US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Ian]

If I were a government worker, I'd probably vote for Obama, though. You folks are the only ones doing well under his leadership.

You mean apart from the auto industry, the health care industry, the financial sector, agriculture, communications, retail, etc?

You're under the impression that these industries are doing well because of Obama? GM is not doing well right now, and I know that from inside sources. Ford is doing well despite the Obama administration not because of it, and Chrysler is too small to matter much.

Retail is in the toilet. Agriculture is just subsidized to death.

Dude - news flash: the US economy is in the toilet and we're teetering on another dip. This is not good. The monetary policy sucks - we're underwater on debt and unemployment is through the roof. We're not doing well.

Retail is doing fine, and agriculture has gone through the roof in the last few years. And do you think I'm giving Obama credit for those and everything else that's going well? Nope, not at all. But you're perfectly happy to blame him for everything negative you see. And those are entirely your opinions, not established facts. Funny how unemployment can drop (albeit slowly), housing can finally start making a comeback, corporate profits can skyrocket and the stock market can surge and you still think the economy is in the toilet. You seem to think that because of who is in the oval office right now. Not everything is rosy, but we're 25 months and counting into a recovery. Maybe it'll all double dip next week, maybe not.

And by the way - every federal worker has had their pay frozen until 2013, and the federal workforce is supposed to be reduced by 10% by 2014 - so your claim that "we're doing well" is utter horseshit. But I can't blame Obama for that as much as recent pressure from Republicans, for reasons which should be ideologically obvious.

LOL - you credit Obama for what you perceive as good things in the private economy, but won't blame him for the bad things you say are happening in the public sector. Nice.

Nope. I already said I don't give him credit for everything that is going well. But for this one issue - freezing federal workers pay for two years and drawing back on public sector employees - that goes 100% to the Republicans. That deal was part of a compromise package made last December. You think Obama would have screwed with federal salaries if he hadn't been obligated to as part of a deal? Goddamn right I blame the Republicans, particularly the goddamn ignorant teabaggers.

Your understanding of what a "government worker" does is just plain ignorant.

In what way? I know what government workers do.

Okay, enlighten us. By your rhetoric, you probably imagine some lazy overpaid rube filing archive copies of your taxes while ignoring your phone calls. That, or the dickheads we all meet at the DMV. You think that's representative?

Comparisons between federal workers and the private sector shouldn't even be made, for the same reason that one shouldn't compare all workers in hospitals to all workers in non-hospitals.

I made no such comparisons.

You have in the past. I didn't forget that. Public sector vs. private sector comparisons make about as much sense as financial sector vs. retail sector. Bottom line: federal workers overall are, in fact, better educated than the public sectors overall. And that's as far as that comparison ought to go.

Because me and pretty much every single other person in my 2000-employee building could be making considerably more money in the private sector than we're making now, but we do our work because we understand its importance.

Then go make the money, if you think that's true. According to USAToday, federal pay was higher than private sector pay in many areas -- http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... -pay_N.htm and http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/i ... 0_ST_N.htm

But, if every person in that group of 2000 you cite can make CONSIDERABLY more money in private industry -- have at it. Why wouldn't they? Private sector work can be just as important and even more important than public sector work, depending on the job. Most of those 2,000 persons aren't doing critical or national security/national importance type jobs - most of them are office workers doing office jobs. So, don't try to pretend like all those working there are sacrificing their own personal gain for the good of completing a thankless job under difficult circumstances - some may be, but most of them are going to work and earning their pay like everyone else, and if they could make "considerably more" they would. You don't work in a building 2,000 people who are all disproportionately self-sacrificing..

See, right there is the shitbag attitude I was talking about. I'm not speaking for ALL employees in my building, but it's exactly right that many are dedicated to the work rather than the money. I do military intelligence analysis for crying out loud. There is no private sector equivalent. Unfortunately, that's the other reason why the brainwashed teabagger types think it's actually a good thing to screw with our livelihoods. They know we're not likely to jump ship and look elsewhere, because the experience and skills we have are fairly specific to where we do it. Doctors unhappy with their hospitals can find similar work elsewhere. Lawyers can look for another firm. Accountants can be accountants anywhere. Military intelligence analysts can't just upload their resume to LinkedIn and do the same sort of work elsewhere. We're educated and professional enough to find something else worth a good salary, but it won't look like what we were doing before.

