to see what George HW Bush's figures against Carter were at the same point though. I suspect people thought him "more electable" too.; 1/30/12, 5:13 PM
Steve Koch said...: Don't know who will win between Obama and Mitt but I do know that Mitt will do much better than McCain because:
* McCain was a terrible candidate: old, short, ugly, cranky, hyper militaristic. McCain has always seemed a bit psycho to me and definitely has a profound anger problem. Mitt is a tall good looking, pleasant guy who is not hyper militaristic
* McCain did a terrible job of tearing down Obama while Mitt has shown that he knows how to efficiently tear down down a rival (i.e. Newt). It is an essential part of the political process.
* White racial guilt will be way lower this election than in 2008. The Althouse's of the world have shown they are not racist by voting for Obama in 2008. In 2012 they can can show they are not (persistently) stupid by not voting for Obama
* Obama is no longer a black box, he has a terrible record to defend, including Holder, Wall Street cronies, NLRB, corrupt and enormously wasteful stimulus package, no budget for 3 years, EPA, government takeover of medicine, on and on.
* The economy has sucked for Obama's whole term.

Mitt will have plenty of money to run negative ads on Obama to make people aware of how bad Obama has been for this country. The trick is to make the ads entertaining as possible.; 1/30/12, 5:17 PM
shiloh said...: Neither McCain nor Obama ran against an incumbent in 2008. Again, 1988 Dukakis had a (17) pt. lead against Bush 41 late July after the Dem convention. Dukakis lost by 8 pts.

Stay tuned ...; 1/30/12, 5:37 PM
Michael said...: The bland Romney runs even or ahead of our smartest ever president. And yet he hasnt started running against the president. Do not underestimate the fatigue voters have with Obama, the huge number of otherwise conservative voters who pulled the lever for BHO in expiation of their guilt and as a huge hug to their own egos. They will not make that mistake again. This election will be about BHO and that is a bad thing for BHO.; 1/30/12, 5:46 PM
John Stodder said...: Lamest new argument against Romney, and I should have known that after I heard it on Limbaugh this morning I would see it here:

Yes, Romney has been effective in tearing down Newt. But he likes doing that because it's tearing down a true, non-RINO, Reaganite conservative.

Do you think Romney will do the same thing to Obama? NO! He won't. He won't want to displease the media. He's too much of a RINO. He has no balls. He won't do it, I just know it.

Note, you don't need any facts to make this argument. But, please, non-RINOs, given your gorgeous purity, make that argument passionately, and snipe angrily at any members of the Republican Establishment who disagree with you. You know they're members of the Republican Establishment because they disagree with you!

It's all about feelings now on the right.

Is Gingrich double-digits behind Obama! Doesn't matter. Only a RINO would think that matters. Newt will win because he's pure and he's not a RINO!; 1/30/12, 5:55 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Willard can be a Reagan conservative. That's the beauty of Willard--he can be anything you want him to be!; 1/30/12, 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: The fact to the matter is, fundamentally, it is clear that I am the SON of Reagan. Only I am the Logical and Political Heir to this Throne. Senator Santorum is not. Congressman Paul is not. And, especially, Governor Romney is not.

-Newton Leroy Gingrich at Jacksonville, 5 PM, 1/30; 1/30/12, 6:07 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Nope. Don't believe everything you read.

We're in for a bumpy ride. The GOP convention will probably be a swing-fest. And, IF Romney looks unbeatable to you ... I think he looks like the one person that would bring Donald Trump out of the woodwork. To run as an Independent.

Gallup would be better off offering a product that read poker cards. You could sit and look at the program's results; as you place your bets at the table.

Maybe, you can imbed such a program in a green eye-shade?; 1/30/12, 6:24 PM
garage mahal said...: If I was a conservative unsure about Romney, and wanted to see or hear a little more to make up my mind, I would feel pretty resentful about Romney being literally stuffed down my throat sideways.; 1/30/12, 6:26 PM
John Stodder said...: Yes, of course. Only RINOs believe Gallup. The Republican Establishment planted the poll with members of the Republican Establishment, just like they're doing in Florida. Or should I say, FloRINOda!; 1/30/12, 6:28 PM
Alex said...: garage - thank you so much for your concern troll.; 1/30/12, 6:28 PM
garage mahal said...: Alex
What's the rush anyway to crown Romney?; 1/30/12, 6:30 PM
John Stodder said...: I would feel pretty resentful about Romney being literally stuffed down my throat sideways.

