RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Who will win the 2012 presidency? The definitive answer

* Bumped Up *

Editor’s Note: We welcome SeattleGonz’s first post at NoQuarterUSA.net. Tomorrow, look for her next post.

———————————

Palin will win. No, I mean Hillary will be the next president. Uh, no, Obama has it locked up. Well, I should say, Obama will win unless he’s running against Romney. Romney is the only gop’er who can beat Obama.

I’ve been reading comments and posts for months now that declare, with certainty, who the candidates will be, and the victor of the 2012 presidential election. Sometimes I wish I had such conviction and clarity, other times I know it’s my meditation practice that keeps me from such certainty. It reminds me of the changeability and impermanence of all things, including opinions.
\

What I do know, based on experience, is that Obama and the Obama press and pollsters are exceptional at creating a narrative and making it appear to come from us, the people at large. As a writer, it’s the Obama narrative that worries me the most. Stories can be powerful manipulators of emotion and ideology.

If you can bear to watch it, here is a video clip of MSNBC’s Domenic Montanaro declaring with emphasis that Palin can win the republican nomination. But, of course the general election, he kindly reminds us, is different from the primary. And, it’s in the general that Palin has a problem with independents and the general public. Here’s where I go, WTF? Sarah’s popularity is with the independents and general public; it’s certainly not with the traditional republican party.

I grind my teeth listening to so-called journalists using descriptors like “hypothetical” and “whopping” as in, “Obama has 48% of the hypothetical support to Palin’s whopping 40%.” Well, at least the bias is out in the open, sort of. Also, lines like, “When putting Obama against an actual candidate he wins against most and is tied with Mitch Romney.” Oh really? I’d like to know the names of those hypothetical candidates that he’s already losing to. The fictional polls and narrative building is well under way.

Researching some of the prognosticators, I came upon a few unusual sites. Here’s this bit from the Magazine of Improbable Research:

“Our 2003 algorithm for determining the winners of United States presidential elections correctly ascertained the winner of each of the 56 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2000 and correctly predicted the winners of the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections. In this paper we apply the algorithm to 18 potential Republican candidates for the 2012 U.S. presidential election and find that seven have presidential electabilities greater than the Obama/Biden ticket will have in 2012: Michael D. Huckabee, Timothy J. Pawlenty, David H. Petraeus, Marshall C. Sanford, Haley R. Barbour, Sarah L. H. Palin, and Pyush Jindal. If the Republican Party nominates any of these candiates then they will win the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. An additional two potential Republican candidates (Ronald E. Paul and Paul D. Ryan Jr.) could have electabilities greater than the Obama/Biden ticket if they choose the appropriate vice predidential candidate. Barack H. Obama II and Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be re-elected in 2012 if the Republican party instead nominates a ticket with an electability of 35 or less.”

Wow, according to this particular polling algorithm there are seven candidates that can beat Obama. Interesting. I wonder what the polling results would be if Hillary Clinton was the democratic nominee. ( I know, I know, some of you want to scream, “She won’t run. She said so herself.” Maybe, I’ll write my next post on Hillary predictions since she inspires the strongest of statements about what she will and will not do, and whether or not she will or will not win.)

Since predictions at this point in the campaign (we haven’t really started, yet.) are nothing more than hopes, bets, predictions, I decided to check out the line on presidential candidates. It’s very interesting.

The text above the line reads this way:

“The obvious early favorite is Barack Obama at -140 odds. Mitt Romney is next with +1600 odds and Governor Sarah Palin along with Hillary Clinton are close behind with excellent odds at +2000. A couple of the long shorts at +10000 are Al Gore and the World Wide Web’s favorite candidate Congressman Ron Paul. Despite his age you might think Ron Paul is a good bet since he is a true Constitutionalist candidate and if there is ever a revolution in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA he could be the strong favorite to win. All of this might be true, but there is a good chance no one would want to get paid in American Dollars! Never the less….take a look at the Presidential Betting Odds listed below, place your wagers and enjoy the exciting 2012 Presidential race!”

