Suddenly, Romney Becomes the Best Bet

About a week ago  I posted a column here entitled “Romney Isn’t There Yet,” in which I contended that as things then stood, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney seemed unlikely to win more than 248 of the 270 electoral votes required to take the presidency away from Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

What a difference a week makes! This morning I bet money on Romney on the Irish-based Intrade futures market.  As a gambler I am too cold-blooded to vote out of sentiment, but as of this moment – and recognizing that everything could change before the ink dries on this post – Romney seems to have the edge.

I didn’t bet the farm – not even a haystack. I paid $3.65 for a Mitt Romney contract that will pay me back $10 if Romney wins, and zero if he loses. In effect, I was wagering that Romney had at least a 36.5 percent chance of winning the presidency.

I can make the argument that his chances are more in the neighborhood of 75 percent. Since I posted a week ago, the Rasmussen polling organization has shown him moving into a tie with President Obama in Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin, where he previously had trailed slightly, while taking the lead in Colorado, where he had trailed, and New Hampshire, where he had been tied.  This is an example of the Mittmentum you have been hearing about.

The only scary news out of Rasmussen recently is that Romney’s lead in Florida has tightened to two percentage points from five previously.  This undoubtedly explains why Romney is dashing from town to town in Florida today even as I write.

As of this moment, Romney leads in the Rasmussen tallies in states with 261 electoral votes, Obama leads in states with 243 electoral votes, and there are 34 electoral votes up for grabs in the deadlocked states of Iowa (6), Ohio (18) and Wisconsin (10).

We have to assume that those three states won’t be tied any longer after the polls close on November 6. And since they are tied now, we also have to assume that each of them has a 50 percent chance of going for Romney, and a 50 percent chance of going (heaven forbid) for Obama.

Not to bore you with more statistics, but there are eight possible voting combinations among those three states, and six of them – the 75 percent I mentioned above – would put Romney over 270 in the electoral college.

All other things remaining the same, it won’t matter how Iowa votes, because its electoral total is too small to make the difference. But any combination in which Romney wins either Wisconsin or Ohio would force the Obama family to reserve a moving van for January.

Author Bio:

Arthur Louis spent more than forty years as a print journalist, with the Philadelphia Inquirer, McGraw-Hill, Fortune magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle, but he is not asking for sympathy. He is the author of two non-fiction books: The Tycoons, and Journalism and Other Atrocities, as well as a novel, The Little Champ. In retirement, he has decided unilaterally that he is a profound political pundit.
Author website:
  • DStar

    Making the fundamental mistake of relying on one pollster.
    You’ve just Flunked Polling 101

    • Artlouis

      I chose the poll that is scientifically soundest. There would be nothing gained, and something  lost, if I added other, less sound polls. 

  • Archangel1357

    Mitts gonna win big.

  • potvin

    This race shouldn’t even be close. All this tells me is that Americans aren’t engaged like they should be. Has anyone been paying attention over the last four years? How could people even consider voting for this a-hole again? Jesus.

    • Mario__P

      Read my post below, and maybe then you’ll understand what the chance is for your candidate to generate jobs. The Democratic president managed to return the unemployment rate to the level he inherited, and the chance is a Republican president will just lose many of the jobs that have been created since 2009.

      • Rafer Johnson

        News Mario……..Republicans create there own jobs

        • Mario__P

          Well, maybe the Republicans should create more jobs than they lose, so they would not have increased the unemployment rate by about 1% (on average) during each of their terms (since WWII).

  • Mario__P

    The US Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping track of the unemployment rate in 1948. Since 1948 twelve US presidents have served (Truman through Obama), with the Republicans and the Democrats each having six of the twelve presidents. Since 1948 the US went through sixteen 4-year presidential terms; the Republican presidents served nine terms, while the Democratic presidents served seven. Since 1948 all the Republican presidents, except for one, have raised the unemployment rate by the end of their terms. Since 1948 not a single Democratic president has raised the unemployment rate by the end of his term, (assuming Obama will not exceed the current unemployment rate of 7.8% in January.)

    The above facts beg the following questions. Which Party’s presidents have the greater chance of lowering the unemployment rate? Why do the Republicans believe they are better at creating jobs?

