JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 24, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The most interesting question about the presidential election is whether President Obama can continue to defy political gravity. The abysmal state of the economy would, in ordinary conditions, mean almost certain defeat for an incumbent president. But two factors are, at least for now, keeping Obama competitive. First, Obama's popularity is holding up better than conditions would normally indicate. Second, the Republican Party remains incredibly unpopular.
PPP's national poll shows that Mitt Romney would fare better against Obama than would Rick Perry, who is already radioactive to moderates. But even Romney is not terribly popular, sporting a 35% favorable rating (48% unfavorable), well behind Obama's low-fifties rating. I suspect this poll underrates Romney's general election strength a bit. Much of his unfavorability seems to come from Republicans, who I suspect are unhappy with Romney's deviations but would come around if he faced off against Obama.
Still, it's striking that the public views all the Republican candidates much less favorably than Obama. Will that hold up in November 2012?
8 comments
All the more reason to replace BHO pdq. If BHO with incoherent and weak policies can beat Repub nut, then a Progressive Dem strongly advocating really effective Keynesian solutions that the voters already support can also win-- and bring on his coattails a much more Progressive House and Senate. If BHO wins, it will not change the leg composition--- i.e., 6 more years of the last two years. Just what all of you want.
- drofnats1
August 24, 2011 at 9:40am
Drof--I respectfully disagree with you, but, for the sake of argument, who would you choose as the Progressive Dem to replace BHO?
- ballston
August 24, 2011 at 9:47am
The bench is not well known-- but its a bottomless well of talent compared to the Repub bench!! My first choice would be Schweitzer of Montana. Another would be Sanders of Vermont. Others would be Wyden, Neopolitano (Hey-- if Huntsman can do it, maybe a real Dem could do it), Al Gore--- even Richardson, Dean to kick things off. I'd bet you big time that the challenger if at ALL credible gets 20% of voter support by week two. That puts blood in the water and the bigger political sharks then surface. Who in !@#$%^??? heard of McCarthy in 1968?? It takes someone like Mc Carthy saying "this can not go on". At the very least, a Progressive challenger gives BHO something on the left to compromise with--his most basic instinct. In that regard, we have Social Security today in no small part because FDR was using it to neutralize Huey Long before the latter was shot.
- drofnats1
August 24, 2011 at 10:41am
I think he's pining for a Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich ticket...
- wkwami
August 24, 2011 at 10:51am
wk-- Kucinich is a wacko. Sanders is not.... Every followed his political positions?? Or observed his political demeanor. How about the others listed--- or is everyone not an Obamaphile a nut?
- drofnats1
August 24, 2011 at 11:54am
I expect that poll numbers during Republican primaries, when there is no head to head attack, are not meaningful. It's like evaluating team offense without a strong defensive team to play against. Offense always looks good under those circumstances.
- Nusholtz
August 24, 2011 at 11:54am
I don't know who the !@#$% had heard of Gene McCarthy in 1968. I do know that Richard Nixon became president.
- ironyroad
August 24, 2011 at 12:34pm
Most non-Obamaphiles are not nuts. But the notion of running a primary campaign against a sitting president IS nuts. Especially given that we are citing 1968 as an example of what Dems SHOULD do. Good grief, to use another late sixties reference.
- miceelf
August 24, 2011 at 1:23pm