Obama: Can he win?

[POLLWONK]

Over the past few weeks, President Obama has taken a beating. I have begun to wonder where he stands politically. I thought he was near invincible at one point, now I think he's vulnerable. I think America is confused, unsure where it sits. I want to know your opinions on Obama's electability and the electability of Obama's challengers.

Submit your thoughts!

POLLWONK!

[Alfonzo]

I think people forget that he is a very strong campaigner. I also think people forget as the Republican primaries goes on, approval for Obama will be less about "Do you approve of Obama" and more about how Obama looks in contrast with the Republicans. And right now, there isn't a single Republican who could really beat Obama.

The two frontrunners, Romney and Perry, both have fundamental flaws. Romney is too moderate to really excite the conservative base, Perry is too conservative and will alienate the moderates. None of the other candidates are anywhere near as popular. Pawlentry's campaign collapsed. Huckabee declined to run. Guiliani doesn't look like he'll run.

I definitely think the Democrats will take back the house of reps next year. The Republican congress is facing record high unpopularity, and the anti-incumbency mood is very strong at the moment. But because of anti-incumbency, the Democrats might lose the senate.

Also, has anyone else noticed Gallup's polling? Obama's approval has been on the rise for about a week now.

Edit: I think Obama's newly announced jobs plan is very much the right idea from him. Right now, people know that he has to deal with a hostile and unpopular house of reps. All he has to do between now and the election is put forward a lot of policies which would stimulate jobs and the economy, regardless of whether they get rejected or not. It has to look like he's trying to fix the economy and the Republicans aren't letting him.

If he puts forward lots of policy, and it gets through, and the economy gets better, reelection is certain. If he puts forward lots of policy, and it gets blocked by the Republicans in the house of reps, it looks like he's trying and the Reps are more concerned with scoring political points than helping the economy, and he'll win 2012 in a landslide despite record unemployment and a possible recession.

Really, the only thing that determines whether he gets reelected or not is how much job-stimulating policy he puts forward over the next year or so.

[ellchicago]

Romney beats Perry and crushes the Huntsman surge. The Republicans takes the Senate, lose seats in house, but not enough to lose the majority. Could the Democrats take the house, it possible. Mitt Romney 349 EV to Barack Obama 189 EV. Obama’s approvals will go down because unemployment will rise because the spending cuts.

“I think people forget that he is a very strong campaigner. I also think people forget as the Republican primaries goes on, approval for Obama will be less about "Do you approve of Obama" and more about how Obama looks in contrast with the Republicans. And right now, there isn't a single Republican who could really beat Obama.”

Obama is terrible campaigner, he doesn’t know what he doing. He should hammer Romney on being 47th in job creation, deconstruct the Texas “miracle”, and hammer Perry on his donor deals. Obama refuses to fight. The election will not Obama in contrast with Republicans, it how many JOBS ARE CREATED!!! Romney, Perry, and Huntsman could easily crush Obama. We getting the point that Paul and Bachmann could win too.

“Edit: I think Obama's newly announced jobs plan is very much the right idea from him. Right now, people know that he has to deal with a hostile and unpopular house of reps. All he has to do between now and the election is put forward a lot of policies which would stimulate jobs and the economy, regardless of whether they get rejected or not. It has to look like he's trying to fix the economy and the Republicans aren't letting him.”

The Republican proposals will pass, while the infrastructure bank will must defiantly fail. The Republicans will look reasonable and no jobs will be created.

“If he puts forward lots of policy, and it gets through, and the economy gets better, reelection is certain. If he puts forward lots of policy, and it gets blocked by the Republicans in the house of reps, it looks like he's trying and the Reps are more concerned with scoring political points than helping the economy, and he'll win 2012 in a landslide despite record unemployment and a possible recession.”

We getting to point even if the right policies were put in place, Obama will still lose because he needs some time for the spending to help. It won’t be fast enough. Obama is lousy campaigner and would never make that argument.

[ellchicago]

In September/October

The Republicans win a stunning victory in 9th district of New York. With unemployment rising, Democrats and Progressives turn to Senator Russ Feingold in order to save the Democratic Party from the MOST CONSERVATIVE President that we ever had. Senator Russ Feingold scores upset wins and defeats Obama. He goes on to defeat Romney by a decent margin.

