Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Bundy

Bundy
He doesn't believe in obeying the law.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Four Years Ago Today



Obama's lead over McCain was 1.9 percent.

Today, his lead over Romney is 2.8 percent.




Other races and polls show:

Senate Forecast: What Has Gone Wrong for G.O.P. Candidates?



"The trend in the presidential race has been difficult to discern lately. President Obama has very probably gained ground since the conventions, but it’s hard to say exactly how much, and how quickly his bounce is eroding.

There are no such ambiguities in the race for control of the Senate, however. Polls show key races shifting decisively toward the Democrats, with the Republican position deteriorating almost by the day.

Since we published our initial Senate forecast on Tuesday, Republicans have seen an additional decline in their standing in two major races.

Two polls of Virginia published on Wednesday gave the Democrat, the former Gov. Tim Kaine, leads of 4 and 7 percentage points over the Republican, the former Senator George Allen. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model now gives Mr. Kaine roughly a 75 percent chance of winning the seat on the strength of the new polls, up from about 60 percent in Tuesday’s forecast.

The other problematic state for Republicans is Wisconsin, where their candidate, the former Gov. Tommy Thompson, had once appeared to hold the advantage.


Mr. Thompson’s Democratic opponent, Representative Tammy Baldwin, had published an internal poll earlier this week showing her pulling into the lead. The FiveThirtyEight Senate and presidential forecasts do not use internal polls released directly by the campaigns, as they typically exaggerate their candidate’s standing."

These, of course, are only trends, and they don't say what will actually happen on election day.  But they are trending toward President Obama, not Mr. Romney, and it's getting late in the campaign season.

We still have the debates to get through.  Most experts say there aren't a whole lot of undecideds that the debates can bring to one side or the other.

It will be an interesting next 48 days.

 
 
 
 
 
 
h/t Pew Research, Andrew Sullivan's blog

 

20 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

I'd say thr republicans are in deep doo-doo!

Anonymous said...

Those numbers are too close, which only shows the gullibility of many voters. Amazing how almost half the voters support the lies and hypocrisy of the Republicans. I guess we can all learn from SF and RN, just how gullible (stupid) some Americans are.
"Keep the government out of my Medicare and Social Security!"

Rational Nation USA said...

Hey Anon, having fun?

You are quite correct though, there are a bunch of stupid (gullible) Americans. You stand in the front of that line.

Infidel753 said...

It still concerns me a bit that Gallup and Rasmussen show the race as closer than the other pollsters do. And it's still a worry that too many liberals might think Obama has this "in the bag" and not bother to vote. But yes, it's looking promising.

As for the debates, they rarely move the needle much unless one candidate or the other makes some spectacular blunder, and I think right now it's clear which of the two is more at risk to do that.

The funny thing is, Romney's big pitch was that he was this super-competent executive who can manage the country's way out of its problems. The endless stream of gaffes and missteps and goof-ups make him look like a bumbling amateur who can't even run his campaign properly, and completely undermine that.

Especially heartening to see Baldwin (and Warren) pulling ahead.

Daring to dream of a landslide.....

Silverfiddle said...

* There are fewer people working now than when Obama took office

* Poverty is up 24% and median income is down 8.1%

* The president tried to play dumb about it on Letterman, but he's increased the national debt by an unprecedented $6 trillion.

And despite the coronation of a man names Hussein Obama, who understand the Muslim world...

* People in Muslim countries hate us now more than when Bush was in office

So if we can get the plain facts out there before the voters, yeah, it should be an interesting 48 days watching Professor Fumbles try to explain away is malaise-riddled record of abject failure.

Rational Nation USA said...

This election is closer than some polls have it. Much closer. It could surprise.

Steve said...

I'm with Anon, RN,

Your post on redistribution proves you have no clue what financial redistribution is.
IS meaning, the change of wealth.
30 years ago the 1% owned 7% of Americas wealth.
Today the 1% ownes 25% of Americas wealth.
I call the redistribution of wealth.
From the poor, to the rich.

Leslie Parsley said...

I guess RN is also blocking out all the Republican criticism of the GOP candidate and the party as a whole. Oh well, I suppose if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist, right?

Encouraging signs but I too wish the numbers weren't so close. We dare not rest on our laurels.

Shaw Kenawe said...

It takes 10 years to recover from a financial crisis rooted in a housing collapse, and by that historical standard, Obama is beating the clock, not behind it.

Obama's stimulus plan has shaved two points off the unemployment rate.

Obama's restructuring of the auto industry saved one and a half million jobs.

Obama's health-care law will bring consumers and employers $2.3 billion in refunds from insurance companies.

President Obama beat McCain/Palin by 7 points in the last election.

That's called a "coronation" by sour old losers who are wetting themselves over what's currently happening in the polls.






Shaw Kenawe said...