    • Georgeyu781

      if this should be mostly accounted for, why were those republican presidents got ever elected? are Americans all fools or the system has big problems?

      • Mario__P

        Why were the Republican presidents elected? The majority of the public is misinformed into believing the Republicans are the pro business, pro economy party. Others are near sighted and can easily be bought with a measly tax cut. While some don’t even care about the numbers as long as their other issues, like abortion, may be overturned. Are you still perplexed? Wasn’t it less than four years ago when the least popular president of nearly a century, a Republican, left so many problems behind, yet today’s presidential race is a tie? People don’t take accountability for their mistakes and blame others for their problems. Visit the federal website and verify those unemployment numbers for yourself:'s review those important January unemployment rate numbers for the critical years:(D) Truman1949 = 4.3%1953 = 2.9%Net = -1.4%(R) Eisenhower1953 = 2.9%1957 = 4.2%Net = +1.3%(R) Eisenhower
        1957 = 4.2%
        1961 = 6.6%
        Net = +2.4%(D) Kennedy/Johnson1961 = 6.6%1965 = 4.9%Net = -1.7%(D) Johnson1965 = 4.9%1969 = 3.4%Net = -1.5%(R) Nixon1969 = 3.4%1973 = 4.9%Net = +1.5%(R) Nixon/Ford1973 = 4.9%1977 = 7.5%Net = +2.6%(D) Carter1977 = 7.5%1981 = 7.5%Net = 0.0%(R) Reagan1981 = 7.5%1985 = 7.3%Net = -0.2%(R) Reagan1985 = 7.3%1989 = 5.4%Net = -1.9%(R) Bush Sr.1989 = 5.4%1993 = 7.3%Net = +1.9%(D) Clinton1993 = 7.3%1997 = 5.3%Net = -2.0%(D) Clinton1997 = 5.3%2001 = 4.2%Net = -1.1%(R) Bush Jr.2001 = 4.2%2005 = 5.3%Net = +1.1%(R) Bush Jr.2005 = 5.3%2009 = 7.8%Net = +2.5%(D) Obama2009 = 7.8%2012 = 7.8%Net = 0.0%
        Told ya. Since 1948, five of the six Republican presidents have raised the unemployment rate, while not one Democratic president has raised it. And you thought the GOP was good at creating jobs.

        • Ahalbert

          Just keep telling yourself this same old condescending crap. Hope it comforts you after the election.

        • Mario__P


          Data and statistics are condescending? Say something convincing why those numbers should not be alarming, so you can be taken seriously. What a joker.

        • Artlouis

           Mario, I count thirteen comments from you on this post, although it seems like  more. I can understand if you want to make a comment, and if you want to try rebutting people who challenge your comments, but when you start commenting on your own comments, then it looks as though you are trying to make my post your own, and that is bad manners.

        • Mario__P

          Artlouis, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not the only one trying to extend a debate past the last REPLY option. If the system had a better way of tracking the posts, I would gladly take advantage of it. But the way the current system works makes the posting process confusing when a discussion extends beyond 4 posts. Blame the programmers, not me. Or show me how to properly respond so there would not be any confusion.

  • Stan

    Mittology:  Romney will bring in wholesale new policies if elected.  Reality: he will continue Obama policies which he verified in the 3rd debate.

    • Rafer Johnson

      If he does, you’ll still get yo’ welfare check

  • Wheels55

    Let’s hope that loud mouth DWS loses too.

  • FloridaJim

    We voted early in Florida and pray Romney wins. America can’t take Obama any longer and shouldn’t.

  • Phil (Majorca) Silverman

    Great Bernie! We can start two new wars, eliminate Medicare, AHCA (even though Romney helped write it), Planned parenthood, the Post Office!!!!!

    • CCNV

      And you claim to be one of the smarter ones. BERNIE didn’t write this article. You must have graduated from Chicago schools.

  • Jnewtonmass

    The methodology used in the Rasmussen Polls contributes to the big Romney numbers. If he wins the states as you describe I will stand down, but I believe we have left this election behind us.