However, somewhere between the time that paragraph was written and posted the betting line changed. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are now tied for second at +1000 and Obama has dropped from -140 to -130. Can you imagine the election horserace if the fight ends up being between Clinton and Palin? Wow, wow.

And then, for a laugh, I need to add the poll result from Alan Colmes blog page stating that only 28% (it doesn’t specify 28% of who or what) think that Palin could win the presidency. Maybe that’s because the remaining 72% think she will win the presidency. We just don’t know what the real meaning is of poll results like these.

So, I know you’re all dying to jump in and declare the winners for the 2012 election…or at least who you think will win. My wish is that people will watch and read the words actually said by candidates, not press-edited versions, and that no one will believe the pollsters and public opinion prognosticators because they proved in the dem primaries of 2008 that they, alone with the press, are biased and are nothing more, nothing less than great writers of fiction.

Check out the pdf, Why do election polls vary? (PDF) at AAPOR. It has been made available to AAPOR staff to help them explain why polls are faulty. You might as well read it beforehand because I promise leading up to 2012 there will be many erroneous polls, although any respectable pollster will try to correct the lie in the last days before voting so they don’t come off as complicit in some political lie.

  • RetiredArmyCOL

    Obama is the worst President in the history of the Republic. He hates the military and has made our country a laughing stock in the eyes of our enemies. He needs to be tried as a traitor. I put him right along with the scumbag Jane Fonda.

  • satwell53

    NEWS ALERT !

    The Obama Administration

    has chosen to use a foreign

    company in Spain to count

    the votes of November’s

    Presidential election results.

    There has been a news black-out of an unprecedented action taken by the President to export the voting ballots to a foreign country to be counted there during November’s Presidential elections.
    The news of this directive is being concealed and minimized by the entire news media cabal, barring the American people from realizing the dangerous and unlawful implications of this Administration’s actions.
    This sort of disregard for the Rule of Law will corrupt the United States electoral process by handing it over to a foreign national entity that has no loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law or the American people.
    Need we be reminded of one in history who held no loyalties to the the law or the people?

    “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything” Joseph Stalin
    This works in his favor.

  • http://twitter.com/PrezCan 2012 US Election

    It’s hilarious going back and reading this. The out-of-touchness of someone who thinks Sarah Palin would be a good general election candidate is hard to measure. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/G5JOBUOZJN3UXNUFD4TOGPDI2E adelet

    Palin is an idiot!! who ever wrote this article must be a palin fan, which also makes them an idiot. OBAMA  will win in 2012, there is a lot of Obama hating going on these days, which is all b.s he is a great president, he gets ragged on by the liberals for not moving things along fast enough, he gets ragged on by the conservatives and is called a socialist. its all BS on both sides. He started his presidency with a BIG mess to clean  up as a consequence of Bush. and I think he has done beautifully. He has played the hand of cards he was  dealt very strategically to make long term changes for the betterment of us all. IF anything will screw him up in 2012 it will almost certainly be because CONGRESS has fought him tooth and nail on every single thing he has tried to accomplish. I don’t think we have ever had a president who is more conscious of how his initiatives will effect all Americans. lets put a stop to this whole notion of giving big companies and those with big pocket books free reign to do whatever they want, with the hopes that there wealth will “trickle down” it isn’t working, hasn’t worked for a long time, and is doing more harm than good. lets expects the same level of personal responsibility acrossed the board!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Xanderk09 Scott Duh Collins

    Obama should win. Republicans only care about lining there pockets ad protecting the rich. Dont beleave me come to Maine our Gov is an Idiot.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/Q4BXXJBPTONDHGKGG4NSAINUWY Crisanto Cortez

    Obama should win.republicans seem idiotic.We dont want another George bush reading books while the nation is being attacked or mess up the economy.republicans are greedy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/S-Travis-Sklar/100000251863894 S Travis Sklar

    I predict that Barack Obama will lose by at least 150,000 votes in Nov 2012.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/S-Travis-Sklar/100000251863894 S Travis Sklar

    I predict that Barack Obama will lose by at least 150,000 votes in Nov 2012.