That USA Today story barely illustrates anything. Of course federal worker pay is overall higher than private sector, and I've already mentioned why. Look at it a little closer:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008110022
http://www.opm.gov/opm_federalemployeepay/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... ind_p.html
http://fcw.com/articles/2010/11/01/bure ... ector.aspx

I should thank the Bureau of Labor Statistics for correcting me: federal pay now lags 24% behind private sector pay.

Call me crazy, but I trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics more than I trust what the Heritage Foundation has to say about the subject. And I trust my own experience as a federal employee more than I trust what you say you've encountered.

(And for future reference, if the argument you're making can be reversed on you, then it's not a very good argument. If you're so convinced that government workers are paid more than private sector counterparts, then when don't you try to get a government job? Selfless sacrifice and loyalty to your company? I suspect it's either 1) like the reverse of me, your job does not easily translate into anything which draws a government salary, or 2) you're full of shit. I assume it's option 1, although option 2 is entirely possible, considering you set off this debate by claiming that federal workers "were the only ones doing well" at the moment, apparently ignorant of A) the pay freeze, B) the pay discrepancies, and C) the drawdowns.)

Meanwhile, teabagging jackasses foment the perception that government workers are all lazy, overpaid and underworked. And they're happy to remain ignorant of the fact that the opposite is true.

The government workers I've encountered are quite often lazy, overpaid and underworked. They quite often punch a clock, and government agencies are notoriously unresponsive for the needs of their "customers," and inflexible. I would much rather deal with a private company on a customer service issue than a government agency when I have any problem to solve or red tape to cut. That's my personal experience. I know it to be true.

You can accuse me of being a teabagger, which I'm not, not by a long shot, and you should know that by now. Having a low opinion of government workers in general is not new and it is not something exclusive to the Tea Party.

I would never suggest that all government workesrs are lazy, overpaid and underworked, but a person who thinks that government workers by and large go the extra mile, are underpaid and overworked hasn't dealt with a lot of government agencies and departments. I have. Perhaps there is a different level of understanding of what constitutes "hard work."

.
I'm not accusing you of being a through-and-through teabagger. But you've got the attitude they champion, that government = waste. And I couldn't care less about your personal experiences. Who've they been with? The DMV? The IRS? National Park Service? I don't suppose you know any FBI agents, Energy Department nuclear inspectors, FDA chemists, State Dept. personnel, NTSB analysts, or intelligence community people besides me. All federal employees, all of whom have their salaries frozen for at least the next 18 months.

When I have a tough day at work, do you think I get in my car and thank Zeus that I at least have a cushy government job? That would literally be laughable if that public attitude didn't translate into GOP policies which fuck with my family's livelihood. No, I have a bad day and get into my car grumbling about how I oughtta talk to a headhunter about getting my resume out to some private firms and seeing what sort of nibbles I get. But I don't, because my pay is still good enough to keep me and my family living OK, and because I know that I have more good, satisfying days than bad, frustrating ones. I think it's safe to say that my POV is a common one among my co-workers

But what would I know of Federal workers anyway, compared to your anecdotal encounters? I'm only surrounded by them every single workday!

[Warren Dew]

Your understanding of the electoral college is weak. Think about when the last time Florida was a deciding state, versus when Maryland was..

No, you completely missed my point. I wasn't talking about battleground states.

What made you think I was talking about battleground states? Did you think "battleground" was spelled "d-e-c-i-d-i-n-g"? "Battleground" starts with a 'b', not with a 'd'.

Given that Florida under the current system has been a deciding factor in the last few elections, and Maryland has essentially been irrelevant due to its dearth of electoral votes as compared to Florida, one could argue that every Floridian's vote means more because the outcome of Florida actually determines the election - if Maryland swung either way it doesn't make a difference.

You not only could argue that, you would be correct. Because individual votes in your state are statistically distributed, but your electoral votes are "winner take all", your participation in a larger bloc of electoral votes means your own personal vote is more powerful than one in Maryland or in my own state of Massachusetts.

When comparisons can be made, federal employees earn about 20% less than private sector counterparts doing similar work. And some of us (like me )don't even have private sector counterparts.

Private sector employees make more partly because they don't typically get benefits as good as the public sector, but mostly because the private sector is more selective in who they offer jobs to. And of course, if you don't have a private sector counterpart, your worth in the private sector is zero.

