Obama vs. Palin 2012: No contest in '10

Despite all of their chest thumping, the Repugs don't have anyone who is popular enough to beat Obama in 2012 and they know it.

Romney, Paul, Huckabee, Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal...???

HAHAHA!

Run, Sarah, Run and please, don't quit, this time. We need the comic relief!! You betcha !! Where does the seceding of Alaska from The United States stand, at this moment or have your, oh so bright, advisers told you to act dumb, on the issue !! You are proving to be a heck of actress !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Sarah Palin cannot even beat Obama at what appears to be the height of grassroots frustration and anger with his administration and his party? That is one weak candidate. The Dems are begging the GOP to nominate her...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Silly poll for political junkies that really means nothing at this stage of the game. But if History is a guide it is Very Difficult to defeat an Elected Incumbent President for Reelection. Enclosed below are years when Incumbent was defeated for reelection.

1888 Cleveland - Scandal, Tariff, split
1912 Taft - Major split in GOP
1932 Hoover - Depression
1980 Carter - Recession
1992 Bush the Elder - Recession

As you can see it is very difficult to defeat an Elected Incumbent President. The major causes for not getting reelected were economic recessions and splits in the party. Cleveland is an interesting President. He is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms.

I did not include 1976 because Ford was not elected

The Republican Party may have big plans for a big election year (which is really no big deal because the minority party always picks up seats in the first mid-term after a Pres election), but Americans sure don't think much of their leadership.

Republicans In Disarray

"Only 28% of voters in the country say they approve of the current direction of the GOP with 51% disapproving. Even among voters who identify with the party just 54% say they like where it's headed. It's predictable that Democrats would give it very low marks but even among independents just 18% think the Republicans are headed in the right direction while 49% dissent."
.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/republicans-in-disarray.html

Despite all of their chest thumping, the Repugs don't have anyone who is popular enough to beat Obama in 2012 and they know it.

Romney, Paul, Huckabee, Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal...???

HAHAHA!
Posted by: HHH | April 13, 2010 2:56 PM

HHH, if history is any guide for 2012 Presidential Election popularity will not be the major reason for Obama winning or losing in 2012, it will be the economy or a major split in the Democratic Party. Since 1888 every time an Elected Incumbent President was defeated for reelection it was because of a economic downturn or a major split within the Party. At this stage of the game using history as a guide unless the economy is in bad shape in 2012 or there is a major split within the Democratic Party I would bet Obama gets reelected.

42 Percent for PALIN!! This is a sad world where naive working class people can be conned by smooth talking hillbillies. I know some of the Palin supporters - forgive them Lord for they know not what they do. .....

http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/04/12/personal-experience-with-tea-bag-mentality/

It's interesting to see Mark Silva move away from his usual reliance on the Gallup Poll.
Perhaps because in the latest Gallup Poll, Republicans hold a 4% lead (48%-44%) over Democrats in Congressional races.
That's enough to make any media Democrat abandon Gallup and start looking for another poll to publicize....

---

(Note to Voice: Try reading more closely. The findings of the Gallup Poll on the GOP advantage on the generic congressional question are the lede of the first item in the Swamp this morning, elaborated on there and linked to Gallup. We work pretty hard around here. You should try it. -- Silva)

What a joke! Other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?

==
Obama has realized a 24 point slide in the polls since inauguration day. We are two weeks out from his getting health care (his #1 initiative) passed and signed into law and the story that comes out of this is how the anointed one - an incumbent prez-, the recipient of piles of embarrassing, non-critical, moon eyed press coverage gets a three % point bump in votes to beat a hypothetical candidate…?

---------------------------
At this stage of the game using history as a guide unless the economy is in bad shape in 2012 or there is a major split within the Democratic Party I would bet Obama gets reelected.

Posted by: Depot- Jim | April 13, 2010 4:07 PM
-----------------------------

Yes Jimmy,
Despite all of the Teabagger teeth gnashing and over blown histrionics...It has taken a lot of hard work to pull us out of the Bush Recession, but (much to the displeasure of the Republican base) the Dems and Pres Obama are starting to do it.

