2012 Presidential Poll

Hypothetical 2012 Matchups
Obama 46% — Huckabee 45%
Obama 50% — Palin 44%
Obama 47% — Romney 42%
Obama 48% — Pawlenty 35%

Favorable Ratings
Huckabee 35 / 35
Palin 41 / 50
Pawlenty 12 / 24
Romney 32 / 36

Found here.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:55 | Posted in Measure 37 | 54 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • eagle eye

    Boy, the Republicans sure have their work cut out for them!

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Well, from this it looks like the Republicans will be in pretty good shape for 2010. For 2012 these polls are about as good as it gets for the Republicans but I wouldn’t bank on it. Things can turn around a lot in three years.

    If Democrats change course Republicans will be in trouble. If Obama continues on the same course we will continue to see defection in the Democrats ranks on capitol hill.

    • eagle eye

      If the economy improves, Obama will win in a walk in 2012. There could even be a Reagan-type blowout if things are really good.

      If the economy is not good, all bets are off.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >There could even be a Reagan-type blowout if things are really good.

        Unlikely as there is a lot of fundamental disagreement with BO on some very core points among the populace. This was not the case with Reagan.

        People agreed with Reagan on where he was coming from – They didn’t want the US to be a second rate nation, they wanted the Soviets faced down, they wanted the military built up and they wanted taxes lowered.

        With BO we have none of this, people don’t like the runaway deficit spending and they don’t seem that crazy about health care.

        Reagan was able to be up front about who he was because people liked his plans for America. BO has to run from or obfuscate his plans because people have fundamental disagreement with them. Look at the popularity of the health care take over. Cap and trade? Probably not a lot of people chomping at the bit for that one.

        You guys on the left have a tendency to think Republicans are successful because of mere circumstance. Thus your theory on Reagan, anyone can be him just so long as the economy is good.

        That’s not going to happen with BO. Don’t believe me?

        Just look at the landslide Reagan won against Carter vs. BO. Election circumstances for BO were far more favorable than they were for Reagan. The economy and public mood in the tank during both elections, however Reagan had a hostile press and won a landslide, BO had an adoring press and won by majority. BO’s opponent was a Republican senator who was detested by the party base, Reagan’s opponent was a sitting president who, while unpopular, was not hated by the base of the Democrat party.

        Thus BO had far more favorable circumstances politically in the last election than Reagan did in his first election. The time for BO’s landslide victory has probably passed. He can still get re-elected, I wouldn’t doubt that. However the cat’s out of the bag on who he is and people aren’t as crazy about it as they were BO the candidate.

        Bottom line – If BO does a political 180, like Clinton circa 1995, he has a better chance at strong reelection. If he stays the current course of spending like a maniac, going Tsar crazy, and in general pissing off the public, we will be looking at a one term presidency. Regan landslide in the next election? The only way possible is to have a huge recovery and do a Clinton political 180. That aint going to happen,. BO is many things but he is not as smart politically as Clinton.

        Come to think of it, even Clinton had a good economy and never won even a majority.

        Yep, if you are thinking a Reagan blow out is possible with this guy I would say your reading of the political tea leaves is about as wishfull as your take on these poll results.

  • Bob Clark

    This poll seems too generous to Huckabee given the sad outcome of his decision to release a criminal from prison who then ends up shooting dead four police officers most recently.

    The economy seems to be in recovery; and another year of repair to the economy, despite the very negative long-term consequences of Obama’s economic and social policies, should be in Bama’s favor. Another wildcard is Bin Laden is still out there, and Bama looks good if he takes out this guy before the next presidential election. Of course, another 9 11 type event (god forbid) works against Bama.

    Next year’s midterm looks good for Republicans to recover some of their recent losses, helping bring back their filibuster leverage. But this is not enough to stop the Dems from pushing the costly man made global warming scam (mmgw) on the U.S economy and American familys’ pocketbooks. The GOP is going to have to settle for a compromise or else allow the EPA to carry out the MMGW scam uncompromised.

    I find Wayne Allyn Root an interesting libertarian character who could split the vote for the Republicans in the 2012 presidential election. His policies sound good to me and I think he can carry his own in debates. However, there’s a little bit of a greasy feel to his self presentation which goes against him. Moreover, white businessmen types sporting the slick crop haircut and three piece suit seem to be out of favor with the public at this point.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Bob Clark:*

    This poll seems too generous to Huckabee given the sad outcome of his decision to release a criminal from prison

    *Bob T:*

    In fairness to Huckabee, he didn’t release the guy but commuted his sentence from about 90 or so years to, I think, 40-something which thus made him elligible for parole, which he eventually received.