I would never suggest that all government workesrs are lazy, overpaid and underworked, but a person who thinks that government workers by and large go the extra mile, are underpaid and overworked hasn't dealt with a lot of government agencies and departments. I have. Perhaps there is a different level of understanding of what constitutes "hard work."

Having worked both for the federal government inside the beltway and in the private sector outside, I can say that most government employees don't understand the concept of going the extra mile because they've never been in a job where their performance affects whether the job still exists next year.

[Ian]

Your understanding of the electoral college is weak. Think about when the last time Florida was a deciding state, versus when Maryland was..

No, you completely missed my point. I wasn't talking about battleground states.

What made you think I was talking about battleground states? Did you think "battleground" was spelled "d-e-c-i-d-i-n-g"? "Battleground" starts with a 'b', not with a 'd'.

Given that Florida under the current system has been a deciding factor in the last few elections, and Maryland has essentially been irrelevant due to its dearth of electoral votes as compared to Florida, one could argue that every Floridian's vote means more because the outcome of Florida actually determines the election - if Maryland swung either way it doesn't make a difference.

You not only could argue that, you would be correct. Because individual votes in your state are statistically distributed, but your electoral votes are "winner take all", your participation in a larger bloc of electoral votes means your own personal vote is more powerful than one in Maryland or in my own state of Massachusetts.

You still missed it. Whether or not a "deciding" state (like Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004) is large or small is not relevant. In recent years Iowa could be a deciding state, as could Oregon or Nevada. Coito is lucky enough to live in a state that gets plenty of attention from candidates. It also happens to be a rather large state. States like California and Texas, while the most populous, get almost no attention from candidates because they're never "deciders", as you put it. Candidates from either party could care less about the level of citizen participation or discussing local issues, because in a close election they're already gimmees for the Democrats and Republicans, respectively. It is rare that candidates even show up there except to raise campaign funds. Meanwhile, their citizens have far fewer electors per capita than voters in smaller states, whether they be "deciding" states or not. Roughly 200,000 voters per elector in Vermont and Wyoming, and over 600,000 voters per elector in California and Texas.

[Ian]

When comparisons can be made, federal employees earn about 20% less than private sector counterparts doing similar work. And some of us (like me )don't even have private sector counterparts.

Private sector employees make more partly because they don't typically get benefits as good as the public sector, but mostly because the private sector is more selective in who they offer jobs to.

The public sector isn't too selective about who they hire, huh? I'd debate that until the cows come home.

And of course, if you don't have a private sector counterpart, your worth in the private sector is zero.

And of course, the reverse is true: if your job in the private sector doesn't have a federal counterpart, then your public sector worth is zero. Like I said, there's nobody working in a private company somewhere doing the same thing that I'm doing for a government paycheck. Someone with only private sector experience could not take over my job on short notice.

Now, does that mean I have more job security than some private company accountant who can be replaced by another accountant on two weeks notice? Sure it does. But I'm sure there are ample private sector comparisons of hard-to-replace people as well. And there are plenty of rudimentary federal jobs that don't hold people very well either.

I would never suggest that all government workesrs are lazy, overpaid and underworked, but a person who thinks that government workers by and large go the extra mile, are underpaid and overworked hasn't dealt with a lot of government agencies and departments. I have. Perhaps there is a different level of understanding of what constitutes "hard work."

Having worked both for the federal government inside the beltway and in the private sector outside, I can say that most government employees don't understand the concept of going the extra mile because they've never been in a job where their performance affects whether the job still exists next year.

What the fuck are you talking about? An over-simplistic explanation if ever there was one.

[Warren Dew]

Whether or not a "deciding" state (like Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004) is large or small is not relevant. In recent years Iowa could be a deciding state, as could Oregon or Nevada. Coito is lucky enough to live in a state that gets plenty of attention from candidates. It also happens to be a rather large state. States like California and Texas, while the most populous, get almost no attention from candidates because they're never "deciders", as you put it. Candidates from either party could care less about the level of citizen participation or discussing local issues, because in a close election they're already gimmees for the Democrats and Republicans, respectively. It is rare that candidates even show up there except to raise campaign funds. Meanwhile, their citizens have far fewer electors per capita than voters in smaller states, whether they be "deciding" states or not. Roughly 200,000 voters per elector in Vermont and Wyoming, and over 600,000 voters per elector in California and Texas.

