Latest polls

[Michchamp]

Cynically, I think this is all you need to know: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

 

[lions2011]

. . . and are you still going to eat your shoes if Romney is not the nominee? I'm seem to recall something like that being said in this forum.

Romney is still going to be the nominee....He's just going to have to give something up that is going to be tough to swallow....the Vice Presidency.

like Reagan had to with Bush .

this primary process has weakened him beyond belief for a General Election though , he should have sealed the dealif not already within the next 2 weeks....whcih he won't.

He will get to the convention with the most delegates but he's going to have to put a conservative on the ticket with him...maybe Santorum.

 

[Michchamp]

Cynically, I think this is all you need to know: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

Romney's failure to demolish Santorum shows how tone deaf his campaign managers are, and how unlikable he is as a candidate.

in the end though, looking at that cash disparity, looks like Romney is the guy the GOP is going to end up with. they can bury Santorum in negative ads, but I think they've been trying to preserve as much of the war chest as possible to take on Obama. the only question is when they pull the trigger.

 

[KAWDUP]

Cynically, I think this is all you need to know: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

This one has more merit than anything else brought up.

I don't feel like doing the research, but I would be interested in knowing the history of other incumbents and how much they outspent their adversaries.

 

[lions2011]

Cynically, I think this is all you need to know: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

This one has more merit than anything else brought up.

I don't feel like doing the research, but I would be interested in knowing the history of other incumbents and how much they outspent their adversaries.

sitting POTUS always has the $$$ to outspend his opponet.

another thing , he can go on TV anytime he wants and get his message out without it costing a dime , he also has the White House Press Corps at his disposal anyimte they want to put someting out there.

a sitting POTUS in a re-election year is tough to beat....Obama was/is vunerable because of the economy...but that seems to be gradually on the uptick.

 

[KAWDUP]

Exactly - so unless you are a complete screw up like Carter and Bush Sr. you stand a pretty good chance of being re-elected.

My point is that President Obama has had all the same advantages all along. That hasn't changed since this campaign started last year.

Presidential elections aren't decided in February, no matter what all these pundit sites are saying. I realize you gotta talk about something, but calling the winner now is complete speculation no matter how many times it is said, or sites are quoted.

I realize most of the left wing nuts disagree, that is their right. It doesn't make them any more right than me, though.

. . . and guess what - I really don't have to face anything, just as you'all don't have to face the fact that it isn't decided yet.

Funny how that one works too, eh?

 

[Michchamp]

Exactly - so unless you are a complete screw up like Carter and Bush Sr. you stand a pretty good chance of being re-elected.

...

ironically, I think Carter was probably one of the most competent presidents in the last half-century. he just didn't play politics on the national level well, and it undermined him.

and then you had Reagan coming in with the massive handouts to the defense industry. those guys wanted Carter the HELL out of the office so they could rake in the dough. it had nothing to do with how competent Carter was.

Bush Sr. wasn't exactly the same story, but I think he was a lot more competent than both Reagan and his screw-off kid. But he got caught in a recession and didn't spin the situation correctly.

Bush Sr. might've had some of the same bad apples in his administration that Bush Jr. did (Cheney & Rumsfeld), but they weren't running the show, and there were still plenty of adults around in '92.

 

[Michchamp]

Cynically, I think this is all you need to know: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

This one has more merit than anything else brought up.

I don't feel like doing the research, but I would be interested in knowing the history of other incumbents and how much they outspent their adversaries.

I tried to find that. I found some stats on House and Senate races over the last decade.

depending on the measurements used, the candidate who outspent his opponent won more than 90% of the time. Money is more than just a nice thing to have, it's pretty much the end all and be all of who wins.

 

[KAWDUP]

Exactly - so unless you are a complete screw up like Carter and Bush Sr. you stand a pretty good chance of being re-elected.

...

ironically, I think Carter was probably one of the most competent presidents in the last half-century. he just didn't play politics on the national level well, and it undermined him.

and then you had Reagan coming in with the massive handouts to the defense industry. those guys wanted Carter the HELL out of the office so they could rake in the dough. it had nothing to do with how competent Carter was.

Bush Sr. wasn't exactly the same story, but I think he was a lot more competent than both Reagan and his screw-off kid. But he got caught in a recession and didn't spin the situation correctly.

Bush Sr. might've had some of the same bad apples in his administration that Bush Jr. did (Cheney & Rumsfeld), but they weren't running the show, and there were still plenty of adults around in '92.

There were a couple other things that kind of screwed Carter over. The hostage situation for one. The other side of the aisle was able to block most of his initiatives. Billy Carter certainly didn't help. I'm still pretty sure that he outspent Reagan though. Also Reagan sort of debated pretty well with his "There you go again . . . ".

No doubt it is a big advantage to have the bigger war chest. Disappointing but true, and it cuts both ways. That is how Bush Jr got a second term.

. . . but it isn't unprecedented for the underdog to win.

 

[martmay]

ironically, I think Carter was probably one of the most competent presidents in the last half-century. he just didn't play politics on the national level well, and it undermined him.

and then you had Reagan coming in with the massive handouts to the defense industry. those guys wanted Carter the HELL out of the office so they could rake in the dough. it had nothing to do with how competent Carter was.

Bush Sr. wasn't exactly the same story, but I think he was a lot more competent than both Reagan and his screw-off kid. But he got caught in a recession and didn't spin the situation correctly.

Bush Sr. might've had some of the same bad apples in his administration that Bush Jr. did (Cheney & Rumsfeld), but they weren't running the show, and there were still plenty of adults around in '92.

There were a couple other things that kind of screwed Carter over. The hostage situation for one. The other side of the aisle was able to block most of his initiatives. Billy Carter certainly didn't help. I'm still pretty sure that he outspent Reagan though. Also Reagan sort of debated pretty well with his "There you go again . . . ".

No doubt it is a big advantage to have the bigger war chest. Disappointing but true, and it cuts both ways. That is how Bush Jr got a second term.

. . . but it isn't unprecedented for the underdog to win.

Carter had huge democratic controlled senate & congress????

 

[KAWDUP]

Yes he did - all 4 years.

. . . and it was last time before Obama's first 2 years that the Senate had a fillibuster proof majority.

Not that he didn't get some things passed. Nuclear non-proliferation, Social Security Reform, and Deregulation of Natural gas.

I should have added inflation and the gas crises as other reasons he went down.

I was mostly refering to his energy initiatives in my original post and later on some of his foregin policy stuff met with some pretty stiff opposition.

Does that clarify?

 

[lions2011]

Carter came across as a pussy and Reagan played it like a violin...he made everyone afraid of the big bad Russians and convinced America he was the tough cowboy who would stare them down.

 

[martmay]

I think the 20% interest rates may have soured a few....not to mention the a recession