    Huckabee did have a serious problem with this sort of thing, the proof being that he did this, or granted out-right pardons, to far more convicts than several previous governors combined.

    *Bob Clark:*

    The economy seems to be in recovery; and another year of repair to the economy, despite the very negative long-term consequences of Obama’s economic and social policies, should be in Bama’s favor.

    *Bob T:*

    Could be, but he could still maintain some favorable views by many who’ll vote against him just the same because they are over the magic feeling of 2008 and will say “Been there, done that”.

    *Bob Clark:*

    I find Wayne Allyn Root an interesting libertarian character who could split the vote for the Republicans in the 2012 presidential election.

    *Bob T:*

    He’d be far better than anyone from the big two, but it’s highly unlikely that he’ll “split the vote” for the Republicans. LP candidates reached their peak with Ed Clark some time back, and in the past two national elections have been getting an even more insignificant percentage than one percent.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Eagle Eye:*

    If the economy improves, Obama will win in a walk in 2012.

    *Bob T:*

    No – he will never be able to win in a walk. Too many negatives. Too many people are on to his hollow image. He’ll be lucky if he does a repeat of last November when he did get a huge majority of the EC but did not exactly get a popular vote blow-out like Johnson did in ’64.

    *Eagle Eye:*

    There could even be a Reagan-type blowout if things are really good.

    *Bob T:*

    Again, no way. Reagan won 49 states, and missed getting Minnesota by only a few thousand despite that state being the home state of his opponent.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • eagle eye

      Bob, don’t know if you were around then, but Reagan looked like he was finished at the depth of his recession. But he wound up slaughtering Mondale, of course. Obama could look this good in 2012.

      I would say Obama won in a walk in 2008. You might disagree. Won handily then?

      Basically, after the financial system feel apart around Sept. 15 2008, and McCain made his inane response, the election was over. The debates, Palin, etc didn’t help, but Obama already had it in the bag.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Lets also not forget that BO had an absolutely adoring press in the last election and a totally pitiful opponent who was hated by his base.

      He won by 12 then. If he couldn’t pull off a landslide with those conditions, he sure as hell wont be able to now that people know what he is about.

      Let’s also remember that the dimwit.

      You know the person that is border line retarded as the left likes to say.

      You know, the complete idiot that I am talking about?

      That’s right, Sarah Palin, yep, so lets keep in mind that a person the left considered border line retarded is within 6 points of the guy.

      I’m not saying she could beat him in an election, I’m just saying that when your guy has a mentally deficient person within 6 points, its bye bye cake walks for the foreseeable future.

      The economy may improve and with it BO’s numbers. Landslide? Not likely at all, as the veil has been lifted and unfortunately for BO, people now know who he is. Re-election is possible, but the strong odds would be on a slimmer victory than BO had in round one.

      • Anonymous

        Ahem… some of us center-righties (aka moderates) also consider her to be borderline retarded. That she is polling six points behind speaks to your point, for sure, but it speaks equally to the possibility that a sizable percentage of the voting populace is mentally deficient as well.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Ahem – You might want to get your lingo down a little better before you try the “I’m a moderate and I am offended by the right” routine.

          First of all, the phrase “center righty” immediately identifies you as a liberal trying to pull this stunt. There aren’t a lot of right wing people who would even use the phrase “I’m center right” but of those that did, virtually none would use the phrase “I’m a center – righty”.

          Second, bragging about being a moderate confirms it. Sure, there are plenty of people who identify as moderates. However when you do it in your opening statement it is pretty much a dead giveaway you are a Kos reader doing a poor attempt at the impersonation thing. I’ve never heard anyone who actually was a moderate being so middle road in their political leanings, but yet so activist in their moderateness that they feel a need to establish their bona fides right in the first sentence. It simply doesn’t make sense. Someone who is a moderate is hardly going to be so aggressively moderate that they want to get it out their right away. So, next time, leave that for the end, not the beginning.

          Third – Only far lefties go with the borderline retarded thing. You have to be far left to think someone who was a governor and who was the only sign of a pulse in McCain’s campaign, at least so far as the polls numbers go, is retarded. When you are the sole reason for McCain having his one nano second of higher poll numbers than BO right after the Republican convention, you are hardly retarded. Liberals are famous for name calling, we listened to “Bush is stupid” for eight years. Four years of “Bush is an out of touch idiot” before that and eight years of “Reagan is stupid” before that. We have the playbook down.

          If you want to try to fake being a moderate turned off by the right a real basic step would be to get out of the left wing playbook of using calling someone stupid as your main argument against their ideas.

          Just some tips. Do with it what you will. I just think it would be nice if there was at least a moderate amount of effort to do these sorts of fakes a bit better.