  • Erasmus

    Hillary Clinton

  • seattlegonz

    Got it, FL Dem.

    And, the point I was making was that formality or not, the president plays a role in the process of making a law. The argument could be made that a “legitimate” president would’ve vetoed, within 10 days, the bills that the president signed.

    But, it doesn’t stop with laws. The president presiding over a military, illegitimately, while we’re engaged in two wars…

    I guess, basically, my point is to explain why no one would want to touch this issue.

  • FLDemFem

    The point I was making, seattlegonz, was that his signature is not needed on laws to make them valid. The Executive Orders would be a different matter, they would be invalid. Treaties would also not be affected since the President signs them, but the Senate approves and consents to them. So the treaties would be valid even if he was found to be ineligible. It all depends on what the process for each thing is. If the majority of the responsibility of the process is on Congress, ie. laws, treaties, etc. the signature of the president is just a formality. A formality is not necessary to the process or the legality of the law, treaty, etc. Both can go into effect without the signature of the president.

  • guest

    And in the case of an adoption, the original birth certificate is not only sealed and filed away, not readily available again to anyone except by a court order, but probably legally null and void as well. 

  • seattlegonz

    I agree Onofre…I’m not advocating it as a topic of pursuit, I’m just saying that there’s a reason why no one in politics wants to pursue it.

  • Onofre’s arm (required)

    SG, while this whole ‘illegitimacy’ issue is an interesting hypothetical, it’s on par with making extensive plans for the $millions$ you MIGHT win from the Lottery.

  • seattlegonz

    FLDem it isn’t that straight forward. Obama being an illegitimate president means, in effect, that his signature has no standing on any bill. Therefore, one could conclude, that no bill was ever signed by the president in the years he’s been governing, and we just don’t have any precident to say how that effects the laws, budgets, executive orders, etc.

  • Onofre’s arm (required)

    “Over the president’s veto pen?  With a Dem-controlled Senate?  Good luck with that.”

    I’ll take this non-challenge to my statement regarding Obama’s extensive damage as your tacit admission to said damage. You only challenged the possibility that the damage could be undone. So, You’ve inadvertently admitted to the damage I’ve described.

    Face it Jackie, you hate this country and all that it stands for, so it only makes sense that you would be crowing about Obama’s so-called achievements. In two short years he’s done far more to drag this country down into the muck than any President in our history, Carter is off the hook for that distinction. And as far as Boo-Boo pushing through more legislation than previous Presidents, no President since FDR has had such overwhelming same party majorities in the Congress, so it would be more accurate to claim that Boo-Boo’s laziness, arrogance, and short attention span prevented him from doing even more damage. Thank God for Obama’s incompetence and sloth in this regard.

  • seattlegonz

    Oh, I just remembered one thing…this time in 2006…Hillary Clinton, after repeatedly answering ‘no’ to the question of whether she was going to run for the presidency in 2008, was touted by every poll, newscaster, talking head as the next president of the US. Rove came out and repeatedly said she’d be the next president. (He’s been trying to agitate his followers for a long time.)

  • FLDemFem

    If it were found that Obama was not eligible, he would resign, saying he didn’t know. And any bills that were signed outside of the ten day window before Congress adjourned would be law..by law. It is only if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed after a pocket veto that the law does not go into effect. If the ten days does pass and Congress has not adjourned, the law goes into effect as if it had been signed. Congress doesn’t have to do anything except be open for business.

  • FLDemFem

    The problem I have with witnesses from Kenya is that Barack Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya with a white wife, he met her while at Harvard. He did not return to Kenya between leaving Hawaii and leaving Harvard. So it is very likely that she was the wife they remember rather than Ann Dunham, who was in the US with a young BO, Jr. BO,Sr. stayed at Harvard for two years after he left Ann and his son in Hawaii. And the cost of shuttling back and forth to Africa in those days was prohibitive. Not something the Dunhams could afford. No cheap airfare in those days. And they were prop planes, mostly. Few jets in service domestically at that time. And planes were much smaller then, too. I remember, I was flying at the time, all over. And it wasn’t a trip you made when pregnant, airlines didn’t allow near-term pregnant women to fly, and travelling with a young infant was just about as difficult. So, I think Ann wasn’t Ann, she was the second wife who showed up with BO, Sr. in Africa.

