Obama tied with generic Republican candidate

[TraneWreck]

If this Generic fellow can get through the primary, Obama could be in trouble.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The country seems to do better when we have a republican president in office and a majority of democrats in the congress etc.

Well. . .except for recent history (and probably older history). Or are you forgetting the boom cycle enjoyed during Clinton's term?

What exactly is this observation based on?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If this Generic fellow can get through the primary, Obama could be in trouble.

There's the rub. Sooner or later they've got to pick an actual candidate that has a lot of negative baggage.

 

[Upchurch]

I think he was referring again to the prediction markets (such as Intrade).

No, I get that. What I don't get is the claim that Intrade is pricing Obama as "a generic president". What does that mean and how is that supposed to effect the pricing?

 

[Madalch]

Generic candidates are significantly cheaper than brand-name ones, and everyone's watching the budget these days.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I get that. What I don't get is the claim that Intrade is pricing Obama as "a generic president". What does that mean and how is that supposed to effect the pricing?

Ah--I think it means that Obama is the probable winner at this point primarily (or even only) because he's the incumbent, and that there's no glaring reason he wouldn't be re-elected.

I think prediction markets are inherently different than opinion polls, though, in that they don't restrict what people take into consideration. So in that regard, I disagree.

 

[truethat]

Well. . .except for recent history (and probably older history). Or are you forgetting the boom cycle enjoyed during Clinton's term?

What exactly is this observation based on?

Clinton is an exception because of the economy, however I do think that he dropped the ball on terrorism and that contributed to 911. I remember that he really didn't react to the bombing of the USS Cole, which to me was an act of war. But it was pretty much ignored.

But in general I think most people do seem to be a bit more lenient when it comes to public policy as long as there is a Republican president. We tend to make more progress than we realize.

I'm just giving a vague opinion here, I don't have lots of things to back it up.

 

[Biscuit]

Clinton is an exception because of the economy, however I do think that he dropped the ball on terrorism and that contributed to 911. I remember that he really didn't react to the bombing of the USS Cole, which to me was an act of war. But it was pretty much ignored.

As I recall Clinton was harassed by the GOP, which was in charge of congress, for going after OBL. They claimed he was merely trying to deflect from his domestic scandal. They even ham-stringed the effort to blow up OBL by refusing funding for continued missile strikes. They were more interested in BJ's than OBL.

But in general I think most people do seem to be a bit more lenient when it comes to public policy as long as there is a Republican president. We tend to make more progress than we realize.

I'm just giving a vague opinion here, I don't have lots of things to back it up.

What are you referring to?

 

[truethat]

As I recall Clinton was harassed by the GOP, which was in charge of congress, for going after OBL. They claimed he was merely trying to deflect from his domestic scandal. They even ham-stringed the effort to blow up OBL by refusing funding for continued missile strikes. They were more interested in BJ's than OBL.



What are you referring to?

Not about OBL. But the bombing of the USS Cole.

 

[Biscuit]

Not about OBL. But the bombing of the USS Cole.

But he did react to the bombing of the Cole by launching cruise missile attacks in N. Africa and Afghanistan. The republican congress put an end to those actions through the power of the purse IIRC. They called it "wag the dog."

 

[Brainster]

No, I get that. What I don't get is the claim that Intrade is pricing Obama as "a generic president". What does that mean and how is that supposed to effect the pricing?

In general, most presidents who run for a second term win reelection. In my lifetime, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, Jr. were reelected. Carter and Bush, Sr. were not. So over that period of time, we have about 71% of presidents running for reeelection succeeding. I would argue that LBJ and Ford represent special cases (since they inherited the office) but if you want to throw them in the mix, it's 67%.

With Obama currently at 61% (or technically at 61 cents to make a dollar), you could argue that he's underperforming the historical average. But then you could also argue that his shares are overpriced based on the current polling. The reason for that is pretty apparent; since he still has plenty of time for the economy to recover, he could be in a much stronger position next fall than he looks now.

