109 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

Ghux, on 10 Jan 2015 - 10:47, said:

Yeah, even if Romney secures the nomination, there's no chance he'll win the general election. He alienated too many people last time around.

For Romney not to win the general election the Democrats still have to have a candidate that can beat him. Hillary is about as likable as Nancy Pelosi, and being a woman is not a qualification for President, it's an accident of birth. Mitt Romney is a true leader and Hillary is a true politician. What else they got? Elizabeth Warren? That's right up there with Bernie Sanders and I hope they go with her. It would be McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis all over again. It mostly comes down to who wins Florida and Ohio anyway... the country is so divided.

[Niels]

Lysistrata, on 10 Jan 2015 - 16:11, said:

 

Ghux, on 10 Jan 2015 - 10:47, said:

Yeah, even if Romney secures the nomination, there's no chance he'll win the general election. He alienated too many people last time around.

For Romney not to win the general election the Democrats still have to have a candidate that can beat him. Hillary is about as likable as Nancy Pelosi, and being a woman is not a qualification for President, it's an accident of birth. Mitt Romney is a true leader and Hillary is a true politician. What else they got? Elizabeth Warren? That's right up there with Bernie Sanders and I hope they go with her. It would be McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis all over again. It mostly comes down to who wins Florida and Ohio anyway... the country is so divided.

 

 

On the other hand, one can look at the polls we do have and see that in Hillary v. Romney, the spread of polls conducted in 2014 were pretty well in favor of Clinton:

McClatchy-Marist, 2/4/14-2/9/14: Clinton 53, Romney 44, (Clinton +9)
Public Policy Polling, 3/6/14-3/9/14: Clinton 48, Romney 43 (Clinton +5)
CNN/ORC, 7/18/14-7/20/14: Clinton 55, Romney 42 (Clinton +13)
Quinnipiac University, 11/18/14-11/23/14: Clinton 44, Romney 45 (Romney +1)
Bloomberg Politics/Selzer & Co., 12/3/14-12/5/14: Clinton 45, Romney 39 (Clinton +6)
McClatchy-Marist, 12/3/14-12/9/14: Clinton 53, Romney 41 (Clinton +12)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

 

These two are well known and so there's probably not any really good reason to think the numbers will be changing based on people getting to know the candidates.  Rather they'll be subject to swings in popularity based on perceived competency of campaigning (Romney uncomfortably acting as a folksy common man being an incorrect move) and the general economic conditions of the country, which neither of them can control.
In contrast, there are potential candidates like John Kasich (Fox News, 12/7/14-12/9/14: Clinton 53, Kasich 37 (Clinton +16)) who could reasonably expect improvement of their present polling based on becoming more known.

People have made claims that polls, particularly this far out, aren't useful, but that position should be taken with caution, lest one end up like Romney/Ryan 2012, so overconfident despite close polls, that a concession speech wasn't even drafted.

All above numbers are of course national surveys because that's where we have the best data at the moment, but disregarding the possibility of some massive shift in the dispositions of populations of many states, we know about what to expect from the electoral college given various national vote scenarios:
Republican +2%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Democratic +4%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Democratic +7%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Lysistrata]

Polls are always a good measure of the mood of voters at the time. Many people like to say they love Hillary... and then she starts talking and they remember why they don't want her anywhere near the White House. Mitt Romney is the most qualified, honest, and decent leader I have ever known... and anyone that can beat Ronald Reagan on my list is a very impressive human being. Hateful people have attacked him relentlessly for things that mean absolutely nothing. I hope to see him get the last laugh.

[Icewolf]

I think the Republicans last time lost because they became so wrapped up in a bubble of Obama hatred that they forgot to pay attention to the rest of the USA, and they seem very focused on that point again. I remember the run up to the last election with every single opinion poll showing that Obama would win, and the Republicans party being so focused on its own belief that it was impossible for Obama to win they forgot to actually campaign properly. They completely disregared polls, went on "feelings" and spent the last few days patting themselves on the back for their inevitable victory. 

 

And they lost badly. 

 

If they spend this campaign focusing on Obama, and focusing on what they think is an unloseable election, they will lose again. You have to remember, that Americans may dislike Obama, but they still show increasingly that they support left wing values. Obama isn't running for election, and when it comes down to referendums in US states, legalisation of Cannabis, gay marriage rights, minimum wage, core republican issues get defeated again and again. 

 

And when in the primaries, under the national spotlight, the Republican party candidates have to come out against gay marriage, against the minimum wage, against legalisaiton of drugs, against climate change control measures, against abortion, all just to win the nomination, they will just allow the democrats to glide towards power. 

[Robert2424]

idk, it'll be interesting whoever is next president. 