  • Jackie

    Onofre, I do appreciate that in this long, rambling, embittered rant, you did at least get around to acknowledging that Obama did indeed negotiate New Start with Medvedev.  Thanks for staying on task.

    “The next two years will be spent mostly undoing the damage of the last two years.”

    Over the president’s veto pen?  With a Dem-controlled Senate?  Good luck with that.

  • seattlegonz

    I think you misunderstood me, FLDem, you and I are saying the same thing.

    I wasn’t saying Nixon wasn’t an American citizen, I was saying that impeachment and trial would be too much for the country to endure and would have interfered with the governing of America.

    If there is a question of Obama’s legitimacy as a president (hold your horses all of you who want to chime in with questions and accusations about his legitimacy…I know, I know.) then there would be impeachment, trial for treason, question of prior legislation, succession, who knew what when, how far does the cover-up go…etc. I think it would throw America into a hell of a lot more turmoil than Nixon’s crimes.

    I do know the history of watergate…too well.

  • Onofre’s arm (required)

    “I have no idea what this question means.  Try again.” 

    Yes, I can only imagine that the density of your skull prevents intrusion of such simple concepts. 

    Although Boo-Boo did next to nothing on the legislation up until the moment it appeared on his desk, when he signed his pathologically practiced signature on the document, he OWNED it. And the moment that Boo-Boo signed his accursed name to the $830 billion stimulus bill, he changed the trajectory of the economy, for better or WORSE in this case, thereby OWNING the economy from that point onward. He had essentially accepted the economy baton from Bush at that fateful point, yet to this day he still blames Bush for the economy, even though he and his bunglers have been at the controls for almost two years. He owns the massive SHIT his policies have created just as much as he owns the few minor and mostly symbolic fruits that only his ‘signature’ has bought him.

    As far as the negotiations with Medvedev are concerned, I can only imagine how THAT went. Judging by the particulars of this abyssmal START treaty, Medvedev must have kicked Obama’s scrawny ass around the room until Boo-Boo begged for mercy. Or, perhaps they put Boo-Boo in the Special Negotiation Room (the one with all the toys) where Boo-Boo happily hammered out an imaginary arms deal on a Whack-A-Mole board, while Medvedev kicked the scrawny asses of junior negotiators around the room. Yes, the new START treaty is a sterling example of what happens when our national interests are in the hands of invertebrates and snot nosed children.

    So far, all of the major legislation during Barky-Boy’s reign, has been farmed out to subcontractors to write, so much so, that neither he nor his pals in Congress knew what was in them. Remember Nazi Pelosi, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”? Stimulus, Obamacareless, and the Financial bill were complete unknowns to the cocaine rotted brain of Mystery-Boy, and ALL he did was provide rhetorical cover for their passage. Up to this point, a well spoken 6 year old could have accomplished what Boo-Boo has. The next two years will be spent mostly undoing the damage of the last two years. 

  • Jackie

    “I thought you said BO could not claim “sole ownership”, you are saying literally he is not the one who SIGNED it?”

    I have no idea what this question means.  Try again. 

    I’ll reiterate, Obama negotiated the terms of the New Start treaty directly with Dmitry Medvedev.  This contradicts the claims by many here that Obama did nothing on the bill beyond signing it.  It then had to be ratified in the U.S. by a 2/3rds majority of the U.S. Senate.  Which Obama lobbied very, very hard for, after 8 months of negotiations, and many close calls that almost killed the treaty.  He is now signing it into law.

  • Jackie

    No leadership coming from the office of the President.”

    This is such a nebulous claim.  How, exactly, would you define “leadership” in this case?  I look to a herd of difficult, critical bills being passed and signed into law, more than anyone else has accomplished in a half-century. and I see “leadership”.