          Thanks

          • Anonymous

            Get over yourself already moron. I voted McCain AND I do not hold Palin in high regard. Your pathological need to think you know everything does not constitute what is and is not reality.

            Besides, I wasn’t bragging about anything. I was rubbing your face in it because I DON’T LIKE YOU.

            You are a perfect example of what I consider to be the lunatic fringe of the right. You make me cringe, you make me wish I believed in liberalism if for no other reason than to distance myself from people like you.

          • Anonymous

            If you voted for McCain but don’t like Palin, then it sounds like you DO believe in liberalism.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah… McCain is a liberal… uh huh… and you’re not an extremist… no, really.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >If you voted for McCain but don’t like Palin, then it sounds like you DO believe in liberalism.

            Yep, that one pretty much confirms it.

            Other clues:

            The launching straight to personal insult, The wacky hyperventilating with the odd capitalization of words mid sentence.

            My favorite cherry on the cake though is thinking calling McCain a liberal is an extremist. That’s a dead giveaway. McCain was hated by the base of the Republican party for this exact reason. The view that McCain was and is a liberal was a widely held view within the Republican party, hardly an extreme one. To not know this strains credulity that one is a Republican.

          • Anonymous

            “Yep, that one pretty much confirms it.”

            Oh, sure it does! Absolutely confirms it! All real Republicans know full well that Sarah Palin is in possession of the sharpest mind to arrive on the political scene in decades. She’s an intellectual giant! I, for one, don’t know how we’ve even survived without her. She’s magnificent, a genuine visionary.

            “The launching straight to personal insult, The wacky hyperventilating with the odd capitalization of words mid sentence.”

            Poor little Rupert. He has conflated intense dislike of him with liberalism. By the way little guy, capitalization is a fairly common means of emphasis in forums such as this one. Don’t worry, you’ll figure it out eventually.

            “My favorite cherry on the cake though is thinking calling McCain a liberal is an extremist. That’s a dead giveaway. McCain was hated by the base of the Republican party for this exact reason. The view that McCain was and is a liberal was a widely held view within the Republican party, hardly an extreme one. To not know this strains credulity that one is a Republican.”

            Awww, Rupert is stumbling on his idiot logic again… so sad. He thinks that because the Republican party has been hijacked by simpleminded evangelicals that McCain is no longer conservative. So strange that 50,000,000+ Americans voted for him in 2008. Must have been me and all those silly Democrats, huh?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Besides, I wasn’t bragging about anything. I was rubbing your face in it because I DON’T LIKE YOU.

            Well, I’m not sure how your political leanings one way or the other rub my face in much of anything, but it is kind of an interesting take on it.

            Not everything has to make sense I suppose, and I can be fine with that. For example, I don’t know why but I absolutely love that you hate me.

            >You are a perfect example of what I consider to be the lunatic fringe of the right.

            Well, considering this is coming from someone who feels a need to impersonate a political affiliation, post anonymously to do little but insult people and uses a lot of weird word capitalization I would say your considering me a lunatic is not exactly a bad thing.

            Hmmm, maybe that’s why I love that you hate me?

            What a crazy relationship you and I have, wouldn’t you agree?

            >You make me cringe

            Yes….. yes….. good Luke…. feel the hate come from within you….embrace it

            feel the power of the Dark Side my young apprentice.

            >you make me wish I believed in liberalism

            Of course I do, and do you want to know why?

            Because I am the all powerful Rupert in Springfield, who has the power to cloud the minds of weird word capitalizer and make them wish to change political affiliation with just a mere paragraph.

            Bow down to me lowly odd word capitalizer, for I am your lord God, Rupert In Springfield…..your soul is mine!

            >if for no other reason than to distance myself from people like you.

            Maybe you need to take a step back, look at some of the bumper stickers on your car and honor my diversity?

            Just a thought.

            Kiss kiss…. keep on hating me hating me!

            Ciao!

          • Anonymous

            I don’t consider you a lunatic, I consider you a loud-mouthed blowhard who is apparently a little too literal-minded and not nearly as erudite as he thinks he is. The “lunatic fringe” is a term that was coined by Teddy Roosevelt in the early twentieth century with the intention of marginalizing American anarchists. It has since come into common usage as a term to describe members of political or social movements that advocate extreme or fanatical views. People like you.

            Bumper stickers?? Diversity?? Did I suggest any harm should come to you??

          • tyrlac

            vLa80s mwjczgtkijtc, [url=https://pilcqrsfgljk.com/]pilcqrsfgljk[/url], [link=https://bjgtsjqakybk.com/]bjgtsjqakybk[/link], https://fifvrjsiboof.com/

          • eagle eye

            Rupert, what’s with the faux (that’s French) indignation over the person’s self-identification?

