The poll I listed below shows the answer for now

Candidate Obama: "The Question In This Election Is Not 'Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?' We Know The Answer To That. The Real Question Is, 'Will This Country Be Better Off Four Years From Now?'" (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Sarasota, FL, 10/30/08)

14,241,059: Increase In Americans Receiving Food Stamps Since January 2009. (Department Of Agriculture, Accessed 3/9/12)

2,730,000: Increase In Americans Unemployed For At Least 27 Weeks Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

2,413,000: Increase In Americans Unemployed For At Least 27 Weeks Since Stimulus Was Passed. (BLS, 3/9/12)

1,004,000: Decrease In Construction Jobs Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

$15,316.70: Increase In Each Citizens Share Of The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 3/9/12)

894,000: Decrease In Construction Jobs Since Stimulus Was Passed. (BLS, 3/9/12)

864,000: Decrease In Jobs Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

757,000: Increase In Unemployed Workers Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

603,000: Decrease In Manufacturing Jobs Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

557,000: Increase In Marginally Attached Workers Since Stimulus Was Passed. (BLS, 3/9/12)

495,000: Decrease In Manufacturing Jobs Since Stimulus Was Passed. (BLS, 3/9/12)

458,000: Increase In Marginally Attached Workers Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

274,000: Decrease In Private Sector Jobs Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

63,000: Increase In People Working Part Time For Economic Reasons Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

103.5%: Increase In Price Per Gallon Of Regular Gas Since Obama Took Office. (AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report, Accessed 3/9/12)

50.1%: Increase In American Households Receiving Food Stamps Since January 2009. (Department Of Agriculture, Accessed 3/9/12)

20.2: Increase In Average Weeks Unemployed Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

15.9% Increase In Americans Living In Poverty Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 3/9/12)

3.1%: Percentage Point Increase Of Youth Unemployment Rate (16-19) Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

$1.911: Increase In Price Per Gallon Of Regular Gas Since Obama Took Office. (AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report, Accessed 3/9/12)

1.4%: Percentage Point Increase In African American Unemployment Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

0.7%: Percentage Point Increase In Hispanic Unemployment Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

0.7%: Percentage Point Increase In U-6 Real Unemployment Rate Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

0.5%: Percentage Point Increase In Unemployment Rate Since Obama Took Office. (BLS, 3/9/12)

Romney can’t connect with the middle class

Commentary: Mitt needs to talk to us directly about being rich

 

By Rex Nutting, Marke****ch

WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) — If Mitt Romney is going to win this election, he’s going to have to overcome the impression that he’s running for president of the richest 1%.

So far, he hasn’t made the case that he’d be the president for all of us; he’s barely even tried.

Throughout this primary election season, Romney has found his sturdiest support from voters with the highest incomes — those who make over $100,000 a year. He hasn’t won a majority of middle-class voters in any of the early battleground primaries, even though about 80% of voters live in a household with incomes below $100,000.

He knows he must ultimately win over Republicans and independents who earn middle-class incomes, yet he hasn’t yet been able to connect his campaign with the struggles of the average American family.

Oh, he’s tried. He’s tried to bond with the unemployed by saying that he, too, has been unemployed for the past five years (while making around $100 million from his investments). He’s tried to bond with racing fans by saying that, while he doesn’t follow the sport, some of his best friends own NASCAR teams. He’s tried to bond with auto workers by saying that his wife has two Cadillacs. He’s tried to bond with Southerners by saying he loves him some grits, y’all.

There’s a long tradition of American politicians cozying up to the voters by emphasizing their humble origins. Sometimes it works, most often when the politician actually has humble roots.

However, being poor or middle class isn’t a requirement for holding public office. Quite the contrary. This country also has a long tradition of electing very rich people to public office, from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Two-thirds of the senators are millionaires, and nearly half of the House has a net worth over $1 million.

FDR and JFK won the votes of working-class people without pandering. They didn’t talk about their love of grits, or cars, or guns. Instead, they talked about how they would work hard to improve the lives of everyone, especially the poor and working class who had been left behind.

This isn’t entirely a partisan issue. Republicans can talk to the poor and working class almost as effectively as Democrats can. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have earned their votes by talking about pocketbook issues such as jobs, immigration, taxes and the price of gasoline.

Romney’s supporters say his opponents are stirring up feelings of envy of Romney’s wealth, which has been estimated at a quarter of a billion dollars. But that hardly seems likely. After all, Americans literally idolize millionaires and billionaires. We love everything about rich people. We want to be them, and we want to be with them.

Perhaps Romney’s problem is that he’s a different kind of rich man. He didn’t make his money by building something from scratch, like a Bill Gates or a Henry Ford. He didn’t make his money by dazzling us with his brilliance or skill, like a Michael Jordan or a Michael Jackson. He made his money with financial engineering.

