dayman

Whoever is running the search should pick himself.

Pretty sure the guy who is arguing against this idea would take issue with the "little bump" he got from who his Dad was.

Really? I give my money to Chik-Fil-A b/c their chicken is the best in fast food. I then give it to HBO b/c they have the best original programming.

haha this is actually kind of good...except for the part about Trent being better

Him and Gore made regulatory reform a major issue and i supported that and always will. Us wacky liberal folk aren't for regulation purely for regulations sake. We aren't anti-regulation either. Smart, effective regulation when necessary is an important function of government. Too much, too complicated, not needed, not effective...all bad. But regulation itself is not the devil. And in any event Clinton regrets the Glass-steagall repeal. Point being though, regulatry reform is a constant battle we should always as a country strive to balance the interests in any regulatory enviroment...but war on regulation in general is nothing more than an anti-government talking point that ignores history.

You're a Reagan fan. I like Clinton also...and we can throw anyone else in there. What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past?

So Romney is the greatest Presidential prospect since Peyton Manning?

That is fair enough. The counter argument of course is that the President isn't the manager of a hedge fund and it's a position unlike any other and with all his mistakes and successes (whatever anyone may think they are) Obama actually has more experience that directly relates to being POTUS than all but 4 people on earth. I mean I get the Romney has executive experience argument and the Obama sucks argument ... but the idea Romney has more experience at this moment to be President? It's a stretch. I get that people think Obama is terrible but he doesn't even learn from experience? This whole POTUS experience argument constantly acts like we're in 2008.

I mean are we implying that any definition of success that doesn't directly flow from managing a hedge fund is lesser?

I'm just wondering what natural predictors for future Presidents did Obama have when he was born? I'm not sitting here trying to claim Obama did it all by himself. B/c as we all know, if you become President...you didn't win that. But I'm just saying....Obama didn't build himself up?

lol wanting to move away from fossil fuels and not having a beard makes him 99% bearded commie. I actually love you as a poster.

Psshh...you get 0. He's middle aged, no glasses or beard, and not an outwardly dorky looking guy.

LOL I just looked. Pretty normal looking guy actually.

A few things based on the interview b/c some of the questions you raised are similar to what the host of the show asked. The most obvious is the last part on the short term economy...the results I posted are from 2011 so he didn't know at the time. He didn't specifically go through the keys again in the interview but said the result hasn't changed and he thinks Obama will still win. Major social unrest he did comment on and said it means what it says..."major" and it usually is not going to go against the incumbent. Major scandal he said must be directly tied to the president. For example he said he gave that to the right in both '04 and '08. And then as for the subjective nature of it he said "buy my book" (lol) and there are some more details about how he analyzes them ... but he acknowledged they are still somewhat subjective b/c they aren't hard data but he thinks the hard data (and specifically polls) people use are absolute garbage.

You know this brings up an interesting point that I've thought about before. Basically wondering...should Paul or the libertarian movement have attached to the GOP? B/c really the way I see it historically the GOP has spent even though they are supposedly the party of fiscal conservatism. And they are obviously the party of social conservatism. And his war positions directly oppose that of the GOP more so than the Dems. I often wondered, given the accepted premise that he needed to infiltrate a major party in order to gain funding and "legitimacy" in the eyes of the voters ... whether the libertarian movement would have had an equally strong chance pushing the left its way as the right. The obvious reality is no matter what he wouldn't sway either party completely...but could he have pulled more Dems and then still poached moderate Repubs undercutting their spending position and leaving them w/ mere social conservatism and war policy. Not really making a point here and I'm not suggesting anything either way just thinking out loud..but I have often wondered if maybe the Libertarian movement could have netted more voters on balance had they chosen to sort of push the left their way and poach from the right as opposed to vis versa. Now obviously the basic economic philosophy is a big push. But no less a push than many of the foreign policy and social issues is to the right. And in general it's not like the GOPs economic philosophy was actually aligned w/ Paul to begin with (although it obviously was closer). Anyway...idk...thoughts? Stupid?

So Lichtman rejects polls all together and also finds the common thinking of "economy is everything" to be an overstatement. He claims to have 13 keys that don't miss and haven't since he started in the early '80s. Taken from wikipedia his keys are as follows: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. Romney Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Obama Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Obama Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Obama Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Undecided Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Romney Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Obama Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Obama Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Obama Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Obama Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Obama Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Romney Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Obama The bold portion is as predicted by him (not me) quite a while ago. I heard an interview w/ him on Sirius in the car earlier today (prompting this thread) and he says it's solid, hasn't changed and he still predicts Obama to win. http://www.usnews.co...-to-win-in-2012 What does PPP think about his methodology and prediction?

IDK I think he was a fairly inspiring candidate considering his movement was hardly mainstream. True he failed to steal enough established loyalty but I think he did better than many would have thought possible.

As a libertarian Paul didn't do it for you?

That's true I forget about third parties lol. Anyway, Obama would thank you for that.

LOL no you are not. You feel Obama is not competent and therefore and inspired to vote against him. People who feel Obama isn't competent to be President are not really in the pool of voters either candidate is trying to persuade w/ their campaign. They're in the bag for Romney already. No that isn't true. First off, "inspiring" might be the wrong word. It's part of it but a broader word would work better. One that covers inspiring, likability, ability to relate...basically "this guy could be my leader" for a large number of Americans. W Bush had it. Hell I saw him speak at an event and the guy...for all that goes along w/ him (and I don't care to get into a discussion about him)...is actually quite hilarious and he's not nearly as dumb as he comes off had some smart and engaging things to say. Obviously many Obama qualities work for large segments of the population. Clinton and Reagan were 2 of the best. ETC Romney really doesn't have it. And I get the 3 pillars of Romney lol...I don't see it working for the majority of Americans (by majoirty I mean 8ish% who will make up their minds between now and the election). Ultimately Romney is going to have to speak to the people and convince them to pick him as their leader. He's not going to do that by talking about how profitable Bain was or the Olympics (honestly the Olympic thing is a joke) and he refuses talk about being Governor. If he wins he would be one of the first presidents I've seen who has almost no ability to just sell himself as a person. I know you will Doc. I know.

Well he seem to generally lack any qualities that would make him inspiring or even likable as a President. It's not that he has something particularly uninspiring about him as much as he has nothing inspiring about him. It's pretty much "I'm Mitt Romney and I want to be President." BTW everybody has their own opinion this is just mine. But I haven't really heard very many people who have a whole lot to love about Mitt. People who hate Obama will vote for him. Those who could go either way....IDK what they'll do but at this point it seems they'll either go against Obama or not I still don't see a whole lot of reasons the undecideds will all the sudden find Romney to be an appealing leader for our nation.

Look Will McAvoy is a Republican. Case closed.

It's just lybob's explanation for why he's so uninspiring to him personally.

I don't troll really. I was just being sarcastic yesterday and then realized a few people weren't getting it so it turned into trolling. Just sort of happened. I guess I'm a natural. As for defending Romney, I assume basically everyone. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't know very many people (actually any) who were huge Romney supporters...I don't even really know that many who are now except to beat Obama. If he does win it will be a true accomplishment, win the Presidency when very few Americans are fans. Maybe I'm wrong and you've been waiting for Romney to take the reigns of this country for a while and really think he's the President for you...that could be. And of course there are some I'm sure out there who feel that way. I'm just saying...not ... very... many

That's a pretty easy move actually. Hate is a strong word of course, but there's little about Romney that inspires...there's really little that is even appealing about him as a man. It won't be a blowout but I would be surprised if Romney wins this election. I do think Jeb Bush would have won this election.