            You’ve been posing as an intelligent conservative small businessmen for years here. Anyone can see that YOU’re the Impostor! I’ll leave it to your imagination which part(s) of the disguise ring(s) false.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Rupert, what’s with the faux (that’s French) indignation over the person’s self-identification?

            I’m not sure what is with it at all since I expressed no indignation. merely a desire for more clever impersonation.

            You, on the other hand, felt a need to drop into the fray with not a lot but insults regarding my intelligence. Your words betray you, the indignation is yours.

            Maybe try not to let it get to you so much next time?

            >You’ve been posing as an intelligent conservative small businessmen for years here. Anyone can see that YOU’re the Impostor! I’ll leave it to your imagination which part(s) of the disguise ring(s) false.

            You know, since you never contribute much beyond personal insults when someone disagrees with you one would think you would at least refine those insults to some level beyond that which we apprehend here. They always tend to be fairly high school level but perhaps credit is due for the consistency of their dullness.

            Obviously you haven’t worked on your arguments to so little an extent that you haven’t the slightest ability to rebut disagreement in a civil fashion. I would suggest that since you are determined to remain lacking in that regard that maybe you could fill that void with something a little more advanced than the intellectual backwater from which your insults clearly emanate.

          • Anonymous

            Eagle eye, just face it, none of us will ever attain the heights of sophistication that Rupert has been able to achieve here on oregoncatalyst.com. Heck, we would be fools to even try! So, so impressive is he…

            Check this out (this is what he does when he’s not enlightening us with his sophistries):

            https://www.amateuralbum.net/member.php?ppaction=profile&uid=42574

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Oh I can absolutly assure you, I do far worse than that when I am not on here.

            I do appreciate your infatuation with me though. It is somewhat intoxicating!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            You know though, if you would like some nude pictures of me, I would be more than happy to send you some.

            The ones on that site were probably close to ten years old. If you would like more recent ones Id be happy to send them to you.

            At least now you are being a little more honest as regards your feelings towards me. Somehow Im not exactly sure I would classify those feeling as hatred though if you are spending your time looking for nude shots of me.

            I am flattered though.

          • Anonymous

            Rupert, the result of a 10 second google search. A disturbing discovery to say the least. I can absolutely assure you that I do not want anything to do with you. That said, I respect that you are not ashamed. Good for you. Though I’m not sure Mrs. Palin would approve. Best wishes and be safe.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Well, if you are going to be disturbed by my nudity, then perhaps it doesn’t make a lot of sense to go looking at sites like Amateur Action which is clearly an adult site.

            In the interest of fairness I should perhaps warn you that there are probably hundreds of nude pictures of me all over the internet. I spend a lot of time going to parties where a large number of the attendees are nude. Sometimes I am one of them, other times I am garbed in more exotic attire. Being involved in such things is both greatly enjoyable to me and is pretty much part of my job description. I’ve done more than a few radio interviews on the subject, been in documentaries on it, taught classes both informally and on the lecture circuit. I’m not saying this to blow my own horn but to make clear to you that the reason this doesn’t come up here is not due to shame, but because it is not germane to a political blog.

            As far as Sarah Palin, or others approval – it would never occur to me for a second to consider leading my life in accordance with what some politician, or anyone else, would approve of or disapprove of. The consternation of others is as irrelevant to me as my life should be to them.

            I would far rather suffer the occasional mockery, or console away the tears that my oh so disturbing life has caused someone than to feign composure that is banal to myself so as to be offensive to no one.

            I am not saying a word of this, in this particular reply, to be antagonistic to you.

            I hope it can be understood in that fashion. Personal lives really do not belong on a political blog and attempting to embarrass or mock people on that basis, whatever our differences, is something I would ask you to consider not doing in the future.

          • Anonymous

            In fairness to myself Rupert, all I did was google your email address. I was admittedly quite amused by the result though not in the least bit offended, not by your nudity or your behavior in your personal life. Grossed out a little bit? Sure. My last comment, wherein I paid respect to your lack of shame, was sincere.

            “I’m not saying this to blow my own horn but to make clear to you that the reason this doesn’t come up here is not due to shame, but because it is not germane to a political blog.”

            Rupert, who are you kidding? Everything you say is an effort to toot your own horn in one way or another. And I disagree, it is very much germane to a political blog and to this discussion. Politics is not solely the domain of economic policy making, Rupert. You, in your effort to antagonize me, refuse to accept my consideration of myself as a moderate conservative (i.e. one who is generally conservative in fiscal matters – though not extremely so or libertarian – and who is generally more liberal socially), and your reasoning for this lack of acceptance is because I have repeatedly expressed a dislike of Sarah Palin? Ridiculous!