Does it seem that way to you? I get that exact sense about Gingrich. The message from a lot of folks here and elsewhere on the web is that it's Gingrich or nothing, that failing to support Gingrich is the surest sign that you're both a RINO AND a member of the Republican Establishment. Somehow.; 1/30/12, 6:30 PM
Carol_Herman said...: You know, we have 50 states. Here's a list I saved that gives the 13 probably FLIP STATES with their Electoral College counts, in case you want to do the math:

New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
Pennsylvania (20)
Virginia (13)
Florida (29)
Ohio (18)
Michigan (16)
Wisconsin (10)
Minnesota (10)
Colorado (9)
Nevada (6)
New Mexico (5)

Obama's not going to reach his 2008 numbers. Where McCain only got 47% of the vote.

Florida on Tuesday? Does Mitt's numbers include "hanging chads," yet?

WHO IS GONNA WIN THE SUPERBOWL?; 1/30/12, 6:32 PM
I ♥ Willard said...: Or should I say, FloRINOda!

I'm counting on a big win in FloRINOda for Willard RINOmney!; 1/30/12, 6:33 PM
MadisonMan said...: What's the rush anyway to crown Romney?

If only a true, charismatic, dyed-in-the-wool Republican who has been waiting in the wings would emerge now!

It's time for a new NotRomney Candidate to show up! But are there any left?

I think Romney would win against Obama today. Who knows what will happen between now and November however.; 1/30/12, 6:35 PM
Patrick said...: "Romney being literally stuffed down my throat sideways"

Literally, huh?

I'd given you more credit than that, Garage.; 1/30/12, 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: The fact to the matter is, fundamentally, it is clear that I am the SON of Reagan. Only I am the Logical and Political Heir to this Throne. Senator Santorum is not. Congressman Paul is not. And, especially, Governor Romney is not.

-Newton Leroy Gingrich at Jacksonville, 5 PM, 1/30; 1/30/12, 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Nancy Reagan on Newt, the man who claims that he is the son of Reagan.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10273435-reagan-sources-say-gingrich-torch-quote-taken-out-of-context; 1/30/12, 6:50 PM
Steve Austin said...: Good comments by Steve Koch above.

Since we are all taking what we want to from the polls cited above, to me they mean that Gingrich is unelectable.

At the end of the day, the GOP nominee is going to have to win Ohio plus at least 2 (if not 3) of the following states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado. That is the unimpeachable electoral math.

The Newtists have never been able to convince me how he wins those key northern midwest states. Newt just isn't popular at all up here. Conservatism can be popular here. But not Newt.; 1/30/12, 6:50 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Hmm. All this is so terribly interesting to me that I can hardly stand it. I am bursting. Why, the twists and turns toward an inescapable end are, are, almost suspenseful.

Gallup always makes me think of giddy up.

Gallup is not that interesting of a word in sign. Two words, actually, "horse," a one-handed ear flop, and "hop along," two-handed, two fingers each hand that form four horse legs hopping toward the viewer.

You can see the word demonstrated here if you like, by selecting G then scrolling the word list to gallup.

The word I learned for "riding a horse" is a little more interesting than the word for gallup. 'Riding a horse' is the same as 'straddle' except the straddle hands hop forward a couple of times.

So at least there is that for you to have out of this latest poll.; 1/30/12, 6:57 PM
Carol_Herman said...: These polls work better if Gallup polls the dead ones, first.

As to Florida, when you see "voters" ... what you're seeing are a preponderance of voters who will probably vote for Obama. Again. Whether they're living. Or dead.

If Florida was hot, you'd be going down there to buy real estate.; 1/30/12, 7:26 PM
Carol_Herman said...: I'm going to bet that we'll hear Newt's arguments.

And, I'm also going to be we'll hear Sarah Palin's views, too.

Yes, the "insider's club" hates those guys.

But enough people LISTEN.

And, that's really what starts the debate.

These shill TV commercials are hucksterism. That's all. And, if Romney was selling Florida real estate, NONE OF YOU WOULD BE BUYING.

PS: I don't think it's going to be Romney.

However, on Sunday, I think the Patriots really have a good shot.; 1/30/12, 7:30 PM
chickelit said...: The message from a lot of folks here and elsewhere on the web is that it's Gingrich or nothing,..