Clueless, clueless, clueless. You're still stuck on battleground states, not deciding states. Here, I'll explain it in detail.

A deciding state is a state whose electoral vote decides the election. To figure out whether it decided the election, figure out what would have happened if the vote went the other way. If changing the electoral vote of a state would change the result of the election, it's a deciding state. If changing the electoral vote of the state wouldn't affect the result of the election, it is not a deciding state. Simple, right?

In 2004, Texas, Florida, and Ohio were deciding states; if any of them had switched, Kerry would have won. In 2000, every state that went for Bush was a deciding state, because the vote was so close. In 1916, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, California, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama were deciding states. In some elections, no state is a deciding state, because no single state could have changed the result of the election.

[Ian]

1) Are you even reading my posts? I was talking to Coito (actually, bringing the subject up again after nine months) about the warped nature of electoral math. In Florida, there is a higher number of voters per elector than there is in Maryland. The math looks even worse when you compare states like California to states like Vermont. Go back a few pages and read the debate he and I had last October. My ultimate point is not to illustrate how the current system works, but that the EC ought to be abolished, and Presidential candidates wouldn't even look at state borders when determining their strategies, they'd only look at people.

2) You're obnoxious.

[Coito ergo sum]

1) Are you even reading my posts? I was talking to Coito (actually, bringing the subject up again after nine months) about the warped nature of electoral math. In Florida, there is a higher number of voters per elector than there is in Maryland. The math looks even worse when you compare states like California to states like Vermont. Go back a few pages and read the debate he and I had last October. My ultimate point is not to illustrate how the current system works, but that the EC ought to be abolished, and Presidential candidates wouldn't even look at state borders when determining their strategies, they'd only look at people.

That is, as I see it, part of the benefit of an EC system. The candidates DO look at State borders and that's a GOOD thing. It's good because just because a state like Wyoming would have the equivalent of about one/10th of one elector if it was a purely popular vote, that doesn't mean it's interests should be wholly ignored by the Presidential candidates. It might as well secede and be on its own.

Further, we HAVE states - we, like many countries, ARE a federated republic. If you want it to be just based on population - if that is the only metric that counts - then get rid of the Senate altogether. No need for it, and people in Wyoming have a lopsided influence in the Senate compared to California, right? The same reason applies to the Senate. So, abolish it and make it one house, or two houses based purely on population.

The reason we have a Senate is because States have interests that need to rationally be reflected in government and those interests can be more important than a pure analysis of relative populations would allow. The same thing applies to the EC and election of the President, in my view. You're certainly entitled to the other view, and the EC is certainly not the only way to go. But, one would have to be pretty well ignorant of how the system really works and why to think that it is some sort of nefarious, unfair system that makes no sense. It does make sense, and there are good reasons for it.

[Coito ergo sum]

entire response lost....Ian, I will get back to your diatribe when I can.

Top Obama adviser says unemployment won't be key in 2012
By Ian Swanson - 07/07/11 08:25 PM ET
President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

Plouffe should probably hope that’s the case, since dismal job figures aren’t expected to get any better for Obama and the economy on Friday.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/17 ... ey-in-2012

Healthcare reform to create 400,000 jobs almost immediately... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ately.html

[Ian]

How about we save the response. You've got your opinions, and they're backed up by conservative/libertarian think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, as well as your own personal encounters. I've got my opinions, and they're backed up by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Office of Personnel Management, and my own experience in a federal agency. You're comfortable in being stubborn about your opinion because it suits your ideology, and I'm not about to change mine because it suits what I see every workday.

I will give out one anecdote, though. Two hours ago I attended a farewell luncheon for one member of my division's IT staff, who is leaving to work for some company near Baltimore (IT being the sort of position that can be useful anywhere). And I've attended other such parties before - the experienced worker who sets sail from our office to earn more money in the private sector. I have yet to meet an employee who admits to "escaping" a lower salary in the private sector by finding work here. It just doesn't make sense - you don't apply for work with Uncle Sam expecting to rake in the dough.

