I get that drift from cable-news punditry, and I don't watch Fox News, or only rarely. Republicans look to get stronger in Congress even. I think of how Barney Frank doesn't see much point in sticking around. There's the general rule that a president's bid for re-election is usually a referendum on the economy - good economy, thumbs up, bad economy, thumbs down. I don't think the Obama poeple feel this is going to be easy street, even with a Newt. They have a hard sell to make.
I think of how Barney Frank doesn't see much point in sticking around.
Convincing 300,000 new constituents to vote for you while still doing your job is a big task. I wouldn't consider this a negative sign, either. Dude's been in office for around 30 years, his leaving was bound to happen sooner or later and having to consider a whole new 300k people's interests is a good a reason as any to bow out of a long term job.
There's the general rule that a president's bid for re-election is usually a referendum on the economy - good economy, thumbs up, bad economy, thumbs down.
And there's ten months to go on that.
I don't think the Obama poeple feel this is going to be easy street, even with a Newt. They have a hard sell to make.
Hard sell != seeing a Republican victory on the horizon.
the money is still betting on a Republican victory.
Obama is faaar from a shoo-in. President Romney or even Gingrich is as likely.
You do see how these two things don't exactly play well one after another, correct?
One of the perils of talking with nothing but people we agree with is that the future comes as a very rude shock to us.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I agree with your second statement. I have doubts toward your first. That doesn't mean I think Obama is a shoe-in to win a second term, either. There's a massive difference between "easy victory", "far from a shoe in, other side is just as likely to win" and "money is betting on a Republican victory."
Right now I'm seeing "either side can win". Exactly what in this is a rude shock, and exactly how does "either side can win" translate to "betting on a Republican victory"?
Even Rasmussen is seeing Obama in a dead heat against Romney (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/election_2012_archive/november_2011/election_2012_obama_42_romney_40) (where he's ahead by 2%) and Newt (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/election_2012_archive/november_2011/national_poll_gingrich_45_obama_43) (where he's behind by 2%).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
Republicans look to get stronger in Congress even
I wouldn't be certain of that.
I think of how Barney Frank doesn't see much point in sticking around.
Convincing 300,000 new constituents to vote for you while still doing your job is a big task. I wouldn't consider this a negative sign, either. Dude's been in office for around 30 years, his leaving was bound to happen sooner or later and having to consider a whole new 300k people's interests is a good a reason as any to bow out of a long term job.
There's the general rule that a president's bid for re-election is usually a referendum on the economy - good economy, thumbs up, bad economy, thumbs down.
And there's ten months to go on that.
I don't think the Obama poeple feel this is going to be easy street, even with a Newt. They have a hard sell to make.
Hard sell != seeing a Republican victory on the horizon.
no subject
Obama is faaar from a shoo-in. President Romney or even Gingrich is as likely.
One of the perils of talking with nothing but people we agree with is that the future comes as a very rude shock to us.
no subject
Obama is faaar from a shoo-in. President Romney or even Gingrich is as likely.
You do see how these two things don't exactly play well one after another, correct?
One of the perils of talking with nothing but people we agree with is that the future comes as a very rude shock to us.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I agree with your second statement. I have doubts toward your first. That doesn't mean I think Obama is a shoe-in to win a second term, either. There's a massive difference between "easy victory", "far from a shoe in, other side is just as likely to win" and "money is betting on a Republican victory."
Right now I'm seeing "either side can win". Exactly what in this is a rude shock, and exactly how does "either side can win" translate to "betting on a Republican victory"?
Even Rasmussen is seeing Obama in a dead heat against Romney (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/election_2012_archive/november_2011/election_2012_obama_42_romney_40) (where he's ahead by 2%) and Newt (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/election_2012_archive/november_2011/national_poll_gingrich_45_obama_43) (where he's behind by 2%).
no subject