Under Romney, Bain Capital helped failing companies turn around, and helped fledgling companies get a start. But if Bain Capital had a fabulous record of nurturing young companies that created thousands of jobs, we’d hear more about those success stories. Instead, we have a record that is mostly notable for enriching Bain Capital’s investors, not for creating great companies that offered products or services that fulfilled the wants and needs of the people.

Voters say Romney does a poor job of caring about average people, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Romney’s audience has always been a roomful of investors, not a nation full of customers, or workers, or voters.

That’s still Romney’s audience. His campaign is bankrolled by them. His major policy proposal is a $725,000 tax cut for the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans, a $150 tax increase for the poorest 20% of Americans, and unspecified spending reductions in the programs that millions of poor and working-class Americans rely on to help them get health care or receive an education or put food on the table.

The working class knows guys like Romney, guys who won’t look you in the eye when they come into the office or the factory, guys who can decide your fate by analyzing a spreadsheet without ever knowing your name. It’s too bad, but it’s just business. We must please the investors.

Is it too late for Romney to appeal to middle-class voters? Perhaps not, but it’s clear that his approach so far has failed.

First off, he needs to be himself: ditch the jeans and the folksy manner. Put your suit back on.

Second, he needs to do something dramatic. Just as Catholic JFK needed to give a speech addressing religion in 1960, multi-millionaire Romney needs to give a speech addressing wealth in 2012. He needs to look Americans square in the eye and tell them in plain English why their lives will be better off with Romney in the White House. And no fairy tales about job creators and trickle-down economics.

He’s already sold the investors on his restructuring plan, now he needs to sell the workers.

And if they disenfranchise enough voters, and use superior financial resources in super pacs

Besides having all the money, they're insisting people ought to carry ID too.

Scandalous, isn't it?

jd, I agree with your old self - I don't think the Republicans are going the way of the whigs at all.  They're a smaller party than they used to be, but a stronger party in many ways. 

And if they disenfranchise enough voters, and use superior financial resources in super pacs, it won't make any differencce.  Just look at what a difference money has made in this Republican primary - if Adelson were limited to 2,500, Gingrich would have dropped out after New Hampshire.

I do not believe that many of the republicans realize how out of step their view of taxes are with the majority of the population.  I also don't think they understand the view that most have in regards to their saber rattling with regards to Iran and Syria.  That being said, it wouldn't have made any difference if another candidate was running.  They all would have had to cower in the face of a large part of the party that is out to lunch.  In cc, 4 years ago, I argued vehemently against the view of people like mini that the republican party was going the way of the Whigs.  I know concede that I may have been wrong.

I don't know on what basis they're saying this, as what I hear is mere hearsay, so I can't ask them.  It's been pointed out to me that one or two Republican editorial writers have expressed the same thought, so they're probably hearing the same thing.

The distinction between electoral and popular votes is key.  McCain took 45% of the popular vote, but only 32% of the electoral college.   So obviously Obama could win by a comfortable electoral margin, while still winning by a margin of only 50.5% vs 49.5%.

When you said "if it is going to be a squeaker;so I assumed they thought he would win by a wider margin", that you meant if it is going to be a squeaker, so you assumed they thought he would win by a wider margin.  I believe it will be a squeaker.  I have no idea how close or not close these people think it might be.

As I've said before, the fact that heavy weight R's didn't jump into the race is very telling.

Got this in my mailbox today:

Friend --

If the general election were held today, President Obama would lose to Mitt Romney -- according to the latest poll from Washington Post-ABC News.

Now, many other polls put the President on top, but all point to the same reality: We're looking at a race that will be tighter than you think. And the other side has groups ready to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to tear down President Obama.

We cannot underestimate someone like Romney who has shown he will spend and say anything to win.

We need to turn up the pressure now.

If the idea of a President Romney scares you, it's time to own a piece of this campaign.

Donate $3 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/If-The-Election-Were-Today

Of course, we have plenty of good news to celebrate, and we must not overreact to any one poll. But this one is a reminder that we have to remain vigilant -- always focused on November 6th and the work we have to do to win.

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

My point, hayden, as I said, is that it strikes me as very odd indeed that your "high-placed Republican" acquaintances are "privately" saying that Obama will win.

His favorability has dropped to 41%, there are still months to go until the election, and, even now, most polls have this as a squeaker election. So why would your Republican friends be so ready to concede the election? If he was predicted to win by a larger margin--okay; but not in this scenario.

according to that poll in bloomberg, its more than in my dreams and with the economy clearing picking up, I think it will be your disappointment in November.

Au contraire, hayden. You are not comprehending what I am saying. Happens a lot around here.

me:  I have said - pretty clearly, I thought - that it's my understanding many highly-placed Republicans think that Obama will win.  I think he'll win, too, but I never thought it would be a cake walk.  In fact if he wins, I personally think it may be a squeaker.

hope:  I find it very odd that "high placed"r's are basically conceding an Obama win , if it is going to be a squeaker;so I assumed they thought he would win by a wider margin . I mean, why not fight harder if it's so close. Apparent panic in the white re obama'slatest poll numbers.

hope, it would be very helpful and certainly more productive if you would actually read what people write.