  • FLDemFem

    No, Nixon was “allowed” to resign because the country had just been through the Watergate hearings, all broadcast on radio which the country was glued to for the duration. The Republican leadership went to the White House and informed Nixon that impeachment papers were being drawn in the House. They told him that if he resigned he would keep his pension, etc. If he was convicted, no pension or anything else. So he resigned. An impeachment hearing and trial would have been too much for the country to endure and would have further interfered with the actual governing of the country. And it cost less to let him resign and keep his pension than it would have to impeach, convict and thereby rendering him ineligible for his pension, etc. And Nixon was born in the US, no question. He was a legitimate president. He was a paranoid person who kept an enemies list and used government resources, FBI, IRS, to harrass and intimidate them. And he also illegally taped people in the White House. There was never any question of the laws he had signed being legally signed. If you are going to make statements regarding political history, you should at least get your facts straight.

  • Guest

    She turned in a good enough performance to not look like a total fool, but that is all.I’m not a particularlly avid poll-watcher, but I do pay most attention to Rasmussen Reports. They’ve been DEAD-ON the last two presidential elections, and they predicted the results of the 2006 mid-terms very accurately. That is really the only thing any of us can measure because it produces a result in real data to use to check methodology. His issue polls are skewed conservative, though.

    Anyone who thinks a polling firm can be successful by deliberating skewing polling results must have some screws loose. Who in the world would ever pay for false data? Polling results differ because they’re based on sampling techniques and statistically they should differ within a predictable margin of error. Real Clear Politics publishes the average of all the national polls (which is a reasonable thing to do) and most reasonable media, like Fox News, typically report those averages.

    If Palin turns in a good enough performance to not look like a total fool, but that is all, as in 2008, she won’t win. The polls I think are going to have very little impact  on popular perceptions of her gravitas, competence, and presidentialness.

  • Onofre’s arm (required)

    Yes Ferd, he is the ass they were waiting for.

  • TeakWoodKite

    During the Primary, even President Clinton gave him props and said he would not underestimate him.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Yes well done Onofre’s Arm!

    Ferd , do you think Jackie gets the reference to the Holiday Inn Express?

  • seattlegonz

    There’s a big difference though, Docelder, between Obama and Clinton…Clinton won on his own. The problem for Obama is that the liberal left put Obama in office and, well, you can see how they feel about Bill Clinton (and Hillary.) So, if Obama pivots he loses his primary supporters. The middle isn’t for him, republicans aren’t for him…that’s why he had to have Bill Clinton come out and do the pivot.

    He’s in an untenable place. He’s got some shills in the republican party that will help him…but, I don’t see how it works.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Then why wasn’t it?

    No leadership coming from the office of the President.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Obama negotiated New Start directly with Dmitry Medvedev.

    I thought you said BO could not claim “sole ownership”, you are saying literally he is not the one who SIGNED it?

  • Docelder

    I think we might be looking at a future Clinton II. No, not Hillary but Obama. The republican house will temper him and everything the republicans do to help right the economy will be credited to Obama in the media. Newt saved Clinton from failure and the republicans in the house will save Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter II. Maybe it will be fine for us in the end however… Obama becoming the republicans puppet instead of the democrats puppet. He will take the path of least resistence… always has and always will. So long as he gets the credit he will do the bidding of whoever… i don’t think he cares one way or the other.

  • seattlegonz

    Huckabee scares me because he is so well spoken. I could be wrong because I didn’t follow his campaign that closely, and I know the left made a big deal of his allegedly wanting to rework the constitution so it isn’t a secular work, but one that is unequivocal about such things as a right to life and marriage being between a man and a woman.

    I don’t want constitutional christianity, judaism, sharia, or any religion. I believe it would be a mistake for republicans to hammer the social issues. That’s what is great, to me, about Sarah…she doesn’t talk about them hardly at all. Obama is meddling more in our private lives than republicans…which typically isn’t the way it goes. Democrats are known to meddle with our wallets, and Republicans with our personal lives…it just proves, nothing is permanent.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Thankfully for all sides, the office of the president is not that of a dictator.  Only a dictator could claim “sole ownership” of legislative accomplishments.

    Wrap it up and put a bow on it. It’s the fruitcake assertion again.