            “As far as Sarah Palin, or others approval – it would never occur to me for a second to consider leading my life in accordance with what some politician, or anyone else, would approve of or disapprove of.”

            I was merely pointing out the irony of someone like you supporting someone like Sarah Palin, who would without question reject and condemn you and your lifestyle.

            “The consternation of others is as irrelevant to me as my life should be to them.”

            I couldn’t agree more, and that’s the whole point; the very reason I reject Palin and her ilk, the very reason I consider myself a moderate conservative. That label allows me to at least distinguish myself from her species of conservatism (whether you accept it or not, and whether you acknowledge the need for me to do so or not).

            “I am not saying a word of this, in this particular reply, to be antagonistic to you.”

            Good. And I hope for your sake that small minded individuals like Palin never attain power; so that you don’t have to defend yourself or your freedom to choose the kind of life you want to lead.

            “I hope it can be understood in that fashion. Personal lives really do not belong on a political blog and attempting to embarrass or mock people on that basis, whatever our differences, is something I would ask you to consider not doing in the future.”

            No, I won’t consider it. I can mock you for any reason I see fit. It’s still a free country and you’re a hypocrite and an a-hole.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            The only irony here is that you have just been caught doing exactly what you accuse Sarah Palin of.

            You are the one who went out of your way to try and mock my lifestyle, not Sarah Palin and not any other conservative here.

            You are the one who went looking for nude pictures, went to an adult site and found them and then said they were disturbed by them. Not any conservative, not Sarah Palin.

            You are the one who now is grossed out by nudity when you see it. Not Sarah Palin, not any conservative here.

            From where I sit, I don’t see a whole lot of conservatives trying to peek into my life just so they can get offended.

            All I see yet another small minded lefty prude who spends his time going to adult sites so he can be offended by nudity.

            How small does a person have to be to make anonymous posts about another’s sexuality to try and win an argument?

            How foolish does that person have to be for it not to occur to them that the reason it was so easy to find nude pictures of someone is probably because that person is very open about who they are?

            In one fell swoop you have established yourself as a sexual prude and something of an idiot for not figuring out your attempt to mock me would backfire precisely because of my openness

            I’m not sure it is possible to sink to a lower depth than the uptight easily offended little anonymous poster you now have established yourself as in this go round. Given that you still seem to think mocking peoples sexuality or commenting on their nudity is pertinant to this blog, I am sure you will prove me wrong on that one in the future.

          • Anonymous

            “The only irony here is that you have just been caught doing exactly what you accuse Sarah Palin of.”

            Wow, you’re really grasping at straws, aren’t you Rupert? (That’s an idiom, by the way. It means to make a futile attempt at something.)

            “You are the one who went out of your way to try and mock my lifestyle, not Sarah Palin and not any other conservative here.”

            Out of my way? Hmmmm, no, not really. And I was not mocking your lifestyle. I was mocking the inconsistency of your political ideology, which appears to be a mishmash of disparate ideas.

            “You are the one who went looking for nude pictures, went to an adult site and found them and then said they were disturbed by them. Not any conservative, not Sarah Palin.”

            Looking for nude pictures? Not at all, once again I simply googled your email out of curiosity.

            “You are the one who now is grossed out by nudity when you see it. Not Sarah Palin, not any conservative here.”

            Grossed out by nudity? What? No, like most red-blooded American boys I quite enjoy nudity. And though I don’t identify as gay or bi-sexual I have no shame in my appreciation of both the male and female form. It just so happens that I don’t find you particularly attractive.

            “From where I sit, I don’t see a whole lot of conservatives trying to peek into my life just so they can get offended.”

            Offended? Once again, not at all. Peeking into your life? Guilty. Start making personal judgments against others here and they very well may react in a similar fashion.

            “All I see yet another small minded lefty prude who spends his time going to adult sites so he can be offended by nudity.”

            Lefty? Prude? Believe what you like, it doesn’t change the fact that neither of those assertions is true.

            “How small does a person have to be to make anonymous posts about another’s sexuality to try and win an argument?”

            Anonymity is my prerogative and I see no reason that I should post my identity here. What argument?

            “How foolish does that person have to be for it not to occur to them that the reason it was so easy to find nude pictures of someone is probably because that person is very open about who they are?”

            I never suggested you were trying to hide anything, Rupert.

            “In one fell swoop you have established yourself as a sexual prude and something of an idiot for not figuring out your attempt to mock me would backfire precisely because of my openness”

            Whatever you say, champ.

