Political Thread

[Flick James]

I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.

Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama.  Paul inspires devotion in his followers.  But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him.  I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters.  He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.

I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul.  I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate. 

I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.

Well, that's interesting given he has come in second place in the first two primaries of the season. Perhaps that is a fluke, but if he continues to show up consistently in the top 3 I would say that his appeal to Republicans would be undeniable. We'll see. So, you say moderates would vote for Obama over Ron Paul? We'll just have to agree to disagree there. But you know that I respect your input a great deal. You may be right.

[Rev. Powell]

I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.

Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama.  Paul inspires devotion in his followers.  But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him.  I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters.  He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.

I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul.  I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate. 

I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.

Well, that's interesting given he has come in second place in the first two primaries of the season. Perhaps that is a fluke, but if he continues to show up consistently in the top 3 I would say that his appeal to Republicans would be undeniable. We'll see. So, you say moderates would vote for Obama over Ron Paul? We'll just have to agree to disagree there. But you know that I respect your input a great deal. You may be right.

Pretty sure Paul came in 3rd in Iowa.  Personally I don't think his strong showing has much to do with appeal to Republicans.  He's like a cult figure.  This article describes Paul the way I see him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-worries-some-in-gop-as-sc-florida-primaries-loom/2012/01/12/gIQA7wQVuP_story.html.  ("...Paul has a significant — and steady — following that exists almost entirely apart from the Republican party and is, in many ways, based on a disgust with the GOP.")

But what we're talking about is our perception of the public's perception, which is not a precise science by any stretch of the imagination.  So, your guess is as good as mine.

[Flick James]

I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.

Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama.  Paul inspires devotion in his followers.  But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him.  I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters.  He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.

I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul.  I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate. 

I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.

Well, that's interesting given he has come in second place in the first two primaries of the season. Perhaps that is a fluke, but if he continues to show up consistently in the top 3 I would say that his appeal to Republicans would be undeniable. We'll see. So, you say moderates would vote for Obama over Ron Paul? We'll just have to agree to disagree there. But you know that I respect your input a great deal. You may be right.

Pretty sure Paul came in 3rd in Iowa.  Personally I don't think his strong showing has much to do with appeal to Republicans.  He's like a cult figure.  This article describes Paul the way I see him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-worries-some-in-gop-as-sc-florida-primaries-loom/2012/01/12/gIQA7wQVuP_story.html.  ("...Paul has a significant — and steady — following that exists almost entirely apart from the Republican party and is, in many ways, based on a disgust with the GOP.")

But what we're talking about is our perception of the public's perception, which is not a precise science by any stretch of the imagination.  So, your guess is as good as mine.

True. I actually meant to say that he has been in the top 3 in both of the initial primaries.

I knew that some would try to turn into a policy debate, and I'm sure it will continue to happen. However, the idea is to engage in speculation about the race itself. It's already been one of the most fascinating races in a long time, and I predict it will only get more so. I'm making a prediction that is completely out of my perception, and which could be completely out of left field. Since Ron Paul is unlikely to get the nomination, that makes even more speculative. But Ron Paul runs a very well-funded and organized campaign. He is also a brilliant speaker and debater, while perhaps not as oratorily gifted as Obama. I don't disagree with you at all the Romney will get the nomination, I think he is likely to as well. However, the outcome of the election between Obama and Romney is, I think, far from certain.

[Rev. Powell]

However, the outcome of the election between Obama and Romney is, I think, far from certain.

Obama's current level of support is shocking to me.  I think it has to tail off.  He's an incumbent who 1) has had low approval ratings through his entire administration and 2) entered office during a recession---and we're still in a recession four years later.  Not saying that the recession is Obama's fault, but incumbents don't often win when the economy is bad.  People will want a change.

[Flick James]

However, the outcome of the election between Obama and Romney is, I think, far from certain.

Obama's current level of support is shocking to me.  I think it has to tail off.  He's an incumbent who 1) has had low approval ratings through his entire administration and 2) entered office during a recession---and we're still in a recession four years later.  Not saying that the recession is Obama's fault, but incumbents don't often win when the economy is bad.  People will want a change.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

Depending on the outcome of the primaries, I may be offering you a karma-based wager, Rev.

