PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling

[Vic]

My $0.02:
- Palin is a big reason why the GOP lost in '08 as she chased away the moderates to the Democrats,
- running Palin in '12 would practically guarantee a Democratic landslide and an Obama 2nd term regardless of what fantasy polls in '10 might indicate,
- as in '08, Romney is still the GOP's most viable candidate for the Presidency in '12, but the teabaggers are too extremist and too bigoted to back a moderate Mormon yankee with a genuine business agenda,
- and finally, teabaggers need to come up with some kind of clear policy besides extremist social conservatism and kneejerk reactionary outrage if they ever expect to be a genuine political threat.

 

[nageov3t]

My $0.02:
- Palin is a big reason why the GOP lost in '08 as she chased away the moderates to the Democrats,
- running Palin in '12 would practically guarantee a Democratic landslide and an Obama 2nd term regardless of what fantasy polls in '10 might indicate,
- as in '08, Romney is still the GOP's most viable candidate for the Presidency in '12, but the teabaggers are too extremist and too bigoted to back a moderate Mormon yankee with a genuine business agenda,
- and finally, teabaggers need to come up with some kind of clear policy besides extremist social conservatism and kneejerk reactionary outrage if they ever expect to be a genuine political threat.

Romney's probably the candidate to beat right now. he's got the money, the infrastructure, the party support, and none of the 2008 loser's taint.

I know it's way too early to make realistic predictions, but if I had to put money on it, I'd guess that whatever candidate the tea party gets behind will fare about as well as the Rush and Hannity posterboys of 2008 (Thompson, Huckabee) -- which is to say, they'll have a voice and probably a say in the VP candidate (similar to how McCain wasn't allowed to chose Lieberman) but no real significant primary impact.

I'd be stupendously surprised if Sarah Palin (assuming she runs at all) won a single major primary.

 

[Vic]

Romney's probably the candidate to beat right now. he's got the money, the infrastructure, the party support, and none of the 2008 loser's taint.

I know it's way too early to make realistic predictions, but if I had to put money on it, I'd guess that whatever candidate the tea party gets behind will fare about as well as the Rush and Hannity posterboys of 2008 (Thompson, Huckabee) -- which is to say, they'll have a voice and probably a say in the VP candidate (similar to how McCain wasn't allowed to chose Lieberman) but no real significant primary impact.

I'd be stupendously surprised if Sarah Palin (assuming she runs at all) won a single major primary.

I agree with this.

 

[Carmen813]

"They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

Obama wasn't President on Jan 9th, 2009. Anyway, the predictions were off, in large part because the job losses in early 2009 were much higher than anticipated. That's the other half of the story you aren't acknowledging.

It's impossible at this juncture to know the impact of the stimulus bill, similar to the Bush 03 tax cuts. You can argue things would be worse without it, but there is no real way of knowing just how much. Most economic indicators are improving, employment is lagging. That suggest to me that the stimulus bill was at least a partial success. My main qualms with the bill were that it didn't really do much to go for long term growth, which would have been a better expenditure of money IMO.

Your own link rates this claim "barely true" so...lols?

 

[CallMeJoe]

"They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.
Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

From your own link:

We think it's a big stretch to call an economic projection a "promise." The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." And so we rule the statement by Cantor — and other Republicans who have said the same thing — Barely True.

 

[Zebo]

I found the poll organizer.

 

[L00PY]

"They are referring to a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.[/url]

Yes, when I said a report by Romer and Bernstein I meant this report. Once again, you said, "[y]our stupid ass would be confused. Here, let me try again. Obama said unemployment wouldnt go above 8%. Its now almost 10. He failed."

Please find me a news article, an Obama speech, or anything where "Obama said unemployment wouldn't go above 8%." This is what you claimed and have spectacularly failed to produce. Hell, I'll even go one further and allow you to quote someone who promised that as a member of Obama's presidential administration. I hate to break it to you, but if you bothered to read the aforementioned report, there's no promise in there.

On a side note, I haven't had time to actually check the numbers but even with the report estimates targeting 2010Q4 numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual current payroll employment numbers are fairly close to those in the report.

 

[Acanthus]

Add to that the overbearing regulations and uncertainty of the financial reform law that was passed yesterday and it's not going to get any better. Businesses are scared to death of what Obama/congress are doing and saying.

As far as im concerned the Finance sector needs to be scaled back significantly. There is now way the country needs 35% of its GDP in finance and insurance.

 

[Rainsford]

Clearly the poll was ran by a right-wing racist organization. This just shows just how badly the people think of Obama. It's to the point now where anybody would be better.

