View Poll Results: Predict the result of the Presidential Election

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama landslide (310 + electoral votes)

    2 2.70%
  • Obama comfortable win (290-310 EVs)

    17 22.97%
  • Obama close win (279-290 EVs)

    27 36.49%
  • Obama barely wins (270 + 278 EVs)

    6 8.11%
  • Exact tie 269-269

    0 0%
  • Romney barely wins (270 + 278 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney close win (279-290 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney comfortable win (290-310 EVs)

    7 9.46%
  • Romney landslide (310 + electoral votes)

    1 1.35%
Page 4 of 99 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1979
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    As a general matter, it could be the realization that among white voters, support for gay marriage already exceeds the President's own support levels.

    In NC, I wouldn't think it would be a matter of energizing his base. A major component of his NC base is black voters, who as a whole are strongly anti-gay marriage.

    Perhaps his taking this position is an attempt to place Romney on the horns of a dilemma: if he reacts very strongly, in harsh terms, against Obama's position, he risks alienating white suburban and college educated voters, who will be critical in important states like Pennsylvania and Virginia and a few others. On the other hand, if he does not condemn Obama and gay marriage in strong terms, social conservatives, who he needs to come out and come out in big numbers for him to have any chance at all, have yet another reason to not believe in him as a "true conservative," and sit it out.
    In just one day yesterday (after voicing his support of same sex marriage), it was reported he received nearly $1 million in donations. I think that was the main reason he came out and said it. Money for his campaign. The timing is odd and I do agree that Biden being a knuckle head hurt the timing aspect. Politically I don't think it can help him all that much but I do think it can hurt him. The high majority of the "gay" community was going to vote for Obama anyways. Those who are opposed to same sex marriage yet still on the fence of which candidate to support may very well be turned away from Obama now.

  2. #62

    guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by roywhite View Post
    Well, it's nearly impossible for a sitting VP to come closer to winning an election than Gore did in 2000 with a plurality of popular votes and a contested electoral college squeaker that went all the way to the SCOTUS
    Obama's win as a sitting US Senator was very unusual historically also.
    Do those old guidelines mean much?
    I think you are right that the guidelines don't really apply. Let's go back and see where our most recent president's come from (ignoring incumbents):

    2008 -- a sitting Senator
    2000 -- a sitting governor
    1992 -- a sitting governor
    1988 -- the incumbent vice president
    1980 -- a former governor (who held no elective office for six previous years)
    1976 -- a former governor (out of office for two years)
    1968 -- a former Senator and vice president (out of office for eight years)
    1960 -- a sitting Senator
    1952 -- a military officer who had never held elective office
    1932 -- a sitting governer
    1928 -- the incumbent secretary of commerce, who had never held elective office
    1920 -- a sitting senator
    1912 -- a sitting governor
    1908 -- the incombent secretary of war, who had never held elective office

    Everybody else was an incombent ... that includes four vice presidents who succeeded to office when the president died and then were elected on their own (Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, LBJ) and three who (like Romney) were out of office at the time of their successful presidential run.

    I think that data suggests that there is not a formula for successful candidates.

    Hmm, let me think ... I wonder what the record of incumbent presidents running for office is (since 1900)?

    Off the top of my head, it's 13-4. I've got winners Teddy Roosevelt '04; Wilson '16, Coolidge '24, FDR in '36, '40 and '44, Truman in '48, Eisenhower in '56, LBJ in '64, Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84, Clinton in '96, GW Bush in 2004. I've got losers in Taft '12, Hoover '32, Carter '80 and Bush '92.

    Interesting that in at least two ... maybe three of those incumbent losses, there was a strong third-party element involved. The Republicans would have won easily in '12 if Teddy Roosevelt hadn't split the vote with his Bill Moose Party (or not to offend anybody, you could say they would have won easily if the party bosses had not stolen the nomination for TR). Not sure of the exact numbers, but Ross Perot's run in 1992 certainly helped Clinton upset Bush. Not sure if John Anderson's run in '80 had any real impact on Reagan's victory over Carter (even with all of Anderson's 5.7 million votes, Carter would have still finished just short of RR).

    Still, the historical precedent would suggest that it's hard to beat a sittiing president in a head to head race. Obviously, it can be done but Romney faces an uphill battle.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dillon, Colorado
    A couple of very interesting maps, especially for people familiar with Mecklenburg County's demographics. Meck is of course the county that contains Charlotte.

    http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GAL...12_6_01_47.png
    Sometimes I mistake this for a universe that cares. -- xkcd #625

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree here on the prevailing winds, the public's current impressions of events, how undecided voters have had their mindsets altered or not, and the relative weight of this particular factor in the grand stew of a long election season. [Editing after seeing JE's latest post, as it might skirt the line]

    The second is an interesting thing you bring up, that I'm curious to see evolve during the race: it's been shown that when pollsters ask about the actual policies contained within ACA, they consistently find majority support for the majority of the big ticket inclusions. As you note, however, when they ask the broader "Do you approve of the passage of the Affordable Care Act?" or something along those lines, they consistently get more disapproval. Which suggests to me that Republicans have clearly been winning the post-passage messaging war on this. I'm interested to see if the Obama campaign can actually cut through the nuance barrier and make people remember what a majority of them actually seem to like about the law (without simultaneously reminding their own base why they disliked it ).
    That sounds fair. FWIW, I don't think I was describing prevailing winds or current impressions, but more of a developing narrative that may or may not have any real impact. And I'm not saying that undecideds have necessarily had their mindsets altered already, only that the potential may be there. More broadly, I am NOT suggesting in any way that Romney is not a very flawed candidate or a decided underdog in this election. He is both of those things. But I do think he is a more formidable challenger than many Dems are willing to admit.