[Flick James]

Oh, and the following article:

http://reason.com/poll/2012/01/13/ron-paul-rising-evidenc-from-national-po

shows a fairly constistent upswing in Ron Paul support throughout the debates and into the beginning of the primaries. Granted the article is from reason.com, an obvious supporter of Ron Paul, but some of the observations regarding the Iowa and New Hampshire were notable, particulary:

The chart posted shows a slow, almost flatline increase in support during the debate cycle, but a sudden surge in support once the primaries began.

Paul overwhelmingly has won the young voters in both Iowa and New Hamphire. These voters can be very unpredictable during elections, but if they make the decision to show up to the polls in great numbers on the big day, that can have a significant effect.

Paul won the vote amongst those who have never attended a GOP caucus in Iowa. I'm not sure what to make of that one, or how significant it is, but I thought it was interesting.

Paul won the Independent vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire by a wide margin.

These points are focusing on groups that a likely minority groups in a caucus or primary (they have to be if Paul didn't win overall), but in a general election these groups become statistically larger.

This is polled data that is being presented by reason.com, so I'm not naive. The data is likely to be skewed to some degree. I just think the observations are noteworthy.

[lester1/2jr]

What's amazing to me is that for all his relatively extreme ideas on cutting spending and eliminating departments and legalizing everything, he gets the most pushback on his foreign policy in particular Iran which , I guess it's a matter of opinion if it's qualitatively "good" or not , but is a pretty mainstream opinion and in fact a continuation of our current policy of not being in a war with them.

[indianasmith]

Some good observations here.  Last time around, I was a Huckabee guy who supported McCain because he was who I got stuck with, and I respected his honorable service to his country in the military more than I respected his political positions.  Also, I knew then - and I think I have been born out to some degree - that Obama was arguably the most far left Presidential candidate since George McGovern or Henry Wallace - and BOTH those guys lost!

  That being said, I knew McCain was going to lose from the get-go.  Something the Republicans should have learned from 1996:  Young and Charismatic will beat Old and Cranky EVERY SINGLE TIME!  That, aside from his isolationist foreign policy, is another thing that really scares me about Ron Paul.  We're going to put a testy 78 year old man up against a President who plays basketball and makes appearances on MTV?  I have the same concerns - to a lesser degree - about Gingrich and Romney.  Both are middle aged, white, not particularly exciting, mainstream candidates.


But here are the reasons I find Obama vulnerable:

The Far Left is somewhat disaffected with him because GITMO is still open, his withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was slower than they would have liked, and he's too cuddly with the big bankers.
Blacks will support him by a 95% margin or better, but now that there has already been a black President, you will see a tailing off of enthusiasm for Obama.  Black turnout will be lower.
Independents are much less enthusiastic about Obama than they were last time around.
Obama is trailing significantly in several swing states he really must have to carry the election.
The GOP is VERY motivated to get rid of this guy, because many of us see him as the worst President since Jimmy Carter - maybe even worse than Carter - and will vote for almost anyone as an alternative.

That's my analysis of the moment.

[Flick James]

Some good observations here.  Last time around, I was a Huckabee guy who supported McCain because he was who I got stuck with, and I respected his honorable service to his country in the military more than I respected his political positions.  Also, I knew then - and I think I have been born out to some degree - that Obama was arguably the most far left Presidential candidate since George McGovern or Henry Wallace - and BOTH those guys lost!

  That being said, I knew McCain was going to lose from the get-go.  Something the Republicans should have learned from 1996:  Young and Charismatic will beat Old and Cranky EVERY SINGLE TIME!  That, aside from his isolationist foreign policy, is another thing that really scares me about Ron Paul.  We're going to put a testy 78 year old man up against a President who plays basketball and makes appearances on MTV?  I have the same concerns - to a lesser degree - about Gingrich and Romney.  Both are middle aged, white, not particularly exciting, mainstream candidates.