            “I’m not sure it is possible to sink to a lower depth than the uptight easily offended little anonymous poster you now have established yourself as in this go round. Given that you still seem to think mocking peoples sexuality or commenting on their nudity is pertinant to this blog, I am sure you will prove me wrong on that one in the future.”

            I’ll certainly give it my best shot.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Good lord – I just noticed, you are up at 5.30 in the morning writing this sort of garbage?

            Between googling me to find something you felt would embaress me in the evenings and then being up at 5.30 in the morning to call me an a-hole it’s official….you are obsessed!

          • Anonymous

            “Good lord – I just noticed, you are up at 5.30 in the morning writing this sort of garbage?”

            Why are you concerned with my sleep schedule? I was on the internet before bed, and checked my email, the news, and this site when I woke up. Is that really so strange?

            “Between googling me to find something you felt would embaress me in the evenings and then being up at 5.30 in the morning to call me an a-hole it’s official….you are obsessed!”

            Interesting interpretation of my motivations. Here is mine of yours:

            Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.”[1]

            The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.[2] Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

      • efzunmktews

        WtK36i otvoenzkteuo, [url=https://vgysiqzdfdxx.com/]vgysiqzdfdxx[/url], [link=https://qgxwqxvjxlaa.com/]qgxwqxvjxlaa[/link], https://eykfowlxmjwk.com/

    • jlirrqafu

      bBVHGn ddchpbvynktz, [url=https://ydkekyzkmvsw.com/]ydkekyzkmvsw[/url], [link=https://kuqwdsoudcfs.com/]kuqwdsoudcfs[/link], https://yvdznqjyjnpq.com/

  • matthew vantress

    palin has no chance in heck of ever getting elected.i wont vote for that immature dimwit.

    • Anonymous

      liberal troll. if you think she is so awful, you should jump for joy at the thought of the GOP nominating her – as, in your world, that should mean Obama cakewalk.

      guess you are afraid she could actually win.

    • ydcdlptwbz

      Lh7cXW dwxjijcvqifr, [url=https://glrkykspdela.com/]glrkykspdela[/url], [link=https://nzfzdkmpujec.com/]nzfzdkmpujec[/link], https://oihtoxrfcyil.com/

  • Anonymous

    The big if is “if the economy improves.”

    Frankly, I don’t see much if to it. We have a short term bubble due to profit taking and holiday sales, made more artificial due to housing credits and the temp boost from cash for clunkers. Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts are about to expire, investors know it, and want to maximize short term gains right now so they can bail. So what is Obama doing to help the economy? Nothing. The only Obama policies to go into effect are increased taxes and increased spending. This is a long term economic train wreck, and by 2012 it will collapse.

    Now, if the GOP actually does well in 2010 and puts the kibosh on some Obama spending, that might actually help turn things around to the point that by 2012 we have seen the worst of it. In that case, can’t the GOP Congress take credit?

    Another consideration: Obama has completely failed to pass health care or cap and tax. Investors see him as weak and unable to pass the economy sinking bills. Could it be that business is only picking up slightly on investors banking on Obama failing?

  • Jack

    Sunday, December 13, 2009

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

    PS: Got that Socialists, Nobama is at 19% on Sunday

  • eagle eye

    Bottom line — with a terrible economy, Obama still beating all of these people!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Bottom line – With a terrible economy when you are only beating the woman your side claims is an idiot by one point, you are in heap big trouble.

  • matthew vantress

    the rasmussen poll is full of crap and unreliable because they only poll small amounts of people.why dont you poll every single american now and then come talk to us about the rasmussen poll

    • Anonymous

      When they poll every single American they usually call it an election.

    • Beau

      This pollster had the election picked almost exactly, his methods are as accurate as they come.

  • Opine says me

    By 2012 it may be Wen Jiabao and his forty ‘finanseers’ – https://www.forbes.com/global/2009/1116/china-billionaires-09-chuanfu-yongxing-china-40-richest-list.html – holding sufficient trump cards to call “ALL IN” on those still independently banking on what’s Left of US and Chairman Maobama.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Eagle Eye:*

    Bob, don’t know if you were around then, but Reagan looked like he was finished at the depth of his recession. But he wound up slaughtering Mondale, of course.

    *Bob T:*

    I was indeed around to witness every day of his eight years. He may have had low job approval numbers in the depth of not his, but Carter’s recession (you seem to forget that he came in with a declining economy and with additional factors set to make it worse, such as 20% interest rates and inflation in the mid teens or higher), but that could be explained as what you’d expect from citizens who judge things with too much short term emotion and little understanding of the economy. Reagan and others (incl many voters) did know that we were in for numerous quarters of recession including rising unemployment, but that minority knew that tax cuts and alleged budget-cutting weren’t to blame. Only the press and other ignorant activists said these things caused the problems. Reagan was thinking long-term, so ignored this (Stay the course, instead of gee, let’s pass some major spending legislation right now because it “looks good”).