    There is a lot of good in the ACA. In many respects, the bill incentivizes and accelerates positive trends that are already occurring in the healthcare delivery system. It is also deeply ironic that the individual mandate concept that conservatives so violently oppose was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post

    Hmm, let me think ... I wonder what the record of incumbent presidents running for office is (since 1900)?

    Off the top of my head, it's 13-4. I've got winners Teddy Roosevelt '04; Wilson '16, Coolidge '24, FDR in '36, '40 and '44, Truman in '48, Eisenhower in '56, LBJ in '64, Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84, Clinton in '96, GW Bush in 2004. I've got losers in Taft '12, Hoover '32, Carter '80 and Bush '92.
    Is it 13-4, or 13-5? Do you count Ford as an incumbent loss since he was never elected on a ticket?
    Not that it makes much difference to your overall point.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Here's a question. Who you think the Democrats will run in 2016? Clinton would be nearly 70 if she were to take office in 2017. The Democrats lost a lot of gubernatorial mansions in the slaughter of 2010.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dillon, Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Here's a question. Who you think the Democrats will run in 2016? Clinton would be nearly 70 if she were to take office in 2017. The Democrats lost a lot of gubernatorial mansions in the slaughter of 2010.
    It sure as hell won't be Biden, either. I think it needs to be a statewide-elected pol in a with some strain of fiscal conservatism and decent crossover appeal. Not Pat Quinn or Jerry Brown (too old anyway). This generally describes NC governors but they rarely run for prez (last one was Uncle Terry). Can't speak for Andrew Cuomo, but my own state's John Hickenlooper checks a lot of the boxes.
    Sometimes I mistake this for a universe that cares. -- xkcd #625

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Here's a question. Who you think the Democrats will run in 2016? Clinton would be nearly 70 if she were to take office in 2017. The Democrats lost a lot of gubernatorial mansions in the slaughter of 2010.
    I thought Cuomo was the presumtive choice.
    "Something in my vicinity is Carolina blue and this offends me." - HPR

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    It sure as hell won't be Biden, either. I think it needs to be a statewide-elected pol in a with some strain of fiscal conservatism and decent crossover appeal. Not Pat Quinn or Jerry Brown (too old anyway). This generally describes NC governors but they rarely run for prez (last one was Uncle Terry). Can't speak for Andrew Cuomo, but my own state's John Hickenlooper checks a lot of the boxes.
    I agree with this, although I expect Hilary will have right of first refusal barring a major scandal, diplomatic fiasco or negative health development. Hickenlooper and the Maryland governor whose name escapes me would definitely fit the bill in my view. I don't that much about Cuomo, but he would need to be significantly more moderate than his father to fit your description above.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Here's a question. Who you think the Democrats will run in 2016? Clinton would be nearly 70 if she were to take office in 2017. The Democrats lost a lot of gubernatorial mansions in the slaughter of 2010.
    Other names that may bubble up in the next four years: Martin O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren (needs to win her Senate bid, of course), Deval Patrick, Rahm Emanuel. Some of their standing in the party will depend on the overall general mood and whether the next Democratic nominee will be looking to replace a 2 term Democratic President or unseat a Republican one, of course. None of the aforementioned are swing state people, but the ranks of rising stars in the Democratic party don't seem to be swelling with people from Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida.

    I actually think Rahm would potentially be really interesting. If he can erase the massive budget gap in Chicago, and be seen as having done something to stir up the corrupt aldermanic system at the same time, he'll have something pretty powerful to run on - a Democrat with a background in business who knows how to balance a budget and reform government. He'd have a difficult time getting progressives to rally to him, but that's a great resume for independents if he can put the Rahmbo stories of the '90's behind him.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Other names that may bubble up in the next four years: Martin O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren (needs to win her Senate bid, of course), Deval Patrick, Rahm Emanuel. Some of their standing in the party will depend on the overall general mood and whether the next Democratic nominee will be looking to replace a 2 term Democratic President or unseat a Republican one, of course. None of the aforementioned are swing state people, but the ranks of rising stars in the Democratic party don't seem to be swelling with people from Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida.