[Alfonzo]

Obama is terrible campaigner, he doesn’t know what he doing. He should hammer Romney on being 47th in job creation, deconstruct the Texas “miracle”, and hammer Perry on his donor deals. Obama refuses to fight. The election will not Obama in contrast with Republicans, it how many JOBS ARE CREATED!!! Romney, Perry, and Huntsman could easily crush Obama. We getting the point that Paul and Bachmann could win too.

How can you say Obama is a terrible campaigner? That he managed to usurp Clinton and win the nomination was purely because he is such a good campaigner. In the general he brushed aside McCain like it was nobodies business. It's too early for Obama to really try and campaign though. Just let the Republicans fight it out. If there are any weaknesses in any of the candidates, they'll be exposed by other Republican candidates.

Obama's latest proposal emphasised creating jobs. If it is amended by the Republicans, then any lack of job creation can easily be blamed on the Republicans for changing it, claiming that if his original proposal had passed, it would have created jobs. All Obama has to do is look like he is trying to do something about unemployment. Come November 2012, are people going to vote for the Democrats who put forward plenty of job-creating legislation, or for the Republicans who voted against plenty of job-creating legislation? If any of Obama's bills get voted down or watered down by Republicans, he can so easily shift the blame to the Republican house of reps, who are far more unpopular than he is at the moment.

The problem for Republicans in congress is that they have created the image that they are very unwilling to compromise, and the people know it. That's why congress is facing its lowest approval ratings in history.

Republicans were willing to settle for Romney when they thought there was no way they could beat Obama. But now that there's a perceived very real chance of beating Obama, they want a candidate much more closely aligned with the party - that's Perry. Romney will fail to get the evangelical Christian vote. Perry will scare the moderates. Obama will win. Obama vs. Romney will be closer, Obama vs. Perry will be a bigger win than 2008 was.

[ellchicago]

“How can you say Obama is a terrible campaigner? That he managed to usurp Clinton and win the nomination was purely because he is such a good campaigner. In the general he brushed aside McCain like it was nobodies business. It's too early for Obama to really try and campaign though. Just let the Republicans fight it out. If there are any weaknesses in any of the candidates, they'll be exposed by other Republican candidates.”

Both Clinton and McCain’s Campaigns were kinda bad. Obama won because of one word: change. Instead change, Obama gets to run on more of the same because he continued a lot of Bush’s policies.

Obama's latest proposal emphasised creating jobs. If it is amended by the Republicans, then any lack of job creation can easily be blamed on the Republicans for changing it, claiming that if his original proposal had passed, it would have created jobs. All Obama has to do is look like he is trying to do something about unemployment. Come November 2012, are people going to vote for the Democrats who put forward plenty of job-creating legislation, or for the Republicans who voted against plenty of job-creating legislation? If any of Obama's bills get voted down or watered down by Republicans, he can so easily shift the blame to the Republican house of reps, who are far more unpopular than he is at the moment.

That what Obama should campaign on “These SOB Republicans only care about winning elections, beating me, and not about jobs!” However Obama is a weak leader and campaigner and won’t make that argument. The only thing he will do is go further right-wing to “compromise” with the Republicans. Obama believes that “compromise” is only way to go.

The problem for Republicans in congress is that they have created the image that they are very unwilling to compromise, and the people know it. That's why congress is facing its lowest approval ratings in history.

That probably true, but it also could be low because Democrats wiliness to not argue their case and accept right-wing legislation.

Republicans were willing to settle for Romney when they thought there was no way they could beat Obama. But now that there's a perceived very real chance of beating Obama, they want a candidate much more closely aligned with the party - that's Perry. Romney will fail to get the evangelical Christian vote. Perry will scare the moderates. Obama will win. Obama vs. Romney will be closer, Obama vs. Perry will be a bigger win than 2008 was.”

The Establishment still likes Romney a lot and they are afraid of the Tea-Party and Rick Perry. The Tea Party wants Perry over Romney. I think Perry is going to blow up and it will be Romney. Romney and Perry could easily crush Obama in 2012.

[Alfonzo]

Elliot, you seem to be under the impression that Obama has already begun campaigning, and is just really really bad at it. Obama hasn't begun campaigning yet. Obama's 2008 campaign was done very well. He had great fundraising strength, he performed strongly in the debates, he was able to get across a clear message, and he was able to sell it.

You talk about all these things he "should" be doing, but again, he hasn't begun campaigning yet. That would be stupid. Not until a real frontrunner in the Republican primaries emerges would it be wise for the president to start campaigning. Particularly since his approval ratings have been improving over the last week. His time is better spent cultivating his presidency than through wasting time trying to sell people on him this early.