But here are the reasons I find Obama vulnerable:

The Far Left is somewhat disaffected with him because GITMO is still open, his withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was slower than they would have liked, and he's too cuddly with the big bankers.
Blacks will support him by a 95% margin or better, but now that there has already been a black President, you will see a tailing off of enthusiasm for Obama.  Black turnout will be lower.
Independents are much less enthusiastic about Obama than they were last time around.
Obama is trailing significantly in several swing states he really must have to carry the election.
The GOP is VERY motivated to get rid of this guy, because many of us see him as the worst President since Jimmy Carter - maybe even worse than Carter - and will vote for almost anyone as an alternative.

That's my analysis of the moment.

Nothing wrong with your observations there, Indy. They are pretty solid in my book. I particularly appreciate your observation about young and charismatic vs old and cranky. That is legitimate observation. So is the issue of black voter turnout. If my workplace is any indication, most of the black people I work with have stated they have no intention of voting for Obama, even the one or two of them that said they voted for him in 2008.

I hear you about the young voter issue. This is all the more reason I think Paul is a better opponent to Obama. Even though he is older than Romney, he actually tends to do better amongst young voters in both the polls and the primary voting thus far. He also, as I have stated before, commands more respect with people like Bill Maher and John Stewart. The MTV thing, I don't know what to think of that. Obama may have the MTV crowd. Interesting.

Election year has begun. Let the speculation begin!

[tracy]

I miss the good old days...

[Flick James]

I miss the good old days...

A great bit of Americana there. Thanks for posting that.

[Mofo Rising]

I don't think you can count on the person who's simply "not the incumbent." George W. Bush was an incredibly polarizing President, and in 2004 the best the Democrats could put up against him was John Kerry. Kerry had nothing going for him other than not being George W. Bush.

He lost.

That's how I feel about the Republican front-runners. They don't have much more going for them other than not being Obama.

Ron Paul strikes me as a cult figure. That's not any sort of commentary on his ideas, but his base is a lot of very fervent followers. That base does not necessarily translate to votes. Much as you might like him to get nominated, well...

That being said, I think there is a very large contingent of voters who are going to vote against the status quo, politics as usual. That was a large part of what got Obama in.

I used to have the utmost respect for John McCain. He spent years as a maverick senator, and somebody who I could actually expect to stand behind his beliefs. Then he decided to run for the presidency, and all of a sudden each and every stance I respected him for was thrown aside in the hopes that he would become President. His pick of Sarah Palin was what doomed his campaign. "Too crazy for Boy's-Town, too much of a boy for Crazy-Town."

I wanted to want to vote for him at the start, but well...

Well, the anger against the status quo is still going very strong, strong enough for the swing votes. Gingrich won't win, because there's nobody more establishment than him in the entire race. Romney might swing it, but he's more of a dead fish than Al Gore. Ron Paul I would expect to stick more to his beliefs than McCain, but he's still the outsider.

As far as the somewhat-Democrats, Obama has been a terrible disappointment, but that doesn't mean they are ready to jump back into Republican waters. I really don't think the anger against Obama is as widespread as is stated, especially if you only read certain papers.

If you want my prediction, Obama will win in 2012. And then it will be business as usual. The Republicans will then sweep the elections in 2016. And then it will still remain business as usual.

[Flick James]

Thanks for the input, Mofo. This thread is mainly about election speculation, and you've contributed nicely. I want to thank everybody for not turning this into a policy debate. This thread has been about the analysis of the voting public and the electoral process, not policy, and I know it's probably been hard to resist. I just want to say I appreciate the effort.

[El Misfit]

The only Republicans I would vote for are Ron Paul and Mitt Rom, only because they aren't as, in my view, as bat-s**t crazy as the others are. I find it funny how some want to get rid of the EPA, when Nixon started the EPA.

[Flick James]

The only Republicans I would vote for are Ron Paul and Mitt Rom, only because they aren't as, in my view, as bat-s**t crazy as the others are. I find it funny how some want to get rid of the EPA, when Nixon started the EPA.

Nixon was a remarkably center-oriented president. Also, in my opinion, a damn good one.