It not Gingrich or nothing for me, certainly. Nor is it Romney or nothing. I want to see a shotgun wedding. Most of all, I want them both to turn their attention to Obama.; 1/30/12, 8:02 PM
chickelit said...: But I sense here, for some, it is just a kneejerk "we must destroy Palin and Newt" "We must destroy Palin and Newt"

It's palpable.

When you tell me that someone absolutely cannot be a candidate, I immediately get suspicious. I mean, you all act like Newt or Palin is Fred Phelps for crying out loud.; 1/30/12, 8:07 PM
chickelit said...: BTW, there is definitely something not right with Althouse's site. Asking three times for a word verification (despite care) is a sign of a malfunction.

Also, I cannot access commenbts over 200 in other threads.

Over and out; 1/30/12, 8:08 PM
Carol_Herman said...: You know, all we're really seeing is large sums of money being spent at the advertising table.

You can have a baby in the time it takes to reach election day, now.

What NEWT brought to the table is IDEAS. Ideas have impact. They're not going to go away.

Did Reagan's? He faced the same bullshit from the republican insiders in 1976.

Exactly what can advertising dollars buy?

You think throwing money around buys elections? I think all we're seeing, so far, are the voters who are in the bag for Obama.

IF Newt can withstand the withering attacks? You'll hear his ideas. Obama's not going to know whom to shoot.

And, that was just the point Rush Limbaugh made! The enemies are packed with dollars! they think "winning" has something to do with the specialties Dick Morris and Karl Rove practice.; 1/30/12, 8:11 PM
shiloh said...: I ♥ Willard

"Willard can be a Reagan conservative. That's the beauty of Willard--he can be anything you want him to be!"

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

>

"BTW, there is definitely something not right with Althouse's site."

Indeed, too many whining conservatives ...

ok, ok, just the right amount, my bad. :-P; 1/30/12, 8:12 PM
Cedarford said...: Interesting bit on CNN tonight. Jack Welch was on. Former CEO of GE and NBC.
Said he found from experience that there is nothing timid about Romney. Welch said that GE/NBC had staked nearly a billion on the 2002 Winter Olympics and it was right after 9/11, there were corruption scandals, bankruptcy loomed, and he was nervous as hell about it as GE's CEO.
And Welch said he saw Romney come in - and directly and through reports of NBC execs to him - they saw Romney fix it. (He) "cleaned the whole mess up with a firmness and level of leadership like you wouldn't believe"; 1/30/12, 8:15 PM
Michael Haz said...: Caterpillar is having Exodus build equipement for them in Superior, resulting in about 250 new jobs.

Now for the life of me, I can't figure out why they don't just build the stuff in East Peoria Illinois, but instead are going to Wisconsin to do this manufacturing. What makes Wisconsin better to do business in than Illinois? Anyone got any theories?

Here a some theories, Chuck.

First, a massive open-pit iron ore mine will be built in northwestern Wisconsin. It will require HUGE construction equipment, and CAT wants to set up its initial outpost. Don't forget, CAT recently acquired Bucyrus Erie in Milwaukee, the world's largest manufacturer of the cranes and trucks used in open pit mines.

Second, Wisconsin now has a far more favorable tax and tort environment than Illinois. CAT's CEO threatened to begin moving parts of the Illinois plant to other states when the most recent tax increase was signed by Illinois' governor.

Third, Superior has a water port ideal for shipping heavy equipment. Most of CAT's larger equipment cannot be shipped by road, unless broken down into hundreds of truck loads. And then some of it still needs to be shipped overseas.; 1/30/12, 8:17 PM
yashu said...: chickenlittle, I found I could access 200+ comments by clicking on the link to the individual post (i.e. the orange heading to each post).

WV has been wonky for a while for me too.; 1/30/12, 8:23 PM
shiloh said...: "Jack Welch"

Die hard conservative, totally anti-Obama so shocking that he's carrying water for mittens.

Ironically, Welch's personal life mirrors gingrich :D ie thrice married, affairs yada yada yada.; 1/30/12, 8:31 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: There is probably a GIS data set that has already predicted the election within a fairly good deal of certainty.

ESRI; 1/30/12, 8:50 PM
Tim said...: "(He) "cleaned the whole mess up with a firmness and level of leadership like you wouldn't believe"

Not good enough.

He's not "conservative" enough, like the candidate who threw a temper tantrum when Clinton made him exit AF1 through the back door, or who wants a moon base.