Obama's attempts at bipartisanship and compromise will serve him well. When the time comes for him to start campaigning, he can run on a platform of "I tried to meet these bastards half-way, but all they care about is spitting the dummy and getting it their way." He can easily run on a campaign of bipartisan compromise thwarted by immature Republicans who care more about winning than the American people.

You'll have a hard time arguing in favor of Romney when Perry is getting nearly twice as many votes as Romney in polls. Romney was the run-in-the-mill candidate when there were no other candidates.

[ellchicago]

"Elliot, you seem to be under the impression that Obama has already begun campaigning, and is just really really bad at it. Obama hasn't begun campaigning yet. Obama's 2008 campaign was done very well. He had great fundraising strength, he performed strongly in the debates, he was able to get across a clear message, and he was able to sell it."

Obama raised a lot of money from Wall Street. Obama didn’t go into detail in any of the debates. All he did was say “change”

"You talk about all these things he "should" be doing, but again, he hasn't begun campaigning yet. That would be stupid. Not until a real frontrunner in the Republican primaries emerges would it be wise for the president to start campaigning. Particularly since his approval ratings have been improving over the last week. His time is better spent cultivating his presidency than through wasting time trying to sell people on him this early."

Obama needs to start campaigning, so he has time to reconnect with voters. His election polling is going down the drain.

"Obama's attempts at bipartisanship and compromise will serve him well. When the time comes for him to start campaigning, he can run on a platform of "I tried to meet these bastards half-way, but all they care about is spitting the dummy and getting it their way." He can easily run on a campaign of bipartisan compromise thwarted by immature Republicans who care more about winning than the American people."

Obama is not strong enough to blast the republicans. How is it “compromise” if the Republicans get over 100% what they wanted.

"You'll have a hard time arguing in favor of Romney when Perry is getting nearly twice as many votes as Romney in polls. Romney was the run-in-the-mill candidate when there were no other candidates."

For the last 40 years, the Republican Presidential Nominee was “next in line”. Romney came in second last time, so he will the nominee. Romney will be nominee because Romney won’t blow up and the establishment really likes him. Perry will blow up and won’t get the backing of the establishment because they think he can’t be controlled.

[Alfonzo]

Obama needs to start campaigning, so he has time to reconnect with voters. His election polling is going down the drain.

Stop right there. His approval has gone up 5 points in the last week, while his disapproval has gone down 4. He currently leads all Republican candidates in head-to-head polling, as well as winning in the "Obama vs. Generic Republican" polls.

Right now, no incumbent needs to be campaigning. The election is over a year away. Any campaigning by an incumbent president will be seen as running away from their responsibilities, caring more about winning reelection than about doing the job they were elected to in the first place. No, right now, Obama, as any incumbent should do, just needs to let the Republicans tear eachother to pieces in the primaries. As they draw closer to a close, then, and only then, should an incumbent president start campaigning.

[ellchicago]

Stop right there. His approval has gone up 5 points in the last week, while his disapproval has gone down 4. He currently leads all Republican candidates in head-to-head polling, as well as winning in the "Obama vs. Generic Republican" polls.

Right now, no incumbent needs to be campaigning. The election is over a year away. Any campaigning by an incumbent president will be seen as running away from their responsibilities, caring more about winning reelection than about doing the job they were elected to in the first place. No, right now, Obama, as any incumbent should do, just needs to let the Republicans tear eachother to pieces in the primaries. As they draw closer to a close, then, and only then, should an incumbent president start campaigning.

The voters are not energized. He needs to Progressive things to energize his base. In the a Washington Post/ABC News August 29– September 1, 2011 +/- 3.5

Barack Obama 45% Mitt Romney 49% +4 Romney

Barack Obama 46% Rick Perry 47% +1 Perry

Barack Obama 47% Jon Huntsman 42% +5 Obama

Barack Obama 50% Michele Bachmann 44% +6 Obama

Barack Obama 53% Sarah Palin 41% +12 Obama

[ellchicago]

America wants jobs and is a center-left country, who is disappointed that Obama did not deliever.

[TheZnator]

America is a center-left country

That's why 40% percent identify themselves as conservatives and 21% are liberals.... get over yourself.

[ellchicago]

That's why 40% percent identify themselves as conservatives and 21% are liberals.... get over yourself.

