Does Romney stand a snowballs chance in you know where to win the election?

[a351]

fiscal responsibility is making sure that what comes into the pocket of government is the same as what goes out. With the war and the economic downturn in 2008 it is not strange that some more money needs to go into the economy. With the lack of revenue coming in that has lead to problems.

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

Last year of Bush the mandatory expenditures were $1.89 trillion and the discretionary spending was $1.21 trillion
2013 for Obama has mandatory expenditures is $2.293 trillion the discretionary spending is $1.261 trillion

That proves that Obama has not been spending wildly, mandatory spending is set by existing laws, discretionary spending has just went by not that much so I don't know where you get the spend happy Obama from but I don't see that in the budgets.

Your stats only confirm my belief that both presidents were irresponsible spenders, at some point you have to compensate for lack of revenue with some substantial cuts in discretionary spending.

 

[specklebang]

I'm hardly enthused about Romney but my sense is that he has better management skills than Obama. The worry is that his determination to lower his tax bill to zero and do the same for the owner class will actually come to pass. I'd hope this was just the usual campaign fakery and that he would try to assemble America again.

That being said, I doubt he will win. Obama is a master politician and fund raiser. His support comes from the lower classes and there are more of those than owner class or big buck class.

Somewhere in the back of my mind is the question wether all this importing in excess of exporting and all this money creation for the owner class will trigger an economic upset in the dollar. Were that to happen (and I hope not) and things fall apart, I think Romney would be the more likely one to manage the crisis. Obama likes to develop new programs but he isn't so good with crisis response.

I voted for Obama. I'm not impressed. I may vote for Ron Paul as a means of not voting for either. I wish we were a meritocracy instead of a democracy.

 

[Peter King]

Your stats only confirm my belief that both presidents were irresponsible spenders, at some point you have to compensate for lack of revenue with some substantial cuts in discretionary spending.

war is expensive, 2 wars is even more expensive, economic problems like those of 2009 are expensive and an economic stimulus package are also very expensive.

 

[joko104]

Since the OP does not know the unemployment rate, inflation rate and gasoline costs, predicting the outcome of the election really is just a partisan statement based upon reciting what the media is currently saying as things are now. The rating of W. Bush ranged from 71% to 27%. Obama's has ranged from 31% to 67%. Guessing the situation in November is not a lot more than a guess.

 

[Fiddytree]

Before I read your reasons why you don't think so, can I ask if you have consulted election results from the previous century to gain insight into how often a "snowballs chance" regularly occurs? It's not as if the opposition never stands a chance, especially after looking at electoral college readouts and general vote results.

 

[Porchev]

That proves that Obama has not been spending wildly

LOL. Deficit spending in the Bush years was measured in the billions (160 billion in 2007 for example), Obama has increased deficit spending by a trillion dollars. In other words, he is spending about trillion dollars every year that we don't have. Putting a trillion dollars on the government credit card. It is unsustainable spending.

Here is one graph showing the deficit spending:

View attachment 67123297

 

[Peter King]

Since the OP does not know the unemployment rate, inflation rate and gasoline costs, predicting the outcome of the election really is just a partisan statement based upon reciting what the media is currently saying as things are now. The rating of W. Bush ranged from 71% to 27%. Obama's has ranged from 31% to 67%. Guessing the situation in November is not a lot more than a guess.

When Romney is going to run for president there are loads of states that will go for Obama, Romney has little or no chance at these states. These states are:
Washington (2008-Obama lead 18%, 5 times democratic in a row) 12 ev
Oregon (2008-Obama lead 16%, 5 times D in a row) 7 ev
California (2008-Obama lead 24%, 5 times D in a row) 55 ev
New Mexico (2008-Obama lead 15%, 4/5 times D, 1 R) 5 ev
Minnesota (2008-Obama lead 10%, 5 times D in a row) 10 ev
Wisconsin (2008-Obama lead 13%, 5 times D in a row) 10 ev
Illinois (2008-Obama lead 25%, 5 times D in a row) 20 ev
Michigan (2008-Obama lead 16%, 5 times D in a row) 16 ev
Maine (2008-Obama lead 18%, 5 times D in a row) 4 ev
New Hampshire (2008-Obama lead 9%, 4/5 times D, 1 R) 4 ev
Vermont (2008-Obama lead 35%, 5 times D in a row) 3 ev
Massachusetts (2008-Obama lead 26%, 5 times D in a row) 11 ev
Rhode Island (2008-Obama lead 28%, 5 times D in a row) 4 ev
Conneticut (2008-Obama lead 21%, 5 times D in a row) 7 ev
New Jersey (2008-Obama lead 15%, 5 times D in a row) 14 ev
Deleware (2008-Obama lead 23%, 5 times D in a row) 3 ev
Maryland (2008-Obama lead 23%, 5 times D in a row) 10 ev
DC (2008-Obama lead 86%, 5 times D in a row) 3 ev
New York (2008-Obama lead 25%, 5 times D in a row) 29 ev
Pennsylvania (2008-Obama lead 11%, 5 times D in a row) 20 ev
Iowa (2008-Obama lead 9%, 4/5 times D, 1 R) 6 ev
Hawaii (2008-Obama lead 45%, 5 times D in a row) 4 ev

That would give Obama 257 electoral votes

Last election he got Colorado (8% lead, 8 ev), Nevada (12% lead, 6 ev). If he holds those, Obama is president.
He also Florida by 2% and if he wins that, all hope is lost for the republicans.

Point is, the odds are not in Mitt Romney's favor.

 

[Camlon]

Yep, Obama is terrible at spending, but I have no doubt he will win. Previously, Republican contenders have had an approval rate that is around 55%, right now Mitt Romney is at 35%. Also, Obama is approaching a approval rating of over 50%. 55% is what you really need to be reelected in a normal reelection.

My expectation is that Obama is going to win Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire easily. If he does, then he has already won, and there are plently of states he can contend in such as North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and even in Arizona

 

[jerry7]

No one can accurately forecast the results this far out. Eight months in politics is a lifetime. Iraq, Afhanistan, Iran, the entire Middle East, gas, unemployment, the conscience clause, Fast and Furious, Solyndra. Nobody can predict the political climate this summer.
******************************************************************
Published: May 17, 1988

Michael S. Dukakis is capitalizing on deep public doubts about Vice President Bush and the Reagan Administration's handling of key issues and has emerged as the early favorite for the Presidential election in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Mr. Dukakis, the probable Democratic nominee, ran ahead of Mr. Bush, the almost certain Republican candidate, by 49 percent to 39 percent among 1,056 registered voters.

 

[johnny_rebson]

....GOPers staying home if Romney is the nominee.

And that is exactly what will happen.

Mitt Romney has a liberal track record.

Conservative Republicans will stay home or vote third party.

 

[Porchev]

Yep, Obama is terrible at spending, but I have no doubt he will win. Previously, Republican contenders have had an approval rate that is around 55%, right now Mitt Romney is at 35%. Also, Obama is approaching a approval rating of over 50%. 55% is what you really need to be reelected in a normal reelection.

My expectation is that Obama is going to win Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire easily. If he does, then he has already won, and there are plently of states he can contend in such as North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and even in Arizona

I think it is way too early to call it. If Romney becomes the nominee, his numbers will go up. Republicans are spread out with their support right now.

Here is an interesting map showing possible outcomes:

Freedom's Lighthouse » 2012 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Map & Projection

 

[johnny_rebson]

Republicans are spread out with their support right now.

We have Gingrich. We like the fact that he's conservative, but he's got baggage. He's on his third wife. He gave one wife divorce papers when she was fighting cancer.

We have Santorum. We like the fact that he's conservative, but he's seen as a bit too religious.

We have Paul. We like the fact that Paul is a fiscal conservative, but we're not thrilled about his comments regarding the military.

We have Romney. Many conservatives view him as a liberal. He created Romneycare. He raised taxes while in office in Massachusetts.


Of those four, the one that least excites the base of the GOP is Romney. I will go so far as too say many in the base despise Romney.

If Romney is the GOP nominee, he will be the 2012 version of John McCain.

 

[99percenter]

WHich trump card would those be? Killing jobs? Out of control spending? Obamacare, the most hated piece of legislation in history? More rounds of golf than any other prez? Cutting veterans bennies?

Get real, Obama isn't going to run on his record. I think we all know that.

Osama bin laden dead.

 

[99percenter]

I personally will say no.

Not just because it is difficult to win against a sitting president that is not very unpopular. And not just because the economic situation has started on it's way upward. No, it is much more basic than that.

1. Let's begin with the simple mathmetics of the race, last presidential campaign bank on McCain to bring his home state to the GOP. Romney does not stand any chance of personally bringing any states to which he is connected. He will not win his birth state of Michigan. He was barely able to fend off Santorum there and in a state that has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections, one must conclude that this state will almost certainly go to Obama.
The same can be said for the state he was governor of, Massachusetts, in the past 4 elections no democratic presidential candidate scored under 60% of the vote (average was 61.5%) compared to the highest for a GOP candidate of 37%. On average, the democratic presidential candidate wins there with a 28% lead (in the past 4 elections that is). So in Massachusetts Romney is also not going to carry that state.

2. Next is his public image, he is a rich, white, a guy and a mormon. And when I say rich, I mean proper filthy rich. He is proper fithly rich In a country where most people are not. In a lot of polls about Obama people are asked ""He understands the problems of ordinary Americans", think about when that question is asked about Romney, the man of slip ups like:

- My wife drives a couple of cadillacs
- “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
- I too, had feared the “pink slip” during my life.
- “I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks. A $10,000 bet.”
- “I’m also unemployed.”
- “Corporations are people, my friend.”
- “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
- says he 370,000$ fee was "not very much"

He is the perfect sitting duck for shows like the Today show and even a little bit the Colbert Report.

He also seems to put his foot in his mouth and still keep babbling on, like when he spoke in Michigan and he said:

“I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height,” he told the crowd. “I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars.”

3. The man is stiff, he is does not look very inspirational to me and I think to many people might see it that way too.

4. He is not republican/conservative enough on social issues

5. he is a great target the Super Pacs from the democratic side, because the man flip flops on very fundamental issues:

He was pro-choice before he became pro-life:

Romney, Oct. 29, 2002: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose”

Romney, Dec. 16, 2007: “The right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

he flopped on immigration (big issue for the Latino vote)

he flopped on Reagan

he flopped on embryonic stemcell research

Romney has flip flopped on a lot of issues, which is not strange because he wanted the job in Massachusetts so his he set his moral compass to "not too conservative" with all the opinions that belong to that, now he wants the big job, president of the USA so he needs all the really republican very conservative voters on his side so he is flopping like mad to look as conservative as he could possibly look like.




So we have had electability issues, in he does not bring in any big states to which he was formerly connected and steal them away from Obama. Then we had personality issues with his wealth, the connnection issues he has with normal people, the boring personality, the fact that he likes to put his foot into his mouth and still keep babbling nonsense, the fact that he flip flopps almost as bad as John Kerry did and the fact that he is in no way the best liked candidate for the strong conservate base of the party.

Then there is still one big issue left, number 6 on the list of issues for Romney, that last one is his faith.

6. Mormon. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, a faith that has been connected to cults that allow multiple wives, a faith where some have the nasty habit of performing baptisms on people they have no business in baptising. People like Obama's mother, Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal, Adolf Hitler and many jews who died in concentration camps. En then there are more issues, about the stuffs they ingest (or do not ingest like alcohol, coffee, tea, etc. etc.) and even about them having mormon underwear.

It was hard enough for the first Catholic to be chosen into office and for the first African American to be chosen as a president. I just do not think the US is ready willing and able to welcome a mormon as the next president.



Finallly,what is the upside to Romney? Well, he is a member of the GOP, he is really rich (advertising), has rich buddies (Superpacs), is white and for a lot of voters, he is not Obama.

Please remember, this is my personal observation based on the campaign I have seen so far, my following of US politics for many years and my views as an outsider, I do not hate or dislike mr. Romney but tried (from my point of view) to see what chances are that Romney will/can defeat Obama, and I just don't think it is going to happen.

Don't forget when he said that his 5 serving age kids are serving their country by working on his campaign.

 

[haymarket]

Obama's debt, the lingering economy and his overall economic record is the best thing Romney can run on.

A negative will only take you so far.

What is the positive for Romney?

 

[Porchev]

If Romney is the GOP nominee, he will be the 2012 version of John McCain.

But without the economy nose diving right before an election, and anti-war Democrats excited to see Bush gone. Romney would be 1000 times better than Obama. And I think Romney is a lot stronger candidate than McCain was.

"Romneycare" that Romney wanted is different than what was passed, because his vetoes were overturned. And Obamacare is a gigantic 2000+ page government expanding monster, Romneycare was a relatively small maybe 50 page attempt to insure the uninsured and give them some ownership of their healthcare.

 

[Peter King]

I think it is way too early to call it. If Romney becomes the nominee, his numbers will go up. Republicans are spread out with their support right now.

Here is an interesting map showing possible outcomes:

Freedom's Lighthouse » 2012 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Map & Projection

I would strongly disagree with some of the states this website named tossup, states like:

Wisconsin that even Kerry was able to win and Obama took with great ease
Pennsylvania that has voted 5 times for times in a row, 11% lead for Obama last time around

will never go Romney IMHO.

 

[Dittohead not!]

His best asset is his opponent.

Much the same way that Obama's best asset was his opponent last time around.

Can Romney win? Flip a coin. Can Santorum win? Flip a coin twenty times, and if it comes up the same every time, that's the odds of a Santorum presidency. Gingrich is history, might as well drop out. Paul would be a real, actual change from business as usual, but his chances are somewhat south of that proverbial snowball.

Romney's best asset is his history of bringing economically failing institutions back into the black. If voters think he might do the same for the federal government, he might just have a shot at the WH.

Of course, first he has to get past the religious nutters on the fringes of the Republican party.

 

[Porchev]

I would strongly disagree with some of the states this website named tossup, states like:

Wisconsin that even Kerry was able to win and Obama took with great ease
Pennsylvania that has voted 5 times for times in a row, 11% lead for Obama last time around

will never go Romney IMHO.

I don't know how it will all go, but as they say in investing, "Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Returns, Investments May Increase Or Decrease In Value", or in other words, it is not 2004 or 2008 anymore, situations may have changed. For example, the 2010 mid-terms elections were historic, and based on that I think this can go either way. And I think it will be close however it turns out.

 

[Grendel]

I'm hardly enthused about Romney but my sense is that he has better management skills than Obama.
[ . . . ] I think Romney would be the more likely one to manage the crisis.

"Estimated roughly, ignoring interactions and microdynamic effects, we find that without offsets Gov. Romney's plan on the whole would increase the debt by about $2.6 trillion," according to the nonpartisan committee.

RealClearPolitics - Romney's Budget-Balancing for Dummies

That's just one source, first one to come up in a google search, but if you look around, you'll find that every analysis from every non-partisan organization says the same thing: Romney's plans are worse than Obames and Bush's, both.

 

[jambalaya]

I still don't see a way clear for Romney to win save some unforeseen drastic event.

 

[solletica]

RealClearPolitics - Romney's Budget-Balancing for Dummies

That's just one source, first one to come up in a google search, but if you look around, you'll find that every analysis from every non-partisan organization says the same thing: Romney's plans are worse than Obames and Bush's, both.

Once again, a candidate's words are 100% irrelevant. Actions in office are determined solely by a candidate's sponsors. If the mormon wins, it'll merely sign off on legislation friendly to Wall$t. The END.

 

[solletica]

I still don't see a way clear for Romney to win save some unforeseen drastic event.

You mean like if a video of romney beating a homosexual with a club pops up?

 

[waka]

Followed by 8 years of Hillary Rodham Clinton

I don't know. IMO opinion Hillary probably deserves to be the first woman president. I feel she's done a good job as SOS. I'm wondering if she will be too old by then.

 

[Grendel]

Once again, a candidate's words are 100% irrelevant. Actions in office are determined solely by a candidate's sponsors. If the mormon wins, it'll merely sign off on legislation friendly to Wall$t. The END.

Green donors bet on Mitt Romney flip-flop - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

Romney and his super PAC have taken millions from funders with strong green streaks [ . . . ] Julian Robertson, founder of the Tiger Management hedge fund, helped put cap-and-trade legislation on the map with $60 million in contributions over the past decade to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Now, Robertson has given $1.25 million to Romney’s Restore our Future super PAC, plus the maximum $2,500 to the Romney campaign.

Wouldn't it be funny if they elected Romney in a 'rebellion' against Obama, then he did all the exact same stuff, because he works for the exact same people?