    Compare this with Obama so far — he is getting much of his low approval ratings because more
    people are seeing that not only is he not a genius who fixes difficult problems with the touch of his fingers, but that he’s quite the empty suit who know very little and was clearly elevated far above his skill set, and looks quite stupid and ignorant at times. This while the press is still putting the best spin on his image and talents.

    *Eagle Eye:*

    Obama could look this good in 2012.

    *Bob T:*

    No he can’t. Not unless he’s lucky and faces a real destined-to-lose candidate such as Clinton was lucky to face in Bob Dole, even George H W Bush. The Repub primary voters and the party establishment lining up certain candidates are fully capable of doing that more often than the Dems are regarding their own candidates (and Palin may actually be that very candidate since I believe she;s like Pat Buchanan in that those who approve of her are loud and loyal, but that her ability to attract votes ends with them, or tops out right there at 40-something percent at best.)

    Sorry, but Obama, even with an improving economy, will still be in a tight race because the glamor has worn off and he’ll have to re-compete for many of the same voters who will not be easily fooled this time by the Twinkle-Toes powder.

    *Eagle Eye:*

    I would say Obama won in a walk in 2008. You might disagree. Won handily then?

    *Bob T:*

    It was a big Electoral College win, as it is designed (to provide, at times, the appearance of a clear winner), but I said that it wasn’t a huge popularity vote win such as what LBJ achieved, or others. If you look at the the vote totals in a number of states you will see that Obama won by a very small margin and that it doesn’t take much vote-flipping to reverse this. More in a bit.

    *Eagle Eye:*

    Basically, after the financial system feel apart around Sept. 15 2008, and McCain made his inane response, the election was over. The debates, Palin, etc didn’t help, but Obama already had it in the bag.

    *Bob T:*

    McCain was a lousy candidate, or at least his campaign as terrible. I don’t know if Palin hurt or not for it’s possible that he would have done worse without her. I never cared for McCain that much, and he came across as yet another Repub candidate who got the nomination because it “was his turn”. Besides, I agree that it was Obama’s to lose, and you can’t deny that the majority of the media adored him or the idea of him and that meant that he wasn’t analyzed and poked on a daily basis to the point that much of what he did or said became jokes as with any other candidate. For example, Palin couldn’t say anything slightly silly w/o it being news all week, and on SNL that weekend, and McCain had every work under the spotlight, all while Obama could say that he was in
    “New Pennsylvania”, and that he’d been to 57 (out of 60) states so far, and Biden could say that not only was FDR president when the stock market crashed in 1929 but that he went on TV to explain things to the nation, and no one cared. The lack of ridicule, which would have been normal for the course, helped them a good deal.

    Now back to the 2008 election results. Here’s an excellent website on all of our nation elections. It should come up with the 2008 results showing since these are the most recent, but you can call up any election and the url appears the same as you go along. Anyway, run your arrow over each state and you get the popular vote (and of course, popular vote gets turned into EC votes so as this total goes down, there can be a sudden drop in EC votes in 2012).

    You’ll note that the only states where McCain had thin victory margins were Missouri and Montana, while Obama had slim victories in key states like Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio (under 50% or barely over). If a Repub candidate takes those states in 2012, along with two others within reach — Colorado and Pensylvania — Obama’s sent packing. Nevada and New Jersey, too.

    https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • tanned, rested, and ready

      What I recall is that the recession under Reagan began under Reagan, not Carter. Granted, Carter appointed Volker and he decided to jack interest rates up as high as needed to squeeze out inflation, at the cost of very high unemployment (higher than in this recession). Reagan stayed with Volker and was very unpopular in 2002 and through most of 2003 as well. He benefited from the economic recovery in 04, and Mondale offered a balanced budget. Bad result for liberals.

      Now project ahead. The current recession, which started under Bush is now ending under Obama. He will likely have a growing economy & a declining annual deficit he can take double credit for. He will have several major policy initiatives, health care and energy policy, he can take credit or blame for depending on how those work out. We will be out of Iraq, and he can take some credit for that. Afghanistan is an unknown, but if his surge fails then he will say we are done and probably get that monkey off his back.

      And the Republican party looks crazy enough to nominate Palin, or some other whack job know-nothing who will run on what….a balanced budget? Ending abortion? Starting a new war with Iran? Killing off Medicare and SSI? What exactly will they run on? Hatred of Obama? Claiming he is an empty suit in spite of all the accomplishments of his first term?

