[rgrovr]

We're supposed to be at 5.6% Unemployment right now per the original estimation by Christine Romer who developed Obama's Stimulus Plan.

If no stimulus ever happened, we'd be at 6.0% Unemployment right now. The Dem's actually made the situation worse it seems by their own measure.

If the labor force participation rate (the number of folks either working or able to work) was the same when Obama took office in 2009 - we'd be at 11.0% unemployment right now versus the published 8.3%.

The President's $787b stimulus, by his own measure, proved ineffective. And before any Dem's argue that the real problem was not "enough" stimulus, liberal journalist Ezra Klien already stated that real cost of stimulus was between $1trillion - $1.7trillion dollars.

I don't see how what he's proposing for the next four years to be any more effective and I think most folks see this as well.

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

We're supposed to be at 5.6% Unemployment right now per the original estimation by Christine Romer who developed Obama's Stimulus Plan.

If no stimulus ever happened, we'd be at 6.0% Unemployment right now. The Dem's actually made the situation worse it seems by their own measure.

If the labor force participation rate (the number of folks either working or able to work) was the same when Obama took office in 2009 - we'd be at 11.0% unemployment right now versus the published 8.3%.

The President's $787b stimulus, by his own measure, proved ineffective. And before any Dem's argue that the real problem was not "enough" stimulus, liberal journalist Ezra Klien already stated that real cost of stimulus was between $1trillion - $1.7trillion dollars.

I don't see how what he's proposing for the next four years to be any more effective and I think most folks see this as well.

Not according to Nate Silver.........

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[rgrovr]

First off Nate was off by a large margin in the very last election in 2010. And if I'm taking any advice from a pollster - it would be Charlie Cook (NationalJournalDaily)who is pretty much the dean.

Also - the RealClearPolitics average of all the polls (dem, independt, or repub) shows Obama with a 0.1% lead right now. 0.1% for an incumbent who spent the whole summer attacking his opponent when the other guy could not yet spend his general election funds.

And unlike 2008, Obama will not outgain or outspend his opponent. Romney's campaign is cleaning his clock on fundraising.

But germane to the OP was the fact that the one keystone piece of legislation that the President stated would help us break out of the recession - did the opposite of work, it made the situation worse - using their own metric. People aren't that dumb - they know that Pres. Obama hasn't delivered and that tends to be the death-knell for an incumbent. Not saying impossible to win, but its highly improbable.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

First off Nate was off by a large margin in the very last election in 2010. And if I'm taking any advice from a pollster - it would be Charlie Cook (NationalJournalDaily)who is pretty much the dean.

Also - the RealClearPolitics average of all the polls (dem, independt, or repub) shows Obama with a 0.1% lead right now. 0.1% for an incumbent who spent the whole summer attacking his opponent when the other guy could not yet spend his general election funds.

And unlike 2008, Obama will not outgain or outspend his opponent. Romney's campaign is cleaning his clock on fundraising.

But germane to the OP was the fact that the one keystone piece of legislation that the President stated would help us break out of the recession - did the opposite of work, it made the situation worse - using their own metric. People aren't that dumb - they know that Pres. Obama hasn't delivered and that tends to be the death-knell for an incumbent. Not saying impossible to win, but its highly improbable.

Based on all the common wisdom the republicans should not just be winning, they should be crushing the President and walking away with this with election hands down and yet they are not. What that tells me is that this election is unusual for a number of reasons and the facts and numbers that would normally decide this election are not as relevent as they might otherwise be. Mitt Romney is one of the weakest presidential candidates ever to run for office and it shows. This election will be very close but I give the president the advantage, though it's slight, unless something major happens between now and November, which is certainly possible.

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Based on all the common wisdom the republicans should not just be winning, they should be crushing the President and walking away with this with election hands down and yet they are not. What that tells me is that this election is unusual for a number of reasons and the facts and numbers that would normally decide this election are not as relevent as they might otherwise be. Mitt Romney is one of the weakest presidential candidates ever to run for office and it shows. This election will be very close but I give the president the advantage, though it's slight, unless something major happens between now and November, which is certainly possible.

I would encourage you to take a peek at the polls prior to the 1980 election for this same time frame 2 months out to the that election. Carter was up on Reagan 44 to 40 and got as high as 47-39 in Carters favor (Gallup Polls 1936-2000)

Much was stated about Carter's likeability edge and Reagan's supposed vacillation on issues (he used to be a Dem). The 2012 and 1980 election are eerily similar. I'm not saying we're in for a Repub landslide, but Romney is better suited financially, is on offense on Obama states he won last time, has a significant lead with Independents which offsets Obama's edge with women, and Dem enthusiasm is no where near 2008 levels.