    This Rasmussen Kool Aid left us with a false sense of security. We thought we had a lead that we never had and began playing prevent defense when continuing the aggressive attack should have been the gameplan. We’ve lost the initiative and now have an uphill battle in front of us.

    Of course I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not counting on it.

    • Artlouis

       If you think the Rasmussen poll is faked in favor of the GOP, then you probably think that other polls are faked in favor of the Dems, so then whom do you believe?

      On the other hand, if you think the GOP pollsters have a monopoly on evil, while the Dems have a monopoly on sainthood, then I think you are being unrealistic.

      • john

        Hi Art,

        Thank you for your reply.

        My answer to your first question is that I believe that the reality lies somewhere between the 2.

         I do not think the polls are faked, but I do think that they contributed to a false sense of security. Thoughtful criticisms of the policies of the current administration were having the desired effect. I would have been an advocate of continuing this to the end.  A change of course was clearly decided upon, lets call it more of a ‘play it safe’ plan. I find this disappointing.


        • Artlouis

           It seems apparent that Mitt is running his own campaign, choosing his own tactics. He may know what he is doing. Remember, this is a Republican who got elected governor of Massachusetts. You have to be politically talented to pull that off.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    Knock wood.

  • Jaitop

    In nine more days the nightmare of America will be over. Vote for Mitt and Paul.

    • Phil Silverman

      great nightmare, except for the 30+ million newly ensured…restored auto industry…reformed credit card and student loan processes…let’s resussitate Bin Laden!!! Overturn Roe V. Wade!!!!!!

      • Jeffreydan

          Lessee, we have here a mixture of empty boasts, at least one falsehood, and lame attempts at describing what your opponents favor. In other words, nothing worthy of anyone’s time.

          If you decide you want to actually discuss something, get serious and post intelligently.   

      • dlr


        Under Obama we have been dumping trillions of Dollars a year to obtain a lousy 2.0 growth rate in GDP.  Under 3.0 growth rate GDP has always been considered bad when a republican was in office.  Worse yet we are borrowing more that a Trillion a year!  We can’t afford Obama and his pie in the sky policies.  They don’t work, they never will work, and if we don’t get off the Obama train wreck we’ll lose everything.

        • STAN

          What got us in the Great Depression was not the stock market collapse but when Hoover balanced the budget, he also signed a tariffs bill which threw the world into a global trade war.  We were in a slow growth recovery until WWII, the shock of that expense brought us out of the Depression with a revitalized industrial base.  We cannot collapse ourselves out of this morass, we MUST power ourselves out.  Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to f*%# up again.

      • Wheels55

        Romney would have given the order to kill Bin Laden – anyone would have. The difference there is that Romney would not have taken a victory lap like he was the one that pulled the trigger. Obama took all of the credit.

        Roe vs Wade isn’t even on Romney’s agenda. It is only liberals who want a smoke screen to mask Obama’s weak four years.

        30 million newly INsured means what?…someone has to pay for that and there is another government system ready for financial failure down the road.

        Reformed loan processes just means people have to be less responsible – you like that?

      • Stan

        Plus, stock market up 100% since Mar 09, mortgage lending up 50% y/y, car production up 20% y/y (on track for a 15 million unit year) housing starts up 15% in the month of Sep, retailers to hire 600,000 for the upcoming season (if economy so bad why are they hiring anyone?),  Do a parking lot survey at your nearest shopping center, how many spots are empty?  Report back.

      • Rafer Johnson


  • Rbblum

    An individual either is willing to celebrate the life and times of Benedict Arnold OR embrace the ideals and values of the United States of America. 

  • Shane

    Obama will try to steal the election with massive voter fraud and voter intimidation. Obama’s Black Panther pals and union thugs will be on the prowl on election day. Obama still has most of the news media on his side. Today only Fox News had and significant discussion of the Benghazi fiasco and coverup.

    • CCNV

      Would love to read the story of a person being intimidated (who has a CCW permit) and pulls down on the ‘terrorist’. Oops, my bad…obammy calls them “folks”.

      • Joel Wischkaemper

        Leave that thing at home.  Don’t carry to the polls.. call the police and they will do something about it and fast.  Leave the guns at home.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      Voter fraud is out there and strong.  The Illegal Aliens have such a deep investment in those fraudulent I.D.s it is more a case of how deep it will be rather than if it will happen.