[Ian]

1) Are you even reading my posts? I was talking to Coito (actually, bringing the subject up again after nine months) about the warped nature of electoral math. In Florida, there is a higher number of voters per elector than there is in Maryland. The math looks even worse when you compare states like California to states like Vermont. Go back a few pages and read the debate he and I had last October. My ultimate point is not to illustrate how the current system works, but that the EC ought to be abolished, and Presidential candidates wouldn't even look at state borders when determining their strategies, they'd only look at people.

That is, as I see it, part of the benefit of an EC system. The candidates DO look at State borders and that's a GOOD thing. It's good because just because a state like Wyoming would have the equivalent of about one/10th of one elector if it was a purely popular vote, that doesn't mean it's interests should be wholly ignored by the Presidential candidates. It might as well secede and be on its own.

Further, we HAVE states - we, like many countries, ARE a federated republic. If you want it to be just based on population - if that is the only metric that counts - then get rid of the Senate altogether. No need for it, and people in Wyoming have a lopsided influence in the Senate compared to California, right? The same reason applies to the Senate. So, abolish it and make it one house, or two houses based purely on population.

The reason we have a Senate is because States have interests that need to rationally be reflected in government and those interests can be more important than a pure analysis of relative populations would allow. The same thing applies to the EC and election of the President, in my view. You're certainly entitled to the other view, and the EC is certainly not the only way to go. But, one would have to be pretty well ignorant of how the system really works and why to think that it is some sort of nefarious, unfair system that makes no sense. It does make sense, and there are good reasons for it.

There are indeed good reasons for the electoral college. I'm merely of the opinion that there are better reasons to finally do away with it.

For starters, citizens' inequality. The smallest states have over three times as few eligible voters per elector that the largest states do. Like I mentioned, one elector per 650,000 residents in California, but one elector per 200,000 in Wyoming. The correct number, if you want to maintain a 538-member electoral college, is 1 elector per 574,000 people (as per the 2010 census, which puts the US population at 308.8 million). If voters had a more evened-out playing field, that would mean that California would get 65 electoral votes, Texas would get 44, New York 34, Florida 33, etc. Most of the middle states would remain near where they are now. The smallest twelve states would have their electoral votes reduced from the current minimum of three to two or one. As they should - Wyoming residents get 1/18th the electors that Californians get... but has 1/108th the population.

Also, the political imbalance among various states leads to anemic citizen participation as well as many states (i.e many citizens) being all but ignored or at least taken for granted by the candidates - even if they happen to be the largest states in the union. In the present system, battleground states are all-important, regardless of how many people they have or how pressing their local issues are compared to the whole country.

Also, I don't believe the President ought to be the President of fifty states but rather of one nation. States will always exist, but the executive branch oversees a single military, a single Treasury Department, a single State Department, a single intelligence community, a single post office, etc... and yet you're saying the President should be the President of fifty States. It's anachronistic, and by rights should have been done away with after the Civil War, along with some other conspicuously burdensome ideas that the founding fathers compromised as they wrote the Constitution.

Take heart though - if an electoral system were maintained but with roughly even voter/elector ratios, elections still might come out roughly the same. Using the 2010-based math I mentioned above (and assuming for the purposes of this scenario that increased voter participation was a non-factor), I applied the level field to the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Bush still would have won both electoral counts: In 2000 by 281-257 instead of 286-251, and in 2004 by 279-259 instead of 271-266. So you wouldn't be looking at a sudden skewing of electoral favorability towards one side at the expense of another. The biggest differences (i.e. what makes abolishing the EC worthwhile) would be higher voter participation, and concurrently more attention from candidates to voter issues.

[Coito ergo sum]

It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks.

These are just the latest in a long line of nagging lectures. Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours.

What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?

Is this what he meant by a new kind of politics? If so, no thanks. Oh, and it is not new. Jimmy already dragged us through all this once and we just barely survived it.

One of the most unpleasant things about Mr. Carter was the condescending disdain he could barely disguise for struggling Americans and their irritating malaise.

Increasingly, Jimmy Jr. is having difficulty concealing that very same disdain for us as the political winds around him turn hostile and all of his bright ideas lie fallow as nothing more than socialist hocus-pocus.

But even Mr. Carter never laid bare so baldly and plainly as Mr. Obama did earlier this week his deep-seated contempt for this whole annoying process we call “democracy.”

The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.

He bemoaned - in public - that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.

As if the whole problem of Washington spending us into oblivion is the fault of stingy taxpayers and stupid voters. And what we really need is Jimmy Jr., who knows what is best for us despite what we may think.