Plus 23 Dem Senate seats are up versus 10 for Republicans, so the Dems have lots more to defend than Repubs and are ahead in polling on the majority of those competitive races.

And with 2010 being the last election we can measure as a bellweather for partisan breakdown and GOTV efforts. Republicans are well positioned to win and win decisively imo.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

I would encourage you to take a peek at the polls prior to the 1980 election for this same time frame 2 months out to the that election. Carter was up on Reagan 44 to 40 and got as high as 47-39 in Carters favor (Gallup Polls 1936-2000)

Much was stated about Carter's likeability edge and Reagan's supposed vacillation on issues (he used to be a Dem). The 2012 and 1980 election are eerily similar. I'm not saying we're in for a Repub landslide, but Romney is better suited financially, is on offense on Obama states he won last time, has a significant lead with Independents which offsets Obama's edge with women, and Dem enthusiasm is no where near 2008 levels.

Plus 23 Dem Senate seats are up versus 10 for Republicans, so the Dems have lots more to defend than Repubs and are ahead in polling on the majority of those competitive races.

And with 2010 being the last election we can measure as a bellweather for partisan breakdown and GOTV efforts. Republicans are well positioned to win and win decisively imo.

Personally I think you are falling into the trap of wishful thinking. I understand why you would be inclined to make the comparison but the conditions today are much different than in 1980. Romney is not Reagan and Obama is not Jimmy Carter. A better comparison would probably be 2004 Bush v Kerry, though that would still not be a totally accurate comparison.

You are overlooking some very important facts. This will be a near 50/50 election. All but 6 percent of the electorate has already made up it's mind. Unlike in 1980 when Reagan was able to persuade a sizeable number of disaffected Democrats to vote for him there will be no "Romney Democrats" in 2012. That would be the only scenario that could create a decisive victory for Republicans and it's just not going to happen this year. Add to that the electoral math just happens to be more advantageous for he Democrats than for the Republicans this cycle. Romney needs to win all the swing states in order to get a victory whereas Obama only needs 3. Romney could actually win the popular vote and lose the election.

Regarding the enthusiasm gap I suspect that will be shored up pretty well by the end of the convention. So far the Dems are making better use of their convention time by rallying the base and also appealing more to the middle. The Democrats have also been quietly mounting a ground game that is even more impressive than the one Carl Rove helped George W Bush organize in 2004. All that said I am under no illusion that the Democrats have this election locked up, not even close. Romney and the Republicans could definitely win this year. But if they do it will be a squeeker in a year when it should be a landslide.

[Fox128i]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Mitt Romney is one of the weakest presidential candidates ever to run for office and it shows.

I agree with you here. As it was in the last presidential election, for me at least, I dislike both candidates. So once again I am forced to choose between the lesser of two evils so to speak.

In my opinion, the Dems gave us the wrong candidate in 2008 and the Republicans have repeated the same mistake in this cycle. Le sigh...

[M_Six]

This is all our own fault. To be a successful presidential candidate in America you need to have a squeaky clean past (or have your skeletons very well hidden), you need to have a huge ego, and you need to be a glutton for punishment. Those prerequisites rule out 99% of the competent leaders in America. Guys like Tom Ridge have way too much common sense and self respect to run for president. They don't need the crap that gets thrown at anyone in the Oval Office.

People who have brains bigger than their egos know we're in deep shit and there's no realistic way out. Why volunteer to be captain of the Titanic after it hits the iceberg? It's a no-win situation. The only people you'll see running for office are those whose egos lead them to believe they're capable of fixing things or those who don't care about fixing things and just want to grab as much of the pie as they can before it all implodes

Hence Obama vs Romney.

[rgrovr]

Obama's favorability among women down from 57-39% to 46-50% (ABC\Washington Post Poll)

18-29 Youth enthusiasm for Obama down from 2008 levels (WashingtonExaminer)

52% say nation is worse off, 54% say Obama second term undeserved (The Hill)

Republican party affiliation at 37.6% - Highest level since 2004 (Rasmussen)

Romney/RNC raising at least $100m in August - 3rd consecutive month (MercuryNews)

We'll see how these recent polls and fundraising hold up after the President's speech tonight, but the trends are no where near positive or safe for Obama. Quite the opposite.