You know that staggeringly huge budget deficit bequeathed to the Obama administration by George W. Bush's and the rotten Bush recession? Don't look now, but that deficit is getting smaller

"The federal deficit is running significantly lower than it did last year, with the budget gap for the first half of fiscal 2010 down 8 percent over the same period a year ago, senior Obama administration officials said Monday. The officials attributed the results to higher tax revenue and to lower spending than projected on bailing out the financial system. If the trend continues for the rest of the year, it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion -- about $300 billion less than the administration's projection two months ago for 2010."
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041204364.html?hpid=topnews

Bush's spending, tax, and economic policies were the key culprits in last year's budget deficit, which included the final four months of Bush's term in office plus the first eight of the Obama administration. The stimulus accounted for somewhere between ten and fifteen percent of the 2009 deficit. Despite all the attacks President Obama has gotten for Bush's bailouts, the 2010 deficit is shrinking because less money is being spent on bailouts.

Don't worry, though Jimmy. The right-wing fringe is still obsessed with calling President Obama a radical socialist hell-bent on terrorizing the good people of the Confederacy. Nothing will ever change that. Fortunately, most Americans aren't part of the right-wing fringe. They just want their country to succeed. And under the Obama Administration's leadership, it will.

HHH and Matt:Strother Martin must have been thinking of people line you when he uttered his famous line in Buth Cassidy and the Sundance Kid":

"Idiots. I've got idiots on my team.

GHB had an approval rating of 90+in the wake of the first Persian Gulf War.

No potential democratic nominee for the presidency was within 30 points of him.

You do remember how that turned out?

Depot-Jim,
Would you please provide the Unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office on January 20, 1980 and the Unemployment rate when Reagan was sworn in for his second term in 1984. I'm sure you will find a surprise.

Dumb Dumb Janet, under Jimmy Carter we had something called the Misery Index. It was a combination of interest rates (which were high), inflation (which was high) and unemployment (which was on the way up). It took a couple of years to get the economy turned around from the Carter Disaster, but Reagan did it, which is why he won in another landslide in 2004!

-----------------------------
It took a couple of years to get the economy turned around from the Carter Disaster, but Reagan did it, which is why he won in another landslide in 2004!

Posted by: John D | April 13, 2010 6:23 PM
-----------------------

Yeah we know, Lil Johnny.

Saint Ronnie the Reagan started deficit spending and enlarging the gov't like no other president in history ever had before. And look at the fine mess he left us.
.
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/business/files/2008/11/us-budget-deficits.JPG

Here you go Janet, no make a point.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Trickled On,

You are claiming that BO is reducing the deficit? Trillion dollar deficits are reductions? Is there no oxygen in mom and dad's basement. BO is doing nothing but reunning up record deficits - see the attached graph.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

So tell me, what is the cause of those deficits out in 2013, 14, 15, ...?

Hope I spelled everything correctly.

What a recovery...
A new record: 3,707 properties repossessed in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties in March
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/a-new-record-3-707-properties-repossessed-in-559476.html

Poser Terri,

Because you live in a right wing version of Candy Land and because you've never met a FACT that you couldn't twist into some "Repub good/Dem bad" fiscal meme with your pretzel logic.....

I want you to bookmark this article and I want you to read it every time those voices in your head that sound like Grover Norquist start speaking to you.

REPUBLICAN DEFICIT HYPOCRISY
.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Obama will win against anyone,If the economy gets better.America will fall,If palin wins.....

It will not take much to beat BO in 2012. Somebody will show up that's just as charismatic and full of crap as BO was. They can even keep the same dumb slogan "Change is Coming". Maybe the next person will actually govern from the center
ass BO promised but we know how promises are kept in politics. As for Sarah, does anyone really think she is a real candidate? I don’t.

Depot-Jim,
Would you please provide the Unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office on January 20, 1980 and the Unemployment rate when Reagan was sworn in for his second term in 1984. I'm sure you will find a surprise.