Continuing his lecture, Mr. Obama then complained about America’s “political process, where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections.”

How did this man get past sixth-grade social studies, much less Iowa?

When Mr. Obama finished his sermon about the contemptible Republicans keeping faith with their voters like a bunch of chumps, he then turned to his own intentions - and revealed even more of his contempt for us.

All this talk about “raising revenue” - the deceitful line he uses to describe raising taxes - has been most unhelpful, he said. “I want to be crystal clear,” he said. “Nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increasing taxes next year.”

So when would these tax hikes that he is demanding take effect?

In 2013, well after Mr. Obama must face voters for re-election.

Lucky for us, it appears more and more unlikely every day that we will have to suffer through a third term of Jimmy Carter‘s.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... #pagebreak

[Santa_Claus]

Rick Perry (Texas Governer) got mentioned on the news over here as a potential candidate - the bit I saw (and a little bit of googling since) appears to suggest that he is not a Palin style looney. Well, he wasn't dribbling on TV.........

.....but the thing that really caught my eye was the jobs created in Texas. To be honest even though I would probably hate every other policy - if I was a working (or non-working) joe I would vote for him on that alone. I appreciate that Texas different from the USA as a whole - but to my mind his results show he "gets it" on the economy.....whereas Obama is way too Tony Blair style wishful thinking and warm words.

Obviously though I do not have a handle on the US zeitgeist - any views on how "Normal" (for a Republican) he is? / how likely to get the nomination?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know - the downsides on Rick Perry are, IMHO, is that he is a Christian Right guy who is big on "This is a Christian Nation and you accept Jesus or you have a bee-line to hell." I hate that about him, and I think him being another governor from Texas is not in his favor.

He does look the part, though, and he does have the economic results. And, Obama is crashing and burning. I don't think the Republicans are going to be hoodwinked this time around on the "spending cuts for taxes" deal. That's what happened to Bush the Elder in 1991-2. He pledged no new taxes, and then he agreed to a Democrat demand for $1 in tax hikes for $2 in spending cuts - the tax hikes came right away, and the spending cuts disappeared because the Democrats controlled congress. New Gingrich fell for a similar trick in 1995 and now they're at it again. They SOOOOOO want the 'publicans to agree to a tax hike, because then - mark my words - you will see a massive media blitz about how the Republicans hornswaggled the voters to get them in power, and then proceeded to raise taxes. Whatever happens, the publicans will get the blame because of their control of the House.

I hope they hold firm and say, "we'll raise the debt ceiling, but no new taxes, and we want massive meaningful spending cuts."

[Coito ergo sum]

"Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%
Margin marks first statistically significant lead among registered voters
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Repub ... Obama.aspx

[Ian]

Too bad the election isn't being held tomorrow morning. It's also too bad that "Republican Candidate" won't be the one taking the GOP nomination next year.

Seeing as how the election is 16 months away, maybe we could talk about the future and some other numbers a bit, rather than cherry-picking the latest polls and snidely partisan pieces about why Obama is another Carter. Such as:

Obama Losing His Base? Here Are 552,000 Reasons Why That's Wrong

President Obama's 2012 campaign and the Democratic National Committee together raised a staggering $86 million in April, May, and June of this year to re-elect the president. Broken down, more than $47 million of that was raised by the "Obama for America" committee, which surpasses the fundraising totals of the entire Republican field combined. (Note, though, that GOP presidential money-leader Mitt Romney's $18.6 million take in the second quarter didn't include Republican National Committee money, so it's not accurate to compare Obama and the DNC to GOPers, only because we don't know what the RNC has raised.)

So, Obama can rake in the big bucks—no surprise there. The real story is the 552,000 donors who gave to the Obama 2012 effort, "more grassroots support at this point in the process than any campaign in political history," said campaign manager Jim Messina in a video message to supporters. Messina said that 98 percent of donations last quarter were under $250, and that the average donation was $69.

That haul throws a huge bucket of cold water on claims that Obama is losing his liberal/Democratic base. Pollster James Zogby wrote in September 2009 that Democrats were souring on Obama after the health-insurance-reform fight and for his policies on the war in Afghanistan. Liberal TV host Ed Schultz told former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last year that "you're losing your base." If Obama's donor rolls are any indication, the left appears to be just as motivated in the 2012 race as they were in 2008.