Well that's the problem with this poll. Obama, as the actual President, has to do stuff, and make decisions, and have positions on issues. The Republicans "running" against him in 2012 polls don't have to do jack shit except be alternatives to Obama. It's a lot easier.

It's an interesting strategy, but it tends to work less well than political strategists would like...ask John Kerry about it. It's fine to start out with an "anybody but X" style campaign, but eventually you have to fill in that "anybody" blank...and THAT is where the wheels sometimes fall off.

The best example now is the economy, which is where a lot of negative poll numbers are coming from. Since they have no decision making abilities, Republicans are free to bitch and moan about what the Democrats are doing (or not doing) as much as they like. If they were actually put in a position where they had to produce alternatives, it wouldn't be so easy.

 

[Fear No Evil]

My $0.02:
- Palin is a big reason why the GOP lost in '08 as she chased away the moderates to the Democrats,
- running Palin in '12 would practically guarantee a Democratic landslide and an Obama 2nd term regardless of what fantasy polls in '10 might indicate,
- as in '08, Romney is still the GOP's most viable candidate for the Presidency in '12, but the teabaggers are too extremist and too bigoted to back a moderate Mormon yankee with a genuine business agenda,
- and finally, teabaggers need to come up with some kind of clear policy besides extremist social conservatism and kneejerk reactionary outrage if they ever expect to be a genuine political threat.

And democrats are too sexist to vote for a woman for President.. as proven by the destruction of the Hillary campaign.

 

[Rainsford]

Romney's probably the candidate to beat right now. he's got the money, the infrastructure, the party support, and none of the 2008 loser's taint.

I know it's way too early to make realistic predictions, but if I had to put money on it, I'd guess that whatever candidate the tea party gets behind will fare about as well as the Rush and Hannity posterboys of 2008 (Thompson, Huckabee) -- which is to say, they'll have a voice and probably a say in the VP candidate (similar to how McCain wasn't allowed to chose Lieberman) but no real significant primary impact.

I'd be stupendously surprised if Sarah Palin (assuming she runs at all) won a single major primary.

Agreed. But I can't help but wondering if putting Sarah Palin out front as the face of the party, like Republicans seem to be doing now, is a good idea. Romney (or whoever) will do a lot better without being tagged with Palin-itis. She clearly has some appeal among hard-core conservatives, but not a chance in hell of carrying anyone beyond her immediate family.

 

[Rainsford]

And democrats are too sexist to vote for a woman for President.. as proven by the destruction of the Hillary campaign.

That would make more sense if Republicans actually had ever put forward a semi-serious female candidate for the Presidency. The closest they have ever come is Sarah Palin, who felt like a "see, we have women too...but only the safe kind" candidate.

 

[CallMeJoe]

And democrats are too sexist to vote for a woman for President.. as proven by the destruction of the Hillary campaign.

IIRC, Senator Clinton received very nearly as many (or more) total primary election votes as did Senator Obama. It was her campaign's massive failure to manage the caucus states that doomed the Clinton campaign.

 

[CallMeJoe]

That would make more sense if Republicans actually had ever put forward a semi-serious female candidate for the Presidency. The closest they have ever come is Sarah Palin, who felt like a "see, we have women too...but only the safe kind" candidate.

Governor Palin was chosen by Senator McCain, not selected by Republican primary voters. No Republican woman has fared nearly as well in a nomination campaign as did Senator Clinton.
FNE is merely taking an opportunity to criticize Democrats. Again. Any opportunity.

 

[Rainsford]

Governor Palin was chosen by Senator McCain, not selected by Republican primary voters. No Republican woman has fared nearly as well in a nomination campaign as did Senator Clinton.
FNE is merely taking an opportunity to criticize Democrats. Again. Any opportunity.

That's true, Palin didn't have to go through any primary process...and it's telling that she WASN'T a primary candidate at all, as VP candidates often are.

I can certainly see FNE's desire to bash Dems at every possible opportunity, but this seems like a poor target. Attacking the Democrat's record of pushing non-white male candidates seems like a pretty bad idea when Republicans can't really claim ANY record on that point. Like attacking Obama's inability to "win" in Afghanistan, it draws too much attention to the fact that the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

[hellotyler]

We need real candidates, neither of these choices appeal to me. Did everybody just forget about Obama's campaign promises or what ? It's like now that he's in power people don't even pay attention and just assume everything is going well. I voted and campaigned for him, but he dropped the ball and did not fulfill his promises. Your word is your BOND.

P.S. Even the GOP isn't so stupid as to trot out Palin in 2012.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...P.S. Even the GOP isn't so stupid as to trot out Palin in 2012.

One danger of the Tea Party insurgency is the specter of a Sarah Palin presidential nomination.

 

[Brainonska511]

We need real candidates, neither of these choices appeal to me. Did everybody just forget about Obama's campaign promises or what ? It's like now that he's in power people don't even pay attention and just assume everything is going well. I voted and campaigned for him, but he dropped the ball and did not fulfill his promises. Your word is your BOND.

P.S. Even the GOP isn't so stupid as to trot out Palin in 2012.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

If you're living in reality, you know that Obama isn't some magician that once he was elected, things would turn into CandyLand. The link provided shows promises kept, what's being worked on, what's been broken, etc...

I'm sure most politicians would like to keep the promises they make, but sometimes, that's just not possible. Since we live in a republic with divided government, compromises have to be made and other issues will inevitably end up taking priority over more minor things.

*
Please do not construe this post as blindly supporting one candidate or another. I am disappointed at some of the stances he's taken with certain issues - such as allowing some wimpy compromise that makes it look like something was done when it wasn't.

 

[Rainsford]

One danger of the Tea Party insurgency is the specter of a Sarah Palin presidential nomination.

I think it goes beyond that. Even if she doesn't win the nomination, I'm not sure Republicans want to go into the election as The Tea Party. Sure, it appeals heavily to some economically conservative Republicans...but I'm pretty sure they were going to vote Republican anyways.

Rallying the base is a good thing for a party, and it's something Republicans totally failed to do in 2008. But go too far and you risk alienating everyone who ISN'T part of your base...which I think the tea party folks could very much do. I don't know, it's hard for me to say since I'm obviously biased. But I really don't imagine a lot of widespread appeal from the Tea Party approach.

 

[hellotyler]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

If you're living in reality, you know that Obama isn't some magician that once he was elected, things would turn into CandyLand. The link provided shows promises kept, what's being worked on, what's been broken, etc...

I'm sure most politicians would like to keep the promises they make, but sometimes, that's just not possible. Since we live in a republic with divided government, compromises have to be made and other issues will inevitably end up taking priority over more minor things.

*
Please do not construe this post as blindly supporting one candidate or another. I am disappointed at some of the stances he's taken with certain issues - such as allowing some wimpy compromise that makes it look like something was done when it wasn't.

I'm a pacifist and there were 2 main reasons I voted for Obama. ( These were also the two main premises he campaigned on.)

1) He swore to end the war in Iraq.
2) He promised to get universal health care for our countrymen.

Both of these promises were completely compromised and swept under the table once he took office and big business got their hand in the cookie jar.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvWilRn0L8
2) http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/644042_025.do

I didn't expect him to work magic, I just expected him to stand up and do what he said he would do - even if it made him a one term president. He chose to keep his throne and play politics.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm a pacifist and there were 2 main reasons I voted for Obama. ( These were also the two main premises he campaigned on.)

1) He swore to end the war in Iraq.
2) He promised to get universal health care for our countrymen.

Both of these promises were completely compromised and swept under the table once he took office and big business got their hand in the cookie jar.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvWilRn0L8
2) http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/644042_025.do

I didn't expect him to work magic, I just expected him to stand up and do what he said he would do - even if it made him a one term president. He chose to keep his throne and play politics.

You can't just wave a magic wand and end a war. You can't just pull out and tell the Iraqis to go fuck themselves, just because they're brown and live on the other side of the world.

You can't just wave a magic wand and get Congress to pass universal healthcare.

If you wanted a magician to be president, you should have voted for one.

 

[SickBeast]

I thought they were saying Ron Paul was making a comeback...

 

[hellotyler]

..

 

[Double Trouble]

Funny how now, after it's become clear that Obama can't possibly live up to most of his promises I keep seeing posts about "hey, he can't work magic!" or "there's no way he could fix xyz". Bottom line: then he should not have promised to do it. Don't promise to do something you can't or won't. He based his campaign on being different than 'regular' politicians, changing DC. It's sinking in that he's really no different, the stink of DC politics is all over him.

With regard to the Tea Party movement: I definitely think there's the potential for the tea party to hurt the republicans. The republican base is active and motivated, which is good. The independents have figured out that they helped elect a charlatan and are definitely not on board with the health care fiasco, support for illegal immigration, crap and trade etc etc. Right now the repubs need to understand that in order to succeed they need to make those independents feel like they have an alternative. Palin and those like her are not a palatable alternative for most independents.

One thing I do like about the tea party movement is that it's forcing republicans to focus back on aspects of conservatism that they seem to have conveniently ignored for decades: fiscal responsibility, small government, personal accountability etc.

 

[alkemyst]

my prediction if she becomes a serious candidate they will pull a Bristol sex tape out of the woodwork or something equally stupid. I know there are a lot saying we have had a black president and now it's time for a woman one.