Posted by: janet | April 13, 2010 6:01 PM

Janet, there is no real surprise here because I am familiar with the unemployment rates. When Jimmy Carter was defeated for reelection the official unemployment rate was at 7.5 percent. But we also had very high interest rates and economic activity was very sluggish. One also needs to figure in the effects of the oil embargoes of the 1970's and how it affected the economy at the time. Carter was voted out because of an economic recession and high interest rates. When Reagan assumed office in January 1981 the unemployment rate was at 7.5 percent. But the United States had a "Double Dip" Recession that started in July 1981 and ended in November 1982. This downtown was very severe and unemployment rates topped out at 10.8 percent in November and December of 1982. But the country also had a rapid and big recovery and by the time of the November 1984 Presidential Election the unemployment rate had dropped to 7.2 percent. With a Strong and Noticeable recovery going on Reagan was reelected in a major landslide carrying 49 out of 50 states. A major difference between the recession of 1981-82 and the most recent is that the unemployment rate was at 7.4 percent at the beginning of the of the 1981-82 recession and it was 4.7 percent at the beginning of the most recent downturn starting in 2007. This past recession was the most severe because we had a huge jump percentage wise in the unemployment rate. Another major difference is that we had a big recovery in 1983 and 1984. Unfortunately the current recovery has been historically very weak compared to past upswings so far. If this continues we could have a "Jobless" recovery.

Don't worry, though Jimmy. The right-wing fringe is still obsessed with calling President Obama a radical socialist hell-bent on terrorizing the good people of the Confederacy. Nothing will ever change that. Fortunately, most Americans aren't part of the right-wing fringe. They just want their country to succeed. And under the Obama Administration's leadership, it will.

Posted by: HHH | April 13, 2010
5:34 PM

HHH, most Americans, including Republicans, Independents and Democrats., want their country to succeed and pull out of this economic nightmare. If the country fails economically everyone suffers. The only groups that do not want the country to succeed for their own personal and narrow minded political agendas are those on the Far Right and Far Left. Regarding the Election of 2012, it will be decided by the economic conditions at the time. Americans have always voted their pocketbooks and wallets. If the economy is good shape or in a noticeable and strong recovery Obama get reelected. If it is in a major economic downturn and there is historically high unemployment, Obama is in big trouble. As Democratic political strategist James Carville said "It is the Economy Stupid."

Flat Earth Terri,
Your post contains spelling and grammar errors. Your economics is also incorrect.
Nothing unusual about that though.

While it's a long time until the 2012 election and a lot can happen before then, it's pretty clear that right now the Republicans don't have a viable challenger to Obama.

Republican leadership must cringe every time they see Palin get publicity because there is absolutely no way they want to see her get the GOP nomination. McDonnell from Virgina looked like a rising star, but he's been pretty good at shooting himself in the foot lately.

Approval ratings are one thing - they often reflect overall feelings about the country and not just the President. Head to head polls are something else - they show that the independents and moderates are still favoring Obama to pull us out of the dumps.

I know that must be depressing for all the knee-jerk conservatives who want Obama to fail at everything, but it's the cold, hard reality and all the shouting and ranting in the world isn't going to change it. Obama is most likely going to win a 2nd term and the Democrats will most likely retain majorities in both Houses.

Herer's another poll, from a Dem pollster, which should give the White House and its minions fits:

"A Public Policy Polling survey finds that Americans basically are evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48 percent say they prefer to have Obama; 46 percent say they prefer Bush.

... And with independents preferring Obama by only 49-37, there are many moderates who also are more unhappy with the current president than with the former one."

Posted by: Terry | April 13, 2010 8:13 PM
*
*
Tinkled On Terry:
*
Using your own link, the unemployment rate when Dubya entered the White House was 4.2% - and it was never lower than that in his 8 years in office, rising to 7.7% when he left.
*
And for your other attempt to tarnish President Obama, if the Heritage Foundation can accurately tell us what the deficit will be 5 to 10 years in the future, why aren't they telling their conservative followers so they can rake it in betting on the stock market?

Trickled On,

I have never said the Republicans are blameless when it comes to deficits; however, BO, Nancy, and Harry have them beat in spades..

Doogie,

If you want to critique my economics, feel free. Just try to offer a specific mistake other than "Your economics is also incorrect." I guess the CPS didn't teach you much either.

Before CommonSense,

I, unlike you, will use all 96 data points of the Bush administration in stead of the beginning and end point. If you had done a complete analysis, you would know that during the Bush Administration, unemployment averaged about 5.4%. That's pretty good - just over the 5.2% of the Clinton administration. If you want to really examine the data, calculate the average unemployment while the GOP held the House and the gov't purse strings from 1995 - 2006.

Even Horrible Form wouldn't make that simple of a mistake - using only two data point.

If you had looked at the graph, you would have noticed that the Heritage Foundation took that graph from the Washington Post. You flatliners fall for that all the time.

"Obama" is Swahili for "Carter." If I wanted corporate shills, I would have voted for McCain and Palin. I prefer an honest whore to a lying slut.