"Ah how the Romneyites believed that with the struggling global economy and anemic recovery in the US, they had the perfect slogan for victory: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It's straight from the Reagan playbook, like their tax cuts and defense increases. It worked in 1980 so why isn't it working now? Sargent claims vindication. Brownstein explains:


That question divides likely voters almost exactly in thirds: in the poll, 31 percent say they are better off than four years ago, while 34 percent say they are worse off and 34 percent say they are about the same. Romney, predictably, wins more than four-fifths of voters who say they are worse off; the president, equally unsurprisingly, attracts almost nine in 10 of those who consider themselves better off.

Crucially, though, Obama holds a commanding 57 percent to 34 percent advantage among those who say their finances are unchanged. One reason for that critical tilt in his direction:

Voters who say their finances are unchanged also say, by a resounding 53 percent to 33 percent margin, that they believe the country has been better off over these past four years because Obama, rather than another candidate, won in 2008. Overall, 48 percent say they believe the country is better off because Obama won in 2008, while 41 percent say the nation would be in a stronger position today if another candidate had won."



Rational Nation USA said...

What RN is blocking out is personal, slanderous, and libelous statements aimed at the person.

I couldn't care less if the lot of you stuck to attacking the policies of the rEpublican neo fascist pArty of America. I HAVE done my share.

Stick to the criticism of the party, the policy, and the candidate and all comments get printed.

Attack the blog owner or another commenter such as Steve RR, and Anon do regularly and the comment will not see the light of day.

End of discussion, end of game.

Rational Nation USA said...

And I find it despicable that a progressive blog owner allows personal and slanderous statement on a vising conservative/libertarian that amounts to lies and misrepresentations. WITHOUT allowing a rebuttal response.

Hypocritical as hell. But to be expected from libbie land I guess.

See ya at the bottom of the cliff when the policies of the two major parties finally run us off the cliff.

YeeHaw! Enjoy the ride down.

Shaw Kenawe said...


RN, out of the 12 comments, previous to this one, on this thread, you are the author of 4,
33 1/3% of them.

I, the blog hostess, have given 2 comments, 16%.

I would say you have dominated this thread and have had ample space to answer your perceived insults.

You should have seen what I deleted.



Anonymous said...

Sorry RN,

Speaking from personal experience. You delete me when I only ask questions (embarrassing for you to answer) or simply disagree with your delusions, I mean conclusions.
I wrote no personal attacks, bad words, nor (your MO) was I even condescending.

Leslie Parsley said...

RN reminds me of Lisa who's always threatening to leave. The door is wide open.

Anonymous said...

It takes 10 years to recover from a financial crisis rooted in a housing collapse, and by that historical standard, Obama is beating the clock, not behind it.

Obama's stimulus plan has shaved two points off the unemployment rate.

Obama's restructuring of the auto industry saved one and a half million jobs.

Obama's health-care law will bring consumers and employers $2.3 billion in refunds from insurance companies.

That has been totally dis-proven by the GAO. Obamacare is planed to add 1.3 trillion to the cost of medical care. Premiums are up 6-8%, and expected to rise further

President Obama beat McCain/Palin by 7 points in the last election.

That statement is true that they beat Bush by 7% and now Obama is running against Bush again because he has to stay away from his record and find someone worse.

Obama's people have done a good job of running their media to stay away from the issues. it does take more than likability to run a country, as Obama has shown. Rock stars don't lead well they just make noise.

Steve,
There is a reason for the shift in wealth. The government has taken away the reason for many to work and better themselves, it's called welfare, adc, food stamps anything but work.

Shaw Kenawe said...

@Anon 9:05 AM


CBO: Supreme Court Decision Lowers Obamacare Costs
Read more at

Steve said...

Anon 9:05

That's BS and unless you can show evidence how growth in welfare makes the rich richer it remains BS.
Wages have been stagnant for 30 years, yet corporate profits and salaries have increased 10 times in the same time.
We cut taxes in half thirty years ago, but not spending, and you Math geniuses in the Republiscum party can't figure out why your policies have built the 16 trillion dollar debt.
According to Republiscums, if cutting taxes creates jobs we should be swimming in jobs.
The rise in welfare is do to 15 million unemployed due to the Republiscum recession because of their failed policies.
Please explain how another 5 trillion in tax cuts (Romney's plan) is going to do anything but add debt, as the past Republiscum fiscal policies have added debt?
Please explain where are all the jobs promised by the Republiscum policies are?
Please explain how Clinton produced 22 million jobs by raising taxes, when Republiscums claim that's impossible?

Silverfiddle said...

Yes Shaw, print enough money, and you can do most anything.

Love those high gas a food prices?

Love having less people working now that four years ago?

Forward! Into the Abyss!

Shaw Kenawe said...

you're wasting your time with that b.s., SF.

Even Republicans understand what you can't:

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday that Mitt Romney's longstanding strategy of making this election a referendum on President Obama's first term will fail.

"They need to focus on the next four years," he said. "If this election is just about the last four years, that's a muddy verdict. Bush was president during the financial meltdown. The Obama team has turned that around pretty well. The Clinton speech at the convention was very important in that way -- how horrible was it four years ago."