[Lysistrata]

Icewolf has a solid grip on the problems Republicans have with issues. When Republicans are against the Federal laws, the Democrats will paint them as totally being against the issues. That is not the case, and they have a very hard time changing that narrative because voters don't think hard enough on what can happen later. Republicans are against a Federal minimum wage. Every state has their own minimum wage, with their own economic conditions. A "living wage" in San Francisco is vastly different from the "living wage" in Salt Lake City. States are the best place to set their minimum wage... but of course Democrats will say we are just greedy. Democrats will never tell you that they only want a higher income to tax more.

 

Perfect example is the recent decline in gas prices. OPEC doesn't like the U.S. creating our own energy sources, so they drop the price of oil to try to make us stop. Gas prices fall, and the Democrats jump at the chance to scream about raising the Federal gas tax. Democrats don't see prices falling as making life easier for the American people... they see prices falling as money they can take and direct to their own programs. So who's the greedy ones? Anytime there is money on the table, the Democrats have to spend it.

[Khandov]

Lysistrata, on 11 Jan 2015 - 16:56, said:

Icewolf has a solid grip on the problems Republicans have with issues. When Republicans are against the Federal laws, the Democrats will paint them as totally being against the issues. That is not the case, and they have a very hard time changing that narrative because voters don't think hard enough on what can happen later. Republicans are against a Federal minimum wage. Every state has their own minimum wage, with their own economic conditions. A "living wage" in San Francisco is vastly different from the "living wage" in Salt Lake City. States are the best place to set their minimum wage... but of course Democrats will say we are just greedy. Democrats will never tell you that they only want a higher income to tax more.

 

Perfect example is the recent decline in gas prices. OPEC doesn't like the U.S. creating our own energy sources, so they drop the price of oil to try to make us stop. Gas prices fall, and the Democrats jump at the chance to scream about raising the Federal gas tax. Democrats don't see prices falling as making life easier for the American people... they see prices falling as money they can take and direct to their own programs. So who's the greedy ones? Anytime there is money on the table, the Democrats have to spend it.

Unfortunately for the GOP, I doubt public opinion is going to take that into account; Most of media, so far, is not bored doing "blowjob" for the Democrats. And controlling the media, means controlling those who do not want to go beyond borders, eeh, CNN.

[Lysistrata]

Mitt Romney will not be running for President in 2016. This makes Jeb Bush ahead by a mile. Too bad.

[Icewolf]

I really don't think Jeb Bush will have a shot. George "dubbleya" Bush is still too much of a hated figure among the democrats and, lets face it, a fair chunk of the middle ground and the more liberterian streak of the Republicans. I am sure advertisers are already working on the "want more Bush?" slogans. 

 

The mathematics of politics is that elections are won by who turns out to vote. If you put forward a candidate that the other side detests, the other side will win because their supporters will run to the polling booth desperate to make sure anyone, whoever they are, gets into power instead. Putting fear into the hearts of the other side is just as deadly as failing to get your supporters cheering you on. 

 

I always think US politicians and political strategists, particular on the Republican side after the last few elections, need to take a look at the 1992 UK general election. The Labour Party had to win. Thatcher was gone, the conservative party was divided, 13 years of Conservative rule and it was Labour's time to come again. Public opinion was firmly behind them. The Labour Leader introduced himself as "the next prime Minister."

 

Polling day arrived. In no election, before or since, has any Party received more voters by numerical total. The winners had a 7 point lead over the second party. Driven by the bragging and celebrations of the Labour Party, driven by that fear, Tory voters came out in their millions, and handed the Conservative party another 5 years of power. 

[Lysistrata]

I'm too involved with American politics and I don't really understand British political parties. I assume their are vast differences in platforms. That being said, Jeb Bush is not my first choice... niether was Mitt Romney. The problem lies in the reality. The candidate that commands the support of the donors will always have the advantage. Sure Scott Walker can make a case, but it will take much more than his popularity with the conservative base to pull big money into his camp. He kind of has the personality of a parking meter and that will affect his campaign. He will have to inspire independents to support him and that will be very tough for him.

 

You talk about the hatred the left has for George W. as the reason Jeb can't win, but you skip the issue of the hatred the right has for Hillary Clinton. Jeb was a very popular Governor of Florida and has not been involved in politics for 15 years. He does not have the Texas accent George has, and speaks fluent Spanish... his wife is Hispanic and he's very popular with Hispanic voters. Jeb is not George and the only kink he has is his last name and we will see if he can overcome that. I believe the Clinton name poses the same, and it will be a wash. He will be hammered on school choice and immigration... but Romney was hammered about Romneycare and still got the nomination. Jeb knows his path to win is in the Hispanic vote, just like his brother.

 

Hillary has bigger problems. She's up to her ears with everything that Obama has done. The anti-war left hates her for Iraq and Libya. The enviornmentalists will hate her for her coming position on the Keystone XL (she won't go against the unions), the progressives will have a problem with her because she's rich and a Wall Street junkie, and the black community will not come out for her like they did for Obama. The USA hates a coronation, and it's all Hillary. Being a woman is not a qualification... it's a coin toss of birth.