      It will be a blowout.

      • D’oh

        You belie, comrade!

      • eagle eye

        It was Reagan’s recession, in the sense that he deliberately went along with and probably encourage Volcker, in order to try to stop the economic deterioration that culminated in the Carter years. Reagan also had a gutsy tax reduction plan to go along with the tight money. (Shades of JFK!)

        Of course, the terrible recession was unpopular, and it looked like Reagan might be finished. Even he, I think, began to doubt whether what he had done would work. But it did, and he won in a huge landslide.

        What will happen in 2012 is up for grabs. Either party could win in a blowout, is how it looks to me.

        Will the Republicans run on hatred of Obama?

        Well, why not?

        It worked for the Democrats in 2008, only the target then was poor George W. Bush.

      • Anonymous

        The recession began under Reagan? So what do you call what was happening under Carter? You know, the double digit inflation, the double digit interest rates, the double digit unemployment, the gas lines, the malaise that resulted in the new term “stagflation”? What do you call all that? Super happy fun time?

        Wow, I had no idea things were so rosy under Carter until big mean stupid evil RayGun came in and brought the nasty old recession bogeyman with him! Thank you for clearing that up!

        • tanned

          There was a mild recession at the tail end of Carter’s first term, January to July 1980. The economy then went into growth until 6 months after Reagan took office, then went into recession for 16 months. Then it grew through the end of his term, but the rate of growth slowed a lot at the end and we again went into recession under Bush 1.

          No one said things were “rosy” under Carter. They clearly were not. But you should accept the facts as they are. The Reagan recession both began and ended under Reagan.

          Running against Bush 2 worked because the economy was in the tank, and he had started 2 wars he failed to finish, among other things. If Obama is at 25% approval in the polls in 2012, then yes, Republicans can run against him and avoid crafting a positive agenda. If Obama is at 50% or above, it doesn’t matter what they do. No president has ever lost re-election when they were 50% or above in approval ratings.

        • bmargbia

          2a2Xtw ibbzqcmeqdcn, [url=https://ahguofluueue.com/]ahguofluueue[/url], [link=https://rtxsbyrhdnxp.com/]rtxsbyrhdnxp[/link], https://iupwjsesezhw.com/

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Eagle Eye:*

    It was Reagan’s recession, in the sense that he deliberately went along with and probably encourage Volcker, in order to try to stop the economic deterioration that culminated in the Carter years.

    *Bob T:*

    It was a recession that ready to get underway, if not already underway, by the time Reagan took office. They don’t just “happen” — at least not for the reasons Reagan and the Fed instituted. You and others still need to explain why controlling inflation causes a recession and unemployment in this case. I would say that inflation in the high teens and interest rates at 20-21% did a lot to weaken the economy even into the future as Carter was leaving office. Reagan at least resisted the temptation to pass huge or even moderately-sized “stimulous” packages because all they do is give the appearance of solving a problem and are merely vote-getters than anything else (oh, they also are the work of those who know little about the economy, i.e. they actually think they work).

    The Fed Reserve made a huge mistake in 29-33 by tightening the money supply the way it did (expanding it a great deal would also have been a mistake), and Hoover and Congress also made mistakes by trying to “correct” things through legislation such as trade protections (Hoover, despite what the myth-makers have written, was behind a number of New-Deal like programs — some kept by FDR, others not, just like his own record which included some programs that were jettisoned). FDR also exacerbated the problems in his own way. A recession in the very early 20s did not last long because the government did little. Recessions are normal, and serve purposes. A few basic short term programs are no problem for those who care, but getting into managing and micro-managing the economy is where things go wrong. In the end, the early 20s recession ended and was forgotten, and because the man in the White House did not try to “solve it”, he received no credit. Big deal. I don’t think he cared either, any more than a president protecting free expression should get credit for the existence of good novels and artwork and news reporting.

    *Eagle Eye:*

    Reagan also had a gutsy tax reduction plan to go along with the tight money. (Shades of JFK!)

    *Bob T:*

    Well, so they say. It was a JFK initiative that seemed obvious to many at the time (the very high war-time tax rates of 90% or so, or in the 80s if had gone down a bit prior to that, was really not doing anything for the economy except make some people feel good about supporting it). But it was LBJ who actually got it passed, just as he passed other legislative ideas that Kennedy had kind of started but couldn’t push that well. You see, Kennedy was a lightweight (despite what the “Camelot” flunkies have believed ever since). just as he was a lightweight as a senator (LBJ said he wasn’t there often, and rarely had any ideas on anything – that’s what you get when you’re a boy with a wealthy father who pushes you into politics).

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)