    • Stan

      There is no cover up, only accusations.  The info about the attack was given the Administration by the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence.
      Also, Fox News is not a news agency, just a dysfunctional version of the Daily Show.

  • topgun_1959

    In spite of all the advantages an incumbent has and all the taxpayer money Obama has spent buying votes (free phones, relaxed disability rules, relaxed welfare work rules, pandering to Hispanics and gayes, etc. etc.) the fact that this is a horse race 9 days before the election is amazing. Further, if you take a look at the panic mode the democrats are currently in, discussing Big Bird instead of the economy and the apparent Benghazi coverup, the DNC is in crisis. While Romney is hammering hard on the economy, Obama is killing time hanging out with Letterman, Leno, Beyonce, Pimp-with-a-Limp and The View. He’s trying to motivate his base and avoid any possibility of being asked a question of any substance. Finally for those who think that polls that are close or tied at the moment work to Obama’s advantage had best do a little research.  Those who break one way or the other in the final days of an election usually go about 80% for the challenger. They have watched the incumbent for four years and would not be undecided at this point if he was the choice. I would not have said this a month ago but unless there is a major crisis (which Obama would love) in the next few days, he should place his call to United Van Lines and make an appointment for Jan 20, 2013. 

    • Dcthompson66

      Sure hope you are right – love your optimism…!

    • Bruskie

      Let’s please not forget the very powerful “Romneyitus” argument that our President Obama has been so elegantly campaigning on.  Not to worry, as you point out, Obama is still quite Hollywood, this is plenty enough for the Liberals to go on.  Very important.

  • Mario__P

    Since we’re talking about chances and bets, based on the past Republican presidents’ record since the Labor Department started keeping track of the unemployment numbers in 1948, what is the chance Romney will lower the unemployment rate?

    • CCNV

      What are the chances unemployment will continue to rise under obammy?

      • Mario__P

        Your questions was pretty lame, which was not unexpected. Obama has been lowering the unemployment rate for three years now.

        If Romney wins, the chance of him lowering the unemployment rate below what he would inherit by the end of his term is below 20%, based on the last +80 year history of the GOP presidents. Those are some awesome odds, aren’t they? 

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      We have .four. .years. of very big mistakes.  We have a chance to move it over to Mitt and see what he can do, and in my mind, anything will be better than one failure after another, and one trillion dollar deficits.  Further.. Mr. Romney broke with George Bush on the illegal aliens and while I don’t expect miricles, and we shouldn’t expect miricles, there is a good change that incrediably dissident issue will be reduce to tolerable.

      There is a film at the big box store on Obama called “Love Him: Hate Him”.  In his own words.. he needs to do something else for the next four years.

      • Mario__P

        It is astonishing that someone who voted for Bush, twice, would call anything Obama did a “very big mistake”. In early 2009 the calluses you sported for eight years have turned into sores over night. Too bad you didn’t rub off those thick patches of skin a decade ago, so today we wouldn’t be talking about the economy. Thank you so much for being so careless back then. Just blame yourself for the problems you have today.

  • Notblindtofacts

    Wishing thinking cannot make Romney win. Romney does not yet have Flotida which he needs. He has never held the lead in Ohio, he cannot win without Ohio unless he wins all the other states which will be extremely difficult. Look, if Romney was really wining do you think is trading price would be at $3.69? . To be objective you cannot pick and choose polls, you must look at all the polls combine as some do have bias. This election will be very close but I still think BO will win this. If Romney still has momentum he should be leading in all the swing states by now and he is not. NC and Florida and NH cannot seal the victory for him.
    Here is how I see things going since I have been following all the polls. Romney could vey well win the popular vote and loose the election. Not sure if BO will win the popular vote. Romney will win North Carolina, Florida and Virginia. BO will win Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio. And most likely New H. Im not so sure about Colorado.Even if he loses NH he will still emerge the winner.
    All those who are betting on Romney should just save their money as it is not going to happen. I suspect The betting market have upped Romneys chances to encourage more people to bet on him. In reality is chances are somewhere between 25- 30 percent.