THAT's what "conservatism" stands for now, according to some "conservatives."

That, and virulent opposition to capitalism.

And mocking Reagan, like Gingrich did.

Who the f^ck knew?; 1/30/12, 9:08 PM
Henry said...: "BTW, there is definitely something not right with Althouse's site."

Between 3:04 and 3:38 today there were 8 straight comments by Shiloh, I Love Willard, and Carol Herman. It was like the rapture of the dullards in text.

Then a spammer hit the thread and reality reasserted itself.; 1/30/12, 9:22 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Sorry. But the Olympics isn't the draw you think it is. (Though it is a TV show.)

And, when I was young, the word "conservative" meant you were a millionaire. Later, after Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater had such a fight in 1964, the country club set changed their name.

It's still the same old club members against the rest of us.

And, the tools are still the same old tools. Like the Daisy ad was. On TV.; 1/30/12, 9:31 PM
shiloh said...: Obama job approval:

Rasmussen Reports ~ 1/27 - 1/29 ~ 1500 LV ~ 51/47 +4

Thank you newt, thank you mittens, thank you reince reinhold priebus.

btw, who names a kid newton leroy, willard mittens, reince reinhold. :-P; 1/30/12, 9:34 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: garage said..

If I was a conservative unsure about Romney, and wanted to see or hear a little more to make up my mind, I would feel pretty resentful about Romney being literally stuffed down my throat sideways.

If I was a liberal and unsure about a messiah..; 1/30/12, 9:34 PM
Steve Koch said...: Carol,

Nothing excites you more politically than a 3rd party effort from the right (particularly if the 3rd party candidate is Trump). Since this would hand the election to Obama, why should/would conservatives listen to your political advice/opinions?; 1/30/12, 9:39 PM
Known Unknown said...: Rasmussen Reports ~ 1/27 - 1/29 ~ 1500 LV ~ 51/47 +4

What's this?; 1/30/12, 9:42 PM
Dante said...: Really, who cares? The media won't unleash on romney until they know he is in the pocket. And even if the guy wins, he is a manage the decline Obama-lite. Hey, at least he won't push it down hill.

What an endorsement.; 1/30/12, 9:58 PM
Tim said...: "And even if the guy wins, he is a manage the decline Obama-lite. Hey, at least he won't push it down hill.

What an endorsement."

While Gingrich, under the highly doubtful scenario he should get the nomincation and then beats Obama, will go off chasing moon bases, endorsing the individual mandate with Hillary!, cutting PSAs with Pelosi on Global Warming, and giving us bogus lectures on false analogies as to why his fight with the Senate over a judicial appointment is just like the second day of Gettysburg, and he's Joshua Chamberlain at Little Round Top.

It's to laugh, if only to not cry.; 1/30/12, 10:18 PM
Roger J. said...: the election is too far off, IMO, for any definitive trends to emerge--but these discussions are what keep blogs goings--opinions berefect of facts, but lots of opinions--but do carry on; 1/30/12, 10:24 PM
Revenant said...: And even if the guy wins, he is a manage the decline Obama-lite.

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum are all "Obama-lite".

But I think Romney can be led. The Republicans who are serious about tackling our problems are in Congress -- people like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. I don't see Romney leading the way on reforms, but I also don't see him getting in their way.

Gingrich, on the other hand, is the kind of guy who thinks only HE is capable of having good ideas. And most of his ideas suck.; 1/30/12, 10:31 PM
Curious George said...: "shiloh said...
btw, who names a kid newton leroy, willard mittens, reince reinhold."

Certainly not the parents of mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama.; 1/30/12, 10:45 PM
Fen said...: Sorry but Gallop has been busted shilling for the Dems so many times that I no longer accept their data. Its like getting stock advice from the broker who lied to you about Enron.

Rasmussen is the only poll I trust. Even when I don't like the results.; 1/30/12, 11:06 PM
shiloh said...: CG

Barack = Blessed/blessing
Hussein = Good/handsome/beautiful

Just so 'ya know what Willard is up against. :D; 1/30/12, 11:07 PM
Fen said...: What the hell is wrong with those people who still support Obama?

Tocqueville already told us.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”; 1/30/12, 11:09 PM
Steve Koch said...: Great comment, Fen.

Just to map that into current reality, how long does the USA have until the dems have a large enough gov handout constituency that it is no longer possible for the GOP to win a prez election? At that point how long does it take for the USA to turn into a dictatorship? Is there any shiny line the dems would not cross wrt increasing the size and power of the federal gov? How would this process unfold?