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/Center-Left-Nation.pdf

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

[ellchicago]

Also Conservatives made Liberal a dirty word, so people do not want identify themseleves with the term liberal. You will get very different answer, if you look by issue by issue. America is clearly Progressive!

[TheZnator]

http://www.ourfuture.org/files/Center-Left-Nation.pdf

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

Mediamatters, really? Left wing propaganda...

I prefer a INDEPENDENT organization, gallup.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group - 2009

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - 2010

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading - 2011

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

[TheZnator]

Also Conservatives made Liberal a dirty word, so people do not want identify themseleves with the term liberal. You will get very different answer, if you look by issue by issue. America is clearly Progressive!

You're clearly ideologically insane. With no facts no back any of your statements.

[ellchicago]

Mediamatters, really? Left wing propaganda...

I prefer a INDEPENDENT organization, gallup.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group - 2009

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - 2010

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

U.S. Political Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading - 2011

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

Actually sources for the polling data include Pew Research Center, Gallup, and several other respected groups.

[TheZnator]

Actually sources for the polling data include Pew Research Center, Gallup, and several other respected groups.

First, you link me with the left wing talk show "the young turks." And then the poll they cite leads me back to the one you posted before, the mediamatters one.

You aren't presenting any facts besides your opinion and polls that are done by left wing groups.

[ellchicago]

First, you link me with the left wing talk show "the young turks." And then the poll they cite leads me back to the one you posted before, the mediamatters one.

It's obvious who won the argument here. You aren't presenting any facts besides your opinion and polls that are done by left wing groups.

First, The Young Turks are center-left. You clearly didn't look at the polling because they Quinnnipac, New York Times, CNN and other repected polling organizions.

[TheZnator]

First, The Young Turks are center-left. You clearly didn't look at the polling because they Quinnnipac, New York Times, CNN and other repected polling organizions.

What you're trying to say is when someone says they're conservative, they're really progressive but they go by the title conservative? If they we're really progressive/democrat/liberal w.e you want to call it, why wouldn't they identify themselves as one of those. You're honestly trying to argue that people don't identify themselves as liberals because they think it's a "dirty" word? Oh please.

Because the results of 2010 really showed we're a progressive country...

[TheZnator]

Plus, it's a known fact that the way you ask the question can change a response.

For example, do you think corporations have too much power? Majority would say Yes.

Should we tax corporations to their extinction because they make too much money? Majority would say No.

[ellchicago]

What you're trying to say is when someone says they're conservative, they're really progressive but they go by the title conservative? If they we're really progressive/democrat/liberal w.e you want to call it, why wouldn't they identify themselves as one of those. You're honestly trying to argue that people don't identify themselves as liberals because they think it's a "dirty" word? Oh please.

Because the results of 2010 really showed we're a progressive country...

The way pollsters phrase questions can affect the outcome of the poll. If Progressives were just energized as the Republicans, Senator Russ Feingold would have won reelection, Alexi Giannoulias and Joe Sestak would have won their tough races.

[TheZnator]

The way pollsters phrase questions can affect the outcome of the poll. If Progressives were just energized as the Republicans, Senator Russ Feingold would have won reelection, Alexi Giannoulias and Joe Sestak would have won their tough races.

Well 2012 isn't that far off, we'll see what happens.

[Alfonzo]

Because the results of 2010 really showed we're a regressive country...

Fixed.

Also, Elliot, learn to more than one poll.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-pres-12/obama-perry

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-pres-12/obama-romney

Also note that the congressional generic ballot, after you filter out Ramussen who have a notable Republican bias, is pretty strongly in favor of Democrats.

[JerseyBoy]

It won't be a blowout for either side. This is going to be the kind of election you have to stay up til 3 am watching because none of the networks can call it until then. I think Perry needs to bite the bullet, but he can beat Romney if he really pushes. Romney and Perry can both beat Obama, but not with flying colors.

In my conservative Republican eyes, the nation sees Obama with a +- record. We lost jobs, but we caught Osama. The debt shot up, but we pulled out of Iraq. I think if the President can really rally the Democratic machine, which is looking like a 50-50 shot right now, he can win re-election narrowly. Nobody's breaking 300 EVs here.

As for the House, I think the Republicans will keep it and probably gain seats. The Senate is anybody's game, I wouldn't be surprised by a 51-49 either way or even a 50-50 scenario.