Dow 30 up 200pts, 03/13/2012.  Solidly above 13000. Gold is stable at 1625-1725/oz. Brent Crude is stablizing at ~106/barrel, Housing is stabilizing. New 300 apts units to be completed in next 2 months where I live and we still have 9% unemployment. DS lives in Seattle and rents/housing are ncreasing. His company has 10 positions open (techie stuff) and they hired 100 people in 2nd half of 2011 plus opened a second office. 

In all of 2008 and early 2009, he couldn't find a  FT job. 

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 13th of March 2012 07:08:58 PM

I have never lied on this forum. I'm sure a mistake has been made now and then as I have also never claimed to be omnipotent. With regard to the accusation that I lied, here is what I said -

28 states already require birth control to be offered by employers. Some of the states have a religious and some don't. Many of the exemptions offered by the states are like the one offered by the fed. Some states allow religious organizations to petition for an exemption, so it is handled on a case by case basis.

It is still my understanding that 28 states require birth control to be covered. I did not say that they all 28 have the same mandates on religious institutions.  There are lots of variations. The point was that the idea of mandating an insurance company to cover birth control is not a brand new, wild idea as some portrayed it.

Interesting how a video and a university syllabus can be "made up" in your world.

You  never discuss the issue at hand, cartera. You simply try by whatever means at your disposal (ad hominems, confusion, lies) to shut down the conversation.

Have you noticed that?

Wow, Breitbart manages to race bait and make things up from the grave and it's not even Easter yet.

So now I am a liar too? Or do I just sound like a liar?

Speak carefully grasshopper.

No one can look at that syllabus and say that he relied heavily Bell's radical writings, or even whether he agreed with what Bell wrote. Readings are in a syllabus for many reasons.  Most of Bell's writings used were just a few pages here and there or case summaries. The Breitbart spin on it is just not supported by the document. I assume you mean the video of Obama introducing Derrick Bell in the protest for more faculty diversity at Harvard? So what? Bell was a big deal on campus. He spoke at 1L orientations and he was the first black Harvard law professor. It can't be a surprise that Obama knew him and studied his writings. You'll find his writings on countless numbers of syllabuses for courses on race in America. I did a quick search and found his writings on lists for courses at Vassar, University of Florida and the University of Baltimore Law School. That was on the first page of the search. Breitbart is trying to scare white people and some are falling for it.

As long as the economy continues to improve, barring a shock from Europe and/or China, yes his numbers will improve and he will win the election.  A lot of people are not following what's going on during the republican primaries including republicans.  When it becomes clearer the degree that Romney wants to tilt everything to the wealthy, the better Obama will look.

"No President has won reelection with below 50% approval"

at the time of the election not 8 months before

What are Romney's or Santorum's or Gingrich's numbers?

They are not relevant at  this point. No President has won reelection with below 50% approval, with the exception of GWB, who was at 48%. It can be done, but it's not going to be a cake walk, as Hayden keeps positing.

"That's interesting that those "senior Republicans" are ready to give up the election to Obama, given these numbers:

I posted similar numbers a week or two ago."

What are Romney's or Santorum's or Gingrich's numbers?

One of Romney's problems is that, even among you all who favor Romney (sorry, longprime), you all cite how much you don't like Obama, which is Romney's weakness: what's he for, how does he make decisions.  Romney is all about tactics.  Listen to his speeches, and the vast majority of what he ever talks about is the campaign, the win.  He almost never talks about the country, what his vision is, what does he want us to look like in 10 years.

He is all about campaign and campaign tactics. He is oblivious to strategy and vision.  Listen closely to the people who know him, and you hear the same thing, that at Bain he was great in executing a pre-determined course; but that if events changed at all, he was not good at all at adapting and coming up with a new plan.  Listen to what people who know him, including his fans, actually say.  If you're okay with a president like that, then great, no problem for you.

The big fight - and it will be cut throat - will be for his VP.  From what I hear, most senior Republicans think Obama will win.  Therefore, the VP nomination will be key to the 2016 run, and that choice will be very influential in determining who has the inside tract. 

As you've probably all figured out, I hear a lot of inside Republican talk, as my H works with one of the more well known Republican govs.  They're unhappy about the economy because they see it turning around gradually, which is bad for them for 2012; but for this gov, that means he can run on "his" great financial record for 2016. So Republican at state levels are feeling pretty good right now.

Of course, Obama might lose, you never know.  After all, you all seem to be confident everyone will see Obama as the nasty, evil liar that you see him as.  (You're way in the minority - even our gov respects him.  And by the way, you're always talking about what a doofus Biden is - our gov speaks to him frequently and respects him. Take that in for a moment.) 

Since you're confident most people do, or at least will, see what's obvious to you, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.  So relax and enjoy.