Public Policy Polling finds President Barack Obama still beating every GOP presidential candidate (well, except for Jon Hunstman and Rick Santorum, who represent opposite ends of the sanity spectrum in the GOP and who get no polling love from PPP).
PPP's graph of the six candidates' standings versus the President teases me with a tenuous trend:
Interesting: order the candidates by gap between them and the President, and the bottom four line up in order of "surge". Bachmann surged first last summer; she's now the furthest behind. Perry surged in September, Cain last month... and now Gingrich, resurrecting the McCain back-from-the-dead 2008 campaign arc.
Now let your statistical imagination run wild: suppose this bar chart had some mystical connection to the arc of surges in this campaign. Could Ron Paul be next? If Thanksgiving belongs to Gingrich, followed by a return to implosion, could we spend Christmas reading about the amazing surge of Ron Paul?
I lay no money on that possibility... but it would be fun.
Have you ever seen a party have so many candidates implode in one year as the Republicans have this year. Obama might not even have to campaign. But he inherited such a mess from Bush that he has enough of a job just being president without having to worry about campaigning. Maybe the Republicans subconsciously realize how hard that job is right now and sabatoge themselves so they do not get that hard of a job.
Heard Joe Scarborough and crew this morning wondering exactly when it was that the GOP decided to be the "stupid" party. When did they begin to embrace ignorance as a positive value? And why?
I think this surge and fall back is totally being misread. The average GOP voter is doing exactly what they should do so far from the election. Test each candidate, don't make up their mind too early, and decide closer to primary day in their state. I for one have vacillated many times on who my favorite is. I don't think it is a reflection of the strenght of the field but only acknowledgement each have different strengths and weaknesses.
I also don't think any candidate has imploded beyond repair. Bachman is the only one who has found her "equilibrium" in my mind which is not a reflection on her views so much as her resemblance to Obama (weak on record of actual accomplishment or experience).
Perry must find a message. Cain has to deal with this accusation. Gingrich will fall as the infatuation wears off. Paul will have a surge (maybe is right now as well).
In the end, the nominee will be the one that best synthesizes the relative strengths of the reasons behind the surges. Anyone who thinks head-to-head means ANYTHING (good or bad) when the opposing party is still in examination stage is misreading what is going on. Reagan and Clinton were percieved as being dead on arrival at this stage while their party was still examining candidates.
At least we aren't doing with the Dem's did in 2008: Pick a horse based on what they wanted him to be, never really tested him. The GOP nominee will be battle-tested and I think this makes the nominee tougher than any poll taken today.
Troy, I'm thinking maybe the GOP "dark horse" here might be Jon Huntsman. Either that, or you guys may be headed for a brokered convention. That might be interesting. Imagine you could draft anyone you wanted today. Would it be any of the people in the current list of contenders?
Today, my order of preference is Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Paul, Perry, Bachman. A few weeks ago, it was Romney, Cain, Santorum, Perry, Paul, Gingrich, Bachman. A month ago, it was Cain, Romney, Perry, Santorum, Paul, Bachman.
So, yes. I'd take them all except Bachman. Huntsman isn't listed as he is the synthesis candidate. Has none of the overt strengths I like in my top four(Romney, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum) but also has a modicum of all of the strengths. My biggest question with him is would he know when to fight.
If he got the nomination, part of me says he could be the one that could actually diminish Dem turnout the most and kill Dem's down ticket across the nation. The question would be he also could dampen GOP enthusiasm and have the same impact downticket to the GOP. The question would be which effect would be greatest.
I agree that knowing when to fight is important. Obama needs to learn that domestically. I think he's got it down in terms of foreign policy. One thing all the GOP debates has done has trained people to watch and even enjoy the skirmishes.
Politically speaking, the GOP will probably want to be studying the McCain/Obama and the Biden/Palin debates. I doubt if you'll have anyone who can disarm Joe Biden the way Palin did. He had to be nice to her, and she didn't have to return the favor.
I'm thinking maybe the VP debates will be the hottest ones to watch. If you had Cain vs Biden it could turn into an hilarious gaffe-fest.
Mr. "H" clearly the above polling benefits President Obama; however, when he is pitted against a generic GOP candidate he is in a tie. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-Republican-generic-president/2011/11/14/id/417939
I would like to see a candidates do something really break out and come out with a historic running mate to capture the nation & GOP early on. Condi Rice as VP? Michelle Bachman as VP?
In the end, I think candidate ABO (anyone but Obama) will have the wind at their back regardless of the record amount of money President Obama will have.
Oh please Stace, from your lips (keyboard) to God's ears. Bachmann as VP candidate...Oh do please tell us why she should be a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world.
Troy, just circling back on your comment: "At least we aren’t doing with the Dem’s did in 2008: Pick a horse based on what they wanted him to be, never really tested him. The GOP nominee will be battle-tested and I think this makes the nominee tougher than any poll taken today."
Do you mean kind of like Sarah Palin?
Jana, she has a lifetime more experience than a young "community organizer" did, and he will go down as the worst president in history. Everything is up from there.
What you got against an accomplished, intelligent woman?
You just keep on worshiping your half term governor, you know the one that came close to bankrupting a town the size of a large apartment complex in a major city and wants to put that on her resume.
So where is our favorite political celeb? Is she quietly working on a profound foreign policy paper? Crafting a new national health care plan? Practicing to be the next family member on Dancing with the Stars? Or is she just resting from her exhausting family vacation (in a non-presidential campaigning style family bus painted like a political candidates campaign bus. What American family doesn't travel like that?) Please tell us she is going to jump in at the last second and save the day and that is why she was spending so much time in those family vacation favorites of New Hampshire and Iowa.
Although I would agree that her serious studies at 5 different universities and dating of a future NBA player are far superior to President Obama's flimsy Ivy League experience.
Stace, what was it that McCain and the Republicans did to not make Sarah the 'Undefeated?' Wait, she lost and she still named her movie the Undefeated? She got her butt kicked by a community organizer and she has the gall to say she's undefeated? She got beat by a job that called for a 4 year commitment and she thinks she's still undefeated?
Good grief, she is the poster child of the anti-intellectualism that is draining the life and brains out of the Republican Party faster than a blind date with a zombie on Halloween night.
I will admit that she has done a great job of memorizing bumper sticker platitudes and that should be enough to earn the Republican nomination.
Maybe, just maybe, if everyone sends her more money and claps loud enough she'll come back.
That the President was once a community organizer has nothing to do with his level of experience now. You can argue if you like that he was inexperienced when he was elected to the Presidency, but, by virtue of being President for three years, he is now by far the most experienced candidate in the field. You may not like them, but he's got a boatload of accomplishments at this point.
I don't especially think that experience is always the best thing to vote on, though it may be worth considering. At any rate, it's ludicrous to imagine that any challenger to a sitting President can make an argument based on being a more experienced job applicant.
But Stace, she didn't learn anything from that experience, at least nothing that makes her qualified to pronounce on global issues, much less govern.
Brett is right: the GOP doesn't get to refight the 2008 experience debate. The GOP took that question off the table when it allowed McCain to pick Palin. President Obama has more experience at the job than anyone else. You can't win on that argument.
Bachmann as a "historic" choice for VP? How? She's Palin redux. She pulls down whatever nominee you offer. Condi Rice... now she's a much different story. Romney–Rice... wait! Flip that ticket! Run Rice-o-Romney! Such a nice ring!
And Stace, Rasmussen finds Obama rising above even your favored generic candidate.
In the fall of 1979, President Carter polled way ahead of Reagan. In the fall of 1991, Bill Clinton was 3% in Democrat polls and GHW Bush was a shoo-in for re-election.
Polls today only tell us what might be the results if the election were held today. When is the election? Not today.
Why aren't the earth haters wedded to Santorum? He seems like the perfect candidate for the GOP.
Brett & Mr. "H"
Notice the operative word "did." Clearly someone who has been in a job has more experience at that job than someone who has not. My point was that she has more experience now then BHO did when he was elected.
Right Stace. Plus, she saw Putin flying over her house one day in Wasilla while she was endorsing all those oil company checks. That girl's on the ball alright. Knows just what to do with all those liberal turkeys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJd_vm9VhpU
Don't know why you are all arguing. The CFR will make sure we have a choice of two Establishment candidates. In other words, we won't have a real choice at the top of the ballot.
Sibby, if it were up to you, who would the alternative candidates to Obama be?
Bill, (insert snarky Bill comment here about typing slower so Bill can keep up with conversation).
Michelle Bachman was who the conversation was about. Something caught Jana's eye and she simply went off on a tangient http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAIGLkSMls
Oh! Bachman. Thanks, Stace. For a minute there I thought you were trying to defend the indefensible.
http://www.ranker.com/list/the-most-ridiculous-michele-bachmann-gaffes-and-mistakes/pilgrimsprogressive
"Sibby, if it were up to you, who would the alternative candidates to Obama be?"
Bill, Brannon Howse would be a good candidate. But in reality the best we can do is make sure our state puts the right people in the DC legislature who will regain the government for the people from the executive and judical branches.
You mean like: http://newsbusters.org/forum/topic-discussion/handy-reference-guide-obama039s-gaffes-and-goofs
South Dakota is so screwed. I wholly expect you red state bozos to elect Bill Janklow to the legislature after he's dead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhKqqYuV9MU
Der Spiegel Online: GOP candidates "farcical:" http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,800850,00.html
RT @dpogreba
Cain's endorsement of Gingrich to be celebrated in mass christian orgy, speaking in tongues:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/05/143132883/report-cain-to-endorse-gingrich?ft=1&f=1014
In hindsight, you should have laid money on that prediction...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
Dang! I was hoping to see that little jump on Huntsman's line keep going, but it appears Paul, Romney, and Perry have sucked up the growth this week. But I'll bet Huntsman is hanging on for New Hampshire.