Mitt Romney... 47 percent will vote for Obama "no matter what"

[TulsaRufnex]

[TulsaRufnex]

[erfalf]

Look I understand has foot in mouth disease. But there is a grain of truth to this.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/crs-report-number-of-able-bodied-adults-on-food-stamps-doubled-after-obama-suspended-work-requirement/article/2508430#.UFswnrJlTSg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106346145/CRS-Memo-ABAWD

[nathanm]

Good flip....And then there's this....

The irony being that Mitt's supporters are largely retirees. Lazy clucks should get their asses to work!

erfalf, I see you're still listening to people who have trouble with the arrow of time.

[Conan71]

RAND's American Life Panel is showing a dramatic turn from Romney to Obama among people without college degrees over the past couple of days. The panelists' winner predictions haven't changed much, though, so it may just be a temporary expression of disapproval of his disdain for half the population. Over 1% a day in Obama's favor for the past two days in that group, though. (insert the usual caveats about small sample size of subgroups here)

For the first time this election cycle, RAND is showing Obama with a big enough lead to get to 95% statistical confidence. This despite Obama supporters still judging themselves less likely to vote than Romney supporters. (insert the usual caveats about people still having plenty of time to change their mind here)

It's interesting the support Obama has amongst the groups still hardest hit by unemployment.  He's managed to do something no other president appears to have been successful at: deflecting blame on unemployment to the wealthy and the job creators and pretty much slithered away from any responsibility on the issue.

Unemployment has been tied to a president's job performance for almost a century, or longer, hasn't it?

Granted, unless a president creates new government jobs by edict, he really has no direct impact on employment.  However, a president can set a tone which will appeal to job creators either via policy or by inspiring confidence when he speaks, which many potential job creators say is dismal from this administration.

Makes me wonder if perhaps we put too much into job numbers as it relates to a president's performance, or he's simply done a masterful job at campaigning against a bogeyman who won't hire all these blacks, Hispanics, women, and people without college degrees.

[nathanm]

I think the primary issue is that Romney has done a great job of campaigning against himself. It doesn't help his prospects that people seem to still be placing most of the blame for the crappy situation on Bush and blame Congress (somewhat) more than Obama for the gridlock in DC that they see preventing any action on jobs.

Actually, after I wrote that I realized there's a larger dynamic in play. The Republican Party has been largely taken over by Tea Partyists. The fact of the matter is that only about a third of the electorate cares for the Tea Party agenda, and even less than that care for the moronic rhetoric spouted by TP candidates. With the Republican Party doubling and tripling down on that agenda, it's a lot easier for people to vote for mediocre. Somehow circumstance and the Romney camp have thus far managed to make the election a referendum on Romney rather than the referendum on Obama that the Republicans might have a chance at.

[Hoss]

It's interesting the support Obama has amongst the groups still hardest hit by unemployment.  He's managed to do something no other president appears to have been successful at: deflecting blame on unemployment to the wealthy and the job creators and pretty much slithered away from any responsibility on the issue.

Unemployment has been tied to a president's job performance for almost a century, or longer, hasn't it?

Granted, unless a president creates new government jobs by edict, he really has no direct impact on employment.  However, a president can set a tone which will appeal to job creators either via policy or by inspiring confidence when he speaks, which many potential job creators say is dismal from this administration.

Makes me wonder if perhaps we put too much into job numbers as it relates to a president's performance, or he's simply done a masterful job at campaigning against a bogeyman who won't hire all these blacks, Hispanics, women, and people without college degrees.

Or, maybe as my avatar implies, Romney has simply shot himself in the foot enough this election season that it will either be vote for the gaffe-master (he now makes Biden look like an amateur gaffe-master) or don't vote at all.  Or vote for the incumbent, which is likely what many independents will do.

I wonder if Romney's campaign even knows what the term 'damage control' is.

[Townsend]

It's interesting the support Obama has amongst the groups still hardest hit by unemployment.  He's managed to do something no other president appears to have been successful at: deflecting blame on unemployment to the wealthy and the job creators and pretty much slithered away from any responsibility on the issue.

Unemployment has been tied to a president's job performance for almost a century, or longer, hasn't it?