    I actually think Rahm would potentially be really interesting. If he can erase the massive budget gap in Chicago, and be seen as having done something to stir up the corrupt aldermanic system at the same time, he'll have something pretty powerful to run on - a Democrat with a background in business who knows how to balance a budget and reform government. He'd have a difficult time getting progressives to rally to him, but that's a great resume for independents if he can put the Rahmbo stories of the '90's behind him.
    Interesting. Has a sitting Mayor ever won the Presidency? If not, I find that somewhat odd, in that the Mayor of Chicago governs more people than, say, the mayor of Alaska, and the Mayor of New York more than the governor of about 38 states.

    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    Hickenlooper and the Maryland governor whose name escapes me would definitely fit the bill in my view.
    Tommy Carcetti, er, um, I mean, Martin O'Malley
    Last edited by throatybeard; 05-11-2012 at 03:29 PM.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I actually think Rahm would potentially be really interesting. If he can erase the massive budget gap in Chicago, and be seen as having done something to stir up the corrupt aldermanic system at the same time, he'll have something pretty powerful to run on - a Democrat with a background in business who knows how to balance a budget and reform government. He'd have a difficult time getting progressives to rally to him, but that's a great resume for independents if he can put the Rahmbo stories of the '90's behind him.
    Rahm is definitely an intriguing possibility. Beyond what you note above, I would add that his potential success as mayor will hinge a lot on his ability to exact significant concessions from unions. This would give him tons of cred with right-leaning independents and even moderate Republicans. I actually think his ties to the Clinton era would be net plus not negative, at least in the primaries (many independents view those years positively too). I don't think he was a very effective Chief of Staff for Obama, but with a strong stint as Mayor of Chicago and a longer-term history of getting things done, I doubt that would be much of a consideration for most voters.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by HaveFunExpectToWin View Post
    I thought Cuomo was the presumtive choice.
    He's the likely front-runner, unless Clinton or Biden run.

    PPP actually did a poll in Iowa just yesterday asking about 2016 democrats.

    Clinton has an 88/6 favorability rating with Democrats in the state. 62% say they would like her to be the nominee in 2016 to 14% for Joe Biden, 4% each for Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Cuomo, 2% each for Russ Feingold and Brian Schweitzer, 1% for Martin O'Malley, and 0% for Mark Warner.
    If neither Clinton nor Biden run, 47% say they are undecided, Cuomo is at 17%, Feingold at 15%, and Warren at 13%.

    -Jason "it is silly early to even think about this stuff" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Tommy Carcetti, er, um, I mean, Martin O'Malley
    Love the Wire reference

  15. #75

    2016

    I agree that it's a bit early to project 2016.

    Just from recent history, think how far Obama moved between 2004 and 2008 ... and Clinton between 1988 and 1992. Jimmy Carter was not even on the radar in 1974. Those are the only three Demrocratic winners since LBJ.

    Just saying that while the Republican line of succession is usually pretty easy to predict, on the Democratic side, it's usually a crap shoot.

    I also think that 2016 will depend a lot on how 2012 comes out. If it's a Republican triumph, then then most high-profile Democratic winner will almost immediately be a frontrunner (that's kind of that happened to Obama in 2004 -- his smashing victory in the Democratic senate race was one of the few bright spots in a bleak Democratic night). If Obama repeats, that makes it tougher to project ...

    A 2016 priimary battle involving Rahm would be interesting. Without getting into PPB territory, I think I can safely say that he is anathema to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.l Most progressives I know and read blame him for Obama's weak performance - in terms of fighting for Progressive issues -- in the first two years of his presidency (when the Dems ciontrolled both houses of Congress).

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Interesting. Has a sitting Mayor ever won the Presidency? If not, I find that somewhat odd, in that the Mayor of Chicago governs more people than, say, the mayor of Alaska, and the Mayor of New York more than the governor of about 38 states.



    Tommy Carcetti, er, um, I mean, Martin O'Malley
    Cory Booker (Newark's mayor) would also be a viable candidate for any office he considers. He has a great national following, especially among younger voters.
    2003-2004 HLM

    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by blazindw View Post
    Cory Booker (Newark's mayor) would also be a viable candidate for any office he considers. He has a great national following, especially among younger voters.
    For folks who do not know about him, Corey Booker is a different kind of politician. He is a genuine hero after he rushed into a burning building to save a woman inside. We are talking about a guy who voluntarily lived in the worst part of town so he could keep an eye on drug dealers and poverty. A man who has made combating crime and boosting education funding his paramount goals because his city had such a horrid crime problem and such bad schools. Is there anyone out there who thinks fighting crime and educating our youth are bad ideas? Mark Zuckerberg was so impressed with Booker that he gave $100 million to the Newark Public School system.

    I don't know if Booker will ever aspire to higher office. People who know him say he thinks he can get more done staying a bit smaller. I think dealing with congress could frustrate him if he were to run for Senate or President.

    -Jason "Zuckerberg's gift is stunning... he has no ties to Newark at all" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -Jason "it is silly early to even think about this stuff" Evans
    Yeah, but there will be a five-page thread about who the starting five in 2014-2015 should be before long.

    (hint: QC and Murphy are prominent).

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  20. #80
    Whoops, sorry misquoted

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •