Predicting the 2012 Election

[DJA101]

I'm wearing my Obama t-shrit when he gets really elected.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by champ76

Or, like, you had to be there.

Originally Posted by champ76

Reagan was a great campaigner, but he was labeled a duffus by every news outlet covering politics at the time, and every poll had him trailing Carter right up to the election.

Carter had been swept into office in 1976 as "hope" and "change" to Nixon and the previous eight years of a republican administration. He was friendly and folksy and he came out of nowhere to capture the democratic nomination and win the presidency. The economy ground to a halt and he became to be viewed as inept. Nevertheless, he polled strongly as the press hammered Reagan(why, he's the guy in Bedtime for Bonzo!).

When all was said and done, the election was over before they finished the counting. All because of the mood of the country. The same sour mood the country is in now.

just saying

Of course there are some major differences between 1980 and 2012 that you're leaving out. Carter, at the height of the Cold War and the aftermath of Vietnam, had proved himself to be an especially weak commander in chief. Obama, for all his dove-like talk in the primary, has turned out to be a hawk. He does not have the weakness that Carter did.

Additionally, the economy wasn't great pre-'76, but it worsened significantly under Carter's watch. That, compounded with the '79 oil crisis, paints a much worse economic picture than what Obama is facing.

Notice what I'm saying though -- Obama may still lose. It'll be a tough and close election.

In 1980, Carter won 6 states and 49 electoral votes.

That's just not going to repeat in 2012. The electoral math for Romney just isn't there.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by champ76

Carter had been swept into office in 1976 as "hope" and "change" to Nixon and the previous eight years of a republican administration. He was friendly and folksy and he came out of nowhere to capture the democratic nomination and win the presidency. The economy ground to a halt and he became to be viewed as inept. Nevertheless, he polled strongly as the press hammered Reagan(why, he's the guy in Bedtime for Bonzo!).

When all was said and done, the election was over before they finished the counting. All because of the mood of the country. The same sour mood the country is in now.

just saying

Two BIG differences:

1. The economy hit the skids AFTER Carter took office, as a combination of things outside his control and things under his control (his policies), and the lack of an effect his responses had on the economic recession. Obama took office with the economy already in the toilet. Big difference between electing someone when things are good or at least OK and then having things go bad, and electing someone when things are bad and then having things get better but not that much better.
2. Reagan wasn't hammered nearly as much as you say, and yes I was alive then. Reagan had more charisma and communication skills while asleep than Romney has when fully charged and fully prepared. Reagan was "The Great Communicator" -- Romney, not so much.

[Superfan]

Romney wins! Romney wins!

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by V Chip

Two BIG differences:

1. The economy hit the skids AFTER Carter took office, as a combination of things outside his control and things under his control (his policies), and the lack of an effect his responses had on the economic recession. Obama took office with the economy already in the toilet. Big difference between electing someone when things are good or at least OK and then having things go bad, and electing someone when things are bad and then having things get better but not that much better.

No, not true. There was a very deep recession, lasting 1 yr and 4 months (a long recession) from Nov 1973 to Mar 1975, with peak unemployment hitting 9.0%.

[Rickboy]

Originally Posted by Superfan

Ross Perot killed him not clinton.

Damn, you're right, I forgot all about that... Doh!

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by champ76

Reagan was a great campaigner, but he was labeled a duffus by every news outlet covering politics at the time, and every poll had him trailing Carter right up to the election.

Carter had been swept into office in 1976 as "hope" and "change" to Nixon and the previous eight years of a republican administration. He was friendly and folksy and he came out of nowhere to capture the democratic nomination and win the presidency. The economy ground to a halt and he became to be viewed as inept. Nevertheless, he polled strongly as the press hammered Reagan(why, he's the guy in Bedtime for Bonzo!).

When all was said and done, the election was over before they finished the counting. All because of the mood of the country. The same sour mood the country is in now.

just saying

You're right, of course, re Reagan being a great campaigner and also be labelled a duffus by the media...I guess I largely ignored most of the duffus stuff by the media because I knew Reagan as the Governor of my state as I grew up. I knew the guy was no duffus so I ignored the labeling...The thing is, I don't see the same traits in Romney as I saw in Reagan. Reagan was a very passionate politician, something that sort of got polished up when he ran for President.

And I agree that the same (or very similar) sour mood is in the country now.

I just don't see Romney articulating his arguments very well. He pulls his punches when it comes to making his arguments against Obama. Maybe this will change with time, but Reagan would've never pulled his punches against Obama.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

No, not true. There was a very deep recession, lasting 1 yr and 4 months (a long recession) from Nov 1973 to Mar 1975, with peak unemployment hitting 9.0%.

Right. But, you're also missing that another recession started in January 1980, 11 months before election day, and lasted until July.

The economy wasn't in great shape when Carter took office, and grew weakly. It did tank on his watch however.

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by drob8785

Right. But, you're also missing that another recession started in January 1980, 11 months before election day, and lasted until July.

The economy wasn't in great shape when Carter took office, and grew weakly. It did tank on his watch however.

That is true. What would be interesting would be if the economy begins to enter a recession towards the end of summer or early fall but nobody recognizes it for another 9 months or so. We are seeing a slowdown in the economic indicators right now, and Europe is flashing negative GDP growth numbers. It's not inconceivable that we could be living with a negative GDP print with the first estimate release in late October, just before the election. Although I guess the scenario I'm painting would be a positive GDP first estimate with the negative print being confirmed with the subsequent revisions.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

You're right, of course, re Reagan being a great campaigner and also be labelled a duffus by the media...I guess I largely ignored most of the duffus stuff by the media because I knew Reagan as the Governor of my state as I grew up. I knew the guy was no duffus so I ignored the labeling...The thing is, I don't see the same traits in Romney as I saw in Reagan. Reagan was a very passionate politician, something that sort of got polished up when he ran for President.

And I agree that the same (or very similar) sour mood is in the country now.

I just don't see Romney articulating his arguments very well. He pulls his punches when it comes to making his arguments against Obama. Maybe this will change with time, but Reagan would've never pulled his punches against Obama.

I think Romney has the problem now that if he started really throwing punches, there's so much media of him holding the opposite view on the subject he would get slaughtered in TV Ads.

Reagan may have changed his views on subjects over the years, but he did so with conviction.

It will be hard, almost impossible for Romney to use the same tactic due to his history.




I think for Romney to hold any chance of winning, his only hope is the economy. He needs to hope it either stays slow growing like it does or shrinks a bit. He would than need to convince voters he could do a better job.

I think anything else will fail him. He doesn't have a better chance in Foreign Policy like Republicans usually do. Social issues is a failing prospect more and more with a wider range of voters. Now does he have the force of personality to sway voters like Reagan had.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by champ76

dd, it's not a good sign for the incumbent to be polling at less than 50% six months before the election in the toss up states.

Turnout is the key. I'd be very surprised by an Obama win. It feels a lot like 1980.

It doesn't feel like 1980 to me. Yes, there are some parallels, but in 1980 things were perceived to be getting worse, while the perception today is that some elements of the economy are beginning to get better. While unemployment has remained high, gas prices have risen and wages haven't kept pace with prices, I don't believe that most voters are assigning as much of the blame to Obama as they are Congress and they don't seem to be as angry today as people did in 1980 IMHO.

Carter was also faced with a feeling among most of the electorate that he wasn't a strong leader on the heels of the debacles in Iran, in spite of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt that he helped engineer. Obama, while he may have some detractors relating to his foreign policy, is not seen by most in the same light.

I imagine Obama will easily carry the traditionally Democratic states, which means Romney would have to win not only all of the traditionally Republican states, but also would have to take almost all of the swing states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Romney loses two of those three and it's a slam dunk re-election of Obama IMO.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by dapperdan

No, not true. There was a very deep recession, lasting 1 yr and 4 months (a long recession) from Nov 1973 to Mar 1975, with peak unemployment hitting 9.0%.

Yes, that happened, but the economy wasn't in the crapper when he was elected nor when he took office. The Growth was extremely high before he took office, during the election of 1976. The year-on-year GDP growth was the highest it has been in every year since except 1978 and 1984.

So you're putting forth the argument that Carter was elected when things were already bad and didn't MAKE them bad? C'mon, no way in hell am I going to believe that you believe that.

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by V Chip

Yes, that happened, but the economy wasn't in the crapper when he was elected nor when he took office. The Growth was extremely high before he took office, during the election of 1976. The year-on-year GDP growth was the highest it has been in every year since except 1978 and 1984.

So you're putting forth the argument that Carter was elected when things were already bad and didn't MAKE them bad? C'mon, no way in hell am I going to believe that you believe that.

Carter was elected because of Watergate. The country was tired and wanted a change.

We had Watergate. We had the Oil Shocks. We had a deep recession ('73-75). The country was feeling beat-up, and was looking for change. It's not that much different than '08. And it's really not that different from today. I do believe that much of the country wants a new President, the independents' want a new President. That's my opinion, of course. The problem is, they may want a new President, but the Republican nominee has to give people a reason to vote for him, and that's where I think Romney falls short right now. I just don't see him generating enough enthusiasm for him, I just see the disillusionment with the current President. You've got to be able to seal the deal. And I don't see that happening right now. Of course, May 1 is not the first Tuesday of November, there are 6 months to go. Mitt Romney, the clock is ticking.

Btw, I've never defended Nixon's economic policies. Ever. Why would I defend the indefensible simply because of the Party affiliation? (Yes, Ford was the President, but those were still Nixon's policies. Ford was seen as a caretaker until the nation could flush out the political system.)

[champ76]

Originally Posted by V Chip

Yes, that happened, but the economy wasn't in the crapper when he was elected nor when he took office. The Growth was extremely high before he took office, during the election of 1976. The year-on-year GDP growth was the highest it has been in every year since except 1978 and 1984.

So you're putting forth the argument that Carter was elected when things were already bad and didn't MAKE them bad? C'mon, no way in hell am I going to believe that you believe that.

I don't know the growth rate of the economy but I can tell you from first hand experience that a majority of the country at the time thought the country was not working well. Inflation and gas lines were the main source of discontent. People mistrusted government post-Nixon/Ford. The general feeling was that a "can do" country was now can't do.

Carter was a folksy southern democrat who was supposed to heal the divided country and lead the country back to a point where the people could start feeling good about the country again.

Things didn't improve. Malaise, gas lines, Iranian hostages sealed the impression that Carter was not up to the job. He was still likable, but he wasn't a leader.

I think many many voters are in the same place now. It's not so much the numbers as the mood. Just ask Bush Sr.

[sandiego_dre]

Obama wins convincingly for the reasons Richard covered.