And this is not intended as a knock on Obama, by the way; I suspect that Bush's shares in 2003 in the markets were higher than might have been justified by the polling, on the same basis.

 

[Tricky]

In general, most presidents who run for a second term win reelection. In my lifetime, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, Jr. were reelected. Carter and Bush, Sr. were not. So over that period of time, we have about 71% of presidents running for reeelection succeeding. I would argue that LBJ and Ford represent special cases (since they inherited the office) but if you want to throw them in the mix, it's 67%.

LBJ won the only election he participated in. He chose not to run in 1968, though he would have been eligible since he had served less than two years in his "inherited" term. Had he run, he stood a pretty good chance of winning.

 

[TheNooch]

The problem is, "who is teh generic republican"?

Surely not Romney, as he will lose a great number of evangelicals.

Not Palin, cuz women with IQs over 100 will never vote for her.

You thinkin' Gingrich? No way, that scumbag will never get even stupid females to vote for him.

Santorum? that isn't even a real name, just google it and see.

Bachman. LOL. Funny thing is she is polling kind of high, with the tards.

Cain? Everyone knows ******* can't make a pizza, no way.

T-Paw. Sure he was guvner of a state when a bridge fell down and killed <100 people, not too bad.

The problem is, the Republicans don't even have a >generic candidate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The country seems to do better when we have a republican president in office and a majority of democrats in the congress etc.

I'm just giving a vague opinion here, I don't have lots of things to back it up.

Or even anything?

 

[leftysergeant]

The preferrence for a genric Republicon is based on the assumption that they will nominate a mature and rational person.

Like that's going to happen...

 

[Trakar]

The preferrence for a genric Republicon is based on the assumption that they will nominate a mature and rational person.

Like that's going to happen...

First a mature, rational person has to enter themselves into the running, they may be out there but I haven't seen them.

 

[McHrozni]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148076/2012-Voter-Preferences-Obama-Republican-Remain-Close.aspx

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-four percent of registered voters say they are more likely to vote for "the Republican Party's candidate" and 39% for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, according to Gallup's June update. The current five-percentage-point edge for the generic Republican is not a statistically significant lead, and neither side has held a meaningful lead at any point thus far in 2011."

It's early but he should be doing better than this.

True, but the GOP doesn't seem to be fielding many (well, any) good candidates. This is a result of a general dissapointment over Obama, which is a natural result of the outright obscene hype he generated.

If GOP can get a strong candidate within 8-10 months, Obamas' second term could be in deep trouble. The way things are going right now that isn't terribly likely to happen though.

McHrozni

 

[cwalner]

First a mature, rational person has to enter themselves into the running, they may be out there but I haven't seen them.

I might not agree with his policies, but I do not consider Romney as either immature or irrational.

I would say that I long for the days when we could respectfully disagree, but I don't thing I ever saw them in my lifetime.

 

[Mark6]

Generic candidates are significantly cheaper than brand-name ones, and everyone's watching the budget these days.

LOL!

 

[Trakar]

I might not agree with his policies, but I do not consider Romney as either immature or irrational.

My primary problem with Romney is that he willingly and actively courts and panders to many of the extremist fringe elements and policies,...which is, in my opinion, as bad as promoting and supporting those perspectives and policies as his own. IOW, for example, I don't care if Romney calls optional academic standards "Marxist" because he believes that to be true (whackadoodle land) or is merely doing so in an attempt to pander to the whackadoodles,...when those words leave his mouth he is being immature and irrational.

I would say that I long for the days when we could respectfully disagree, but I don't thing I ever saw them in my lifetime.

I recall them quite well, and they weren't that long ago, this doesn't mean that there were no cranks or mud sling fests, but merely that they generally didn't dominate the discussion or poison the entire exchange. Evidence and fact held some sway, and at the end of the day practicality and overall benefit were held in higher regard than the pursuit of illusory framing and partisan ideological goals.