Of course, reams of polling data have been reinforcing this for months. According to Gallup polling, Obama's approval rating among Democrats has held steady at around 80 percent, give or take a few percentage points, since September of last year. Among liberals, Obama's doing almost as well, with approval ratings hovering around 70 percent; it's currently 76 percent.

So all that talk of Democrats and liberals sloughing off Obama? Nothing to it. Today's fundraising numbers prove Obama's still hugely popular, and that whomever the GOP picks to run against him will face the major undertaking of matching the powerful Obama fundraising machine.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/oba ... raise-2012

Or maybe this one, which helps illustrate the real reason why Obama will not only win in 2012, he'll quite possibly win an electoral landslide: the Republicans will beat themselves.

The Committee to Reelect Barack Obama?

The trends we saw in GOP presidential polls a few weeks ago continue. Mitt Romney remains the front-runner, but Michele Bachmann continues to gain support and hold second place nationally (and she's currently beating Romney in Iowa). The most interesting thing about this latest Quinnapiac poll is that undeclared right-wingers like Sarah Palin and Texas Gov. Rick Perry are running right behind Bachmann, while also-rans including Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum remain in low single digits (Ron Paul hangs on to his 5 percent). That Romney is creaming Huntsman right now even in his home state of Utah would seem to suggest that the man the Beltway loves is never going to catch fire with the GOP base.

All of this could mean one of two things: Romney's dead, because of all the energy on the Tea Party side, or Romney's alive, because of all the energy on the Tea Party side. In this latest poll, Romney's the candidate of 25 percent of likely GOP voters. Bachmann trails him with 14 percent; Palin has 12 and Rick Perry 10. Behind them, Herman Cain gets 6 percent and Ron Paul 5 percent. So that means 47 percent of GOP voters polled like the folks on the far right. If the Tea Partyers coalesce around one of those five, or someone else, Romney's toast.

But it's also possible they won't coalesce. Bachmann has made a surprising surge, but I think these numbers are actually bad for Bachmann. It shows there's a fairly broad base for an extremist candidate, but at 14 percent, she's supported by roughly 30 percent of that base. If other Tea Party favorites look at those numbers and jump in, Bachmann's in trouble.

I still doubt Palin will run; she's having too much fun being an unaccountable wealthy celebrity. That bus tour thing was hard. But she's also a narcissist, and she might look at those numbers and say, "Why not?" Rick Perry is even more likely to say, "Why not?" In fact, the latest buzz is that Perry is making calls to GOP leaders and donors to test the waters, and getting encouragement. On "Hardball" with me Wednesday Politico's Jonathan Martin said he's hearing from GOP insiders that Perry's in, although Perry's people downplay the idea. Martin also floated the notion that Perry might not merely be the Tea Party candidate; he might be the electable guy the party needs, the hybrid of the Tea Party and the "establishment" GOP elders dream of.

Dream on. It's true Perry has a 10-year record as Texas governor (with time as lieutenant governor before that), which makes him a "serious" candidate. But that record is distinguished by his courting the far right with talk of secession, ostentatious prayer breakfasts, and coziness with Texas Confederate stalwarts. Justin Elliott revealed Perry's popularity with groups trying to preserve the memory of Texas's allegiance with the Confederacy. The neo-Confederate, still-secessionist League of the South endorsed Perry in his 1998 race for lieutenant governor, praising him as a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that's regularly torn apart by infighting between those who want to honor their heritage and those who want to return to the days of white supremacy. We couldn't confirm Perry was ever a member of the group, but without openly embracing them he's regularly validated their quest for redemption. Perry has honored leaders of the Sons of Confederate Veterans at ceremonies in Austin, and he's resisted efforts to remove Confederate symbols from state buildings. "Although this is an emotional issue," he wrote, "I want you to know that I oppose efforts to remove Confederate monuments, plaques, and memorials from public property. I also believe that communities should decide whether statues or other memorials are appropriate for their community." Perry regularly enjoys adoring profiles in Confederate magazines...
http://www.salon.com/news/2012_election ... rack_obama

Or, if polls and economic numbers this far out mean so much to an election, maybe we could infer some predictive value by looking at some past ones...
July 1983
Reagan's approval rating: 43%.
Unemployment rate: 9.4%
States won by Reagan in 1984: 49