Presumably history should provide some answers. The most obvious way would be to get at least 5 lefty political activists on the supreme court who would refuse to block dem executive branch power grabs. It would not take long for that to happen if the dems started winning all the prez elections.

It is urgent that the GOP become the party of the constitution and massively shrinking the size and power of the fed gov. The Tea party should hold some GOP prez debates with the questions focusing on how (in the real world) to shrink the power and size of the fed gov.

One way to appeal to hispanics is to define the GOP as the anti dictatorship party. Our friends south of the border in Central and South America know how precious democracy is.; 1/31/12, 12:12 AM
Carol_Herman said...: Well, first off, this civilization is being televised.

Next, the republican party, now (like in 1964), finds itself divided. That Barry Goldwater got to be chosen to head the top of the ticket, was probably a great disappointment to Nelson Rockefeller.

But the Rockefeller's are still the ones in charge. And, the GOP tends to produce terrible candidates. Maybe, this is what keeps hope alive among the media types.

It's the media who came out to play when the original lineup of 9 showed up for Iowa. That's just too big a field.

Florida is a "flipper" state. If the question before Floridian's now is to pick someone other than Obama ... I'll guess that Mitt Romney suits this ticket. Like McCain did, back in 2008. And, you know the results of McCain's showing.

And, to this list you can add Bob Dole's showing ... when he was running against an incumbent whose bent erection you can describe.

While, yes. Having seen Ross Perot go crazy before election day in 1992 ... What would have been the result IF he didn't quit? (Do you notice that the elder Bush was gonna lose, anyway?)

Do you know, when Teddy Roosevelt tried to get Taft OUT of the GOP slot ... for his re-election ... Teddy Roosevelt started a 3rd party. The Bull Moose. And, Taft came in 3rd.

Politics being what it is, however, Harding would win, and appoint Taft to the Supreme Court.

Even if Romney satisfies the republicans in Florida ... I don't see him doing all that well in other States.

Ahead, Trump won't have to toss in ideas. But Gingrich will!

Most Americans don't want to elect somebody who is gonna be good at "managing the decline."; 1/31/12, 12:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Fen,

You're one giant, paranoid moron, aren't you? Rasmussen is the most inaccurate of all polling companies, and it's because of who runs them--neocons who only like to see their results.

Out of all the polling corps, they were the least accurate in the 2008 election. I doubt that changes now.

Oh, and Carol? Shut up about Newt. He's an unelectable idiot. Be happy with Romney, who at least has a slim chance at beating Obama. It's going to be another long, long 4 years.; 1/31/12, 12:52 AM
Revenant said...: Rasmussen is the only poll I trust. Even when I don't like the results.

Rasmussen has Gingrich losing to Obama by 9 points. Of the four remaining candidates, Romney does the best against Obama in Rasmussen's polls.; 1/31/12, 1:09 AM
shiloh said...: Re: Rasmussen ~ November 4, 2010

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

"Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that its bias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied."

2010 Pollster Rating

2010 Rasmussen was bottom of the barrel. Congrats!

As mentioned previously, although PPP is a Dem pollster, it actually has a slight Rep bias. Re: the recent union busting Issue 2 in Ohio, PPP was very accurate.

carry on; 1/31/12, 2:09 AM
shiloh said...: Soooo, taking into consideration Rasmussen's 2010 (4) pt. bias, Obama's recent job approval rating of:

Rasmussen Reports ~ 1/27 - 1/29 ~ 1500 LV ~ 51/47 +4

is probably closer to 53/45 +8

hmm, Obama beat McCain 52.9 to 45.7 :)))

that is all ...; 1/31/12, 2:21 AM
Revenant said...: shiloh,

The obvious flaw in your "Rasmussen is biased against Obama" theory is that all the other major polling agencies are reporting lower approval ratings for Obama than Rasmussen is.

Just thought I'd point that out. :); 1/31/12, 3:05 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: One Man Giving Away Super Bowl Tickets After His Girlfriend Dumped Him When She Found Out He Had Cancer.; 1/31/12, 4:25 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: She is being tagged as the worst girlfriend in the world but in my opinion she is not.