I get the impression many of them fear Romney and the GOP more than they fear Obama and the democrats.

They may feel more of a threat of losing what they get if the GOP and Tea Party gain control of the Federal government.

[Conan71]

I get the impression many of them fear Romney and the GOP more than they fear Obama and the democrats.

They may feel more of a threat of losing what they get if the GOP and Tea Party gain control of the Federal government.

But if the belief is employment is tied to a president, the partial term senator turned president hasn't been a job creator.

Romney, on the other hand as a businessman and governor understands what helps create jobs. 

I think the left has done a credible job of completely misleading a portion of the electorate on how many jobs VC and PE have contributed, instead only focusing on the failed investments of those firms, therefore trying to make it look as if Romney doesn't have a clue how jobs are created.

Either that or the 23 million who are unemployed or under-employed must be enjoying their UI benefits, SSDI, and TANF which doesn't appear to be so temporary anymore a whole lot more than I would guess.

[nathanm]

I get the impression many of them fear Romney and the GOP more than they fear Obama and the democrats.

It's not just about fear, though. If you look at the polling, you'll find that over half of the country agrees with most or all of Obama's stated agenda. They prefer tax increases to cuts in benefits. They prefer diplomacy to war. They prefer building on Obamacare to repealing it outright. On nearly every issue more of the country agrees with Obama than Romney.

[heironymouspasparagus]

But if the belief is employment is tied to a president, the partial term senator turned president hasn't been a job creator.

Romney, on the other hand as a businessman and governor understands what helps create jobs. 

I think the left has done a credible job of completely misleading a portion of the electorate on how many jobs VC and PE have contributed, instead only focusing on the failed investments of those firms, therefore trying to make it look as if Romney doesn't have a clue how jobs are created.

Either that or the 23 million who are unemployed or under-employed must be enjoying their UI benefits, SSDI, and TANF which doesn't appear to be so temporary anymore a whole lot more than I would guess.

Except for the few million jobs that have occurred in the last 3 years... and no, I don't give him any more credit than I would anyone else.

But then we have Romney, who does indeed know how jobs are created, and has on occasion created some.  But then chooses to buy a company, part it out, and put the people out of work rather than run the business.  He is the Anti-Warren Buffett.

[Conan71]

Except for the few million jobs that have occurred in the last 3 years... and no, I don't give him any more credit than I would anyone else.

But then we have Romney, who does indeed know how jobs are created, and has on occasion created some.  But then chooses to buy a company, part it out, and put the people out of work rather than run the business.  He is the Anti-Warren Buffett.

Warren Buffett doesn't invest in firms which are already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.  Without PE firms, many of those companies would have gone tits up far sooner, and many owe still being in existence and being successful today due to investment from PE.

[Townsend]

But if the belief is employment is tied to a president, the partial term senator turned president hasn't been a job creator.

Romney, on the other hand as a businessman and governor understands what helps create jobs. 

I think the left has done a credible job of completely misleading a portion of the electorate on how many jobs VC and PE have contributed, instead only focusing on the failed investments of those firms, therefore trying to make it look as if Romney doesn't have a clue how jobs are created.

Either that or the 23 million who are unemployed or under-employed must be enjoying their UI benefits, SSDI, and TANF which doesn't appear to be so temporary anymore a whole lot more than I would guess.

I really do believe it's more fear of loss than anything else.  It may be some fear of what has been said by some of the scarier folks wanting to be in charge.

I fear that some of the hard-core socially conservatives will believe another win would be proof that they should be in charge.

[erfalf]

Here's some PE food for thought. I'm going to exclude hostile takeovers, because they are so infrequent, it isn't worth talking about.

When a PE firm acquires a firm, the owners had to accept the offer. More than likely because they needed the money. The alternative in a non-PE world would be bankruptcy or a prolongued decline.

And I know we like to believe that PE firms buy things break them up and sell them. Let's say they do. You're saying that it is better for the economy for a company to stay together that can't create enough value to be worth more than the assets they own? By continuing to run they actually are devaluing the assets.

And yes, fear is being used on both sides. People are afraid of PE because most of them just don't understand.

[Hoss]