She could have stayed with him for the tickets but she did not.. affording him the opportunity for 15 minutes.; 1/31/12, 4:29 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: of fame; 1/31/12, 4:30 AM
Rusty said...: Just to map that into current reality, how long does the USA have until the dems have a large enough gov handout constituency that it is no longer possible for the GOP to win a prez election?

Another 4 years of Obama. Or one year of Republican-lite Romney.

At that point how long does it take for the USA to turn into a dictatorship?

It already is-remember got to pass it to see whats in it? That's what fascists do. A republican win by Romney will just change the jailer.

Is there any shiny line the dems would not cross wrt increasing the size and power of the federal gov?

Nothing has stopped them so far.

How would this process unfold?

My money is on marshal law being declared if Obamas poll numbers don't improve with independents by September.

That was fun.
Anything else?; 1/31/12, 4:37 AM
David said...: Lem that is very generous of you. Would you concede, though, that she is a lousy girlfriend, even though not the worst?; 1/31/12, 7:54 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: yea.. shes lousy.; 1/31/12, 8:18 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Coincidentally the movie 50/50 (2011) just out on DVD, has a story line along those lines.. A boyfriend gets cancer and gets dumped.

Seth Rogen is in it.; 1/31/12, 8:26 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I like Seth Rogen.; 1/31/12, 8:26 AM
Carol_Herman said...: There are only 13 swing states. And, yes. Florida is one of them.

But why is Florida now being given the keys to define what a conservative is?

In Iowa, where you'd find a home for social conservatives; 9 candidates trotted out on stage. And, lots of money was spent to turn the quest for the next GOP candidate into wall-to-wall television commercials. (Santorum won. But you were lied to. You were told Mitt Romney won. Didn't.)

And, now we're in Florida. If Mitt Romney falters, ahead, there will be a loud call for Jeb Bush to be drafted. Which really isn't good for the debates we should be having.

I take exception to Florida picking the candidate, based on its old age home status. ("Oh, look at what the grandparents are doing.")

Florida. The state where they sell more DEPENDS than in any other.

I am so not impressed!

And, how come there's been a shift away from calling somebody a republican, to call them "a conservative?"

Are we playing word games?; 1/31/12, 8:48 AM
Mick said...: Gallup? Please, don't make me laugh.

Of course the "law prof" has completely ignored the Ga. Eligibility hearing about Obama, who gave a big middle finger to the proceedings even though he was subpeonaed to appear. There the true Constitutional issue was put on the record--- that Obama was born British, of a British subject father, and is not an eligible natural born Citizen. Orly Taitz, double agent lackey of the Usurper tried to keep the BC diversion in the forefront at that hearing, and Rachel Madcow certainly uses her to do the same, ignoring the true Constitutional issue.
What are you teaching in that "law" class "law prof"? There will be many of these eligibility actions brought in many states, but the "law prof" is oblivious. When I bring mine it will be posted here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/media_blackout_in_obama_georgia_ballot_eligibility_case.html

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/rachel-maddow-too-ridiculous-for-words

wv: Pregi--- n. baby bump.; 1/31/12, 8:48 AM
chickelit said...: And, how come there's been a shift away from calling somebody a republican, to call them "a conservative?"

Are we playing word games?

"Conservative" is a dirty word for many around here. Remember, they've been told that it's lost its soul.; 1/31/12, 8:55 AM
Carol_Herman said...: How good were the dozens of debates so far? Why is it the only exchanges that seemed to catch fire, dealt with Newt Gringrich?

Gingrich needed John King's question about Marianne? Why? Because ABC went and did an interview with Newt's bitter second wife. Newt's happily married now.

Then there was Wolf Blitzer's question, asking Newt about Mitt Romney's personal tax returns, and if they were good enough to satisfy him on "transparency." Newt let him have it!

As to the question of what can Obama do in a second term, you know the answer involves those elected republicans who go to Congress ... and pass whatever they can earmark. (Like SOPA.)

There's also Obama's reach, where he sent the FBI to New Zealand. To take down MegaUpload. No trial. Nothing to do with anything but the "executive power to sign treaties." Obviously, we now have a treaty with New Zealand to wreck CLOUD technology. Or you didn't know millions of people stored their personal photo and data files at MegaUpload?

Yup. I still think Donald Trump can come out at the end of May, or the beginning of June, and run an Independent campaign. He's not going to have to beg for money.

And, there will be plenty of people who feel locked out, now, because of all the manipulating ... who will turn and listen.

You should have seen Ross Perot knocking the elder Bush out of office! While we've got congress critters on both sides who stink to the high heavens.

Newt's not going to shut-up, either. The only really secure jobs belongs to Wolf Blitzer and John King. And, if Newt's in the February 22nd debate? I think people will tune in.; 1/31/12, 9:11 AM
Rusty said...: And, how come there's been a shift away from calling somebody a republican, to call them "a conservative?"

The two don't necessarily equate. Dominate democrat meme is that all republicans are conservatives. Or all teaparty folk are conservatives nothing could be further from the truth.; 1/31/12, 10:21 AM
shiloh said...: "Just thought I'd point that out. :)"

Revenant, was mostly being sarcastic, as again, polls this far out are meaningless, especially biased Rasmussen.

btw, was being sarcastic 'cause I want to fit in at Althouse. ;)

>

Re: Nate Silver's accurate pollster evaluation, interesting to note, he, like most of the MSM predicted mama grizzly would run for pres (3+) years ago, but I was one of the few at 538.com which knew palin would never run as she's only in it for the $$$. Not a tough/hard call, even before she quit as governor.

The MSM of course, was hoping she would run for the entertainment value alone, but it wasn't a total loss as comedians trump, bachmann, perry, Cain etc. stepped in to pick up the slack! :D

I digress ...; 1/31/12, 10:27 AM
Known Unknown said...: Seriously. What's this?

That says -13, not +8.; 1/31/12, 10:40 AM
Carol_Herman said...: March 6th is Super Tuesday. When 10 States, together, hold their primaries.

If you want to believe the media, then you're betting Newt won't carry a single state, ahead. Because the old folk in Florida ... are dictating outcome.

Oh, and if Mitt fails? Florida will begin dictating "draft Jeb Bush."

While overall, turnout remains unknown.

Do people really want their heroes selected for them?

What if 2012's election rewrites history? What makes you think the Internet doesn't reach people.

Or that (even as you see here), it's still not a Mitt Romney love fest.

Sure. The GOP has selected tepid candidates, before. Where did it get them?

Oh, while you're checking the thermometer, have you noticed that the media wasn't able to still Sarah Palin?

Meanwhile, I think the circus gets more interesting right after Labor Day. And, if the horse that falters is Obama, Hillary comes out of the woodwork.

Donald Trump has a few advantages. First, he's not crazy like Ross Perot. Two, he's got the cash, the airplane, and the media savvy. We're heading into campaigns that won't be done by tour bus.

While Harry Truman was the last guy to use the rails well. You know, too, that Truman was NOT supported by his own democrats! That's why Eisenhower aced two terms. Though no one, it seems, wants to take credit for being an Eisenhower republican. Why is that? It's not like the 20th Century held a lot of GOP winnahs.; 1/31/12, 11:24 AM
Tarzan said...: It bugs me how Newt said (according to Drudge) that he won't debate Obama if the media moderates.

Where is the fearlessness in any of these candidates?

"If the cards are stacked against me, I won't play."

Understandable, but not admirable. People who say Newt will 'go after' Obama appear to be wrong. He gets week at the knees apparently if the field isn't either level or tilted in his favor.; 1/31/12, 12:24 PM
Tarzan said...: "BUT, many of us would love to see him do some serious Creative Destruction" to federal programs."

Yes and yes again. I'll take that to Newt's angry, ankle-biting know-it-all schtick any day.

Newt will turn tail and cry fowl when the fighting gets tough, that much is clear, so enough with the pretense. I don't buy it and he really has nothing else to sell.; 1/31/12, 12:32 PM
Tarzan said...: "Romney is uninspiring, unprincipled, unlikeable."

Romney is principled enough to make piles of money in business, likeable enough to maintain a successful and happy marriage, and all-around swell enough to donate piles of his cash to charity and smart enough to get elected AND get things done as a Republican in one of the bluest states in the country.

I find all that quite...inspiring!; 1/31/12, 12:37 PM
Fen said...: Bill: You're one giant, paranoid moron, aren't you? Rasmussen is the most inaccurate of all polling companies, and it's because of who runs them--neocons who only like to see their results.

Idiot. Rasmussen has the best performance over the last to election cycles. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.; 1/31/12, 6:11 PM
Nathan Alexander said...: @Fen,

For liberals/progressives/Democrats, when reality and liberal ideology collide, liberal ideology wins out.

Always.; 1/31/12, 7:20 PM