    • Artlouis

       I understand your need to boost your morale. We will know soon enough.

    • James King

      I’m libertarian and voted Romney. You may be right, but I am convinced you will not like America as much, and your progeny will have a continuing question. “Why didn’t you care enough to defeat the communist’s?”

  • nono524

    Do people on pensions and 401K’s understand that the Capital Gains Tax is going to hurt their retirement?

  • bobemakk

    Bernie, I cannot understand why FL is so lopsided when most people there are retirees and Romney is a big supporter of medicare.  Great writeup.

    • Artlouis

      Not Bernie, but I appreciate the compliment. Do they still use paper punch-out ballots in Florida?

      • Perryrealtor

        It doesn’t matter what they use.  The demokkkrats will complain that they are unfair, then they’ll find a way to cheat, then they’ll accuse the republicans of cheating.

  • Winnipegal21

    At this point I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind voting for Mitt Romney. The lack of  climate change initiatives aside, which President Obama has, facts show, made clear advancements in, with the the Romney/Ryan ticket, we have an as yet “un-determined” economic/jobs plan that “somehow” adds up to 12,000,000 jobs, a tax system with no details (other than that the rich will pay no more than now, which studies show most Americans agree is too little), while adding “trillions” to the military which they have not asked for, all as the social equality and equal rights of minorities (women, visual minorities, GLBT, victims of sexual assault, religious minorities) greatly worsen. Who on earth would choose to vote for this? It certainly isn’t going to ensure American success, peace or prosperity. It certainly isn’t kind. It certainly isn’t forward. And it certainly isn’t Christian.

    • James King

      Jobs will never come back in force in a socialist environment, which we have had for more than 100-years. Think of it this way to describe how messed up thinking is. When well-known people are either asked, “What is the first job of the pres?” or, if they just mention the “first job” role on their own. overwhelmingly they will answer, “To keep Ameria (or American’s) safe.”

      But that is not their first Constitutional role. It is to keep America/American’s FREE. The Constitution established individual freedom. This has been erroded over many years, most by Rs & Ds to establish their freedom to legislate unconstitutional laws designed for only one purpose. To buy votes.

      Rs & Ds exist for only one purpose–the same one for unions–self-perpetuation. Nothing more. For more than 100-years, with only one bright spot right after the racist/communist Woodrow Wilson, America’s have become Useful Idiots for the political class, and the political class understands this fact in spades.

      TV is the greatest supplier of information to create Useful Idiots. I am old and watch a lot of TV, and a lot of Fox News. They claim to be Fair & Balanced, and in the large part they are. But one of their “analyst’s, Juan Williams, masquerades as also being fair and balanced, but has clearly shown himself to be a black man standing up for a black man president.

      His so-called analysis of the first debate, for example, had Obama winning, and from what I saw in the reporting, he was the only one in America, where Romney was the clear winner. Only a biased person would have claimed otherwise, and this can be shown by the surge of Romney support.

      Anyway, the nation will never go back to freedom. Instead, it will have left-wing socialist’s or right-wing socialist’s running the show, and remember the warning. Those who have known freedom and then lost it, never get it back. The fault? That lies with American citizens who could have stopped it.

      • Blakely

        I  think that they are mutually supportive. Without safety, individual
        freedom is of marginal value. Think Afghanistan.

    • Drew Page

      Well, we can question how many jobs Romney might create, or we can look at how many are unemployed after four years of Obama.   We can wonder how much Romney’s proposed tax cuts might add or subtract from the national debt, or we can look at how much Obama has increased the national debt over the past three and a half years ($6 trillion additional).    We can guess what Romney’s military budget will do to prop up our national defense, or we can look at the fact that since Obama was elected there has been NO budget passed and the kind of national defense that has protected our middle east embassies and the people who work in them.

      As for equal rights of minorities, just exactly which minorities are you talking about and what rights don’t they have?

      • Iklwa

        Here, here!

    • CCNV

      Maybe you enjoy your socialist programs in Canada, but we don’t want anything to do with them here. If things are so great (i.e., medical programs), why do so many come to the US for treatment?

      Most people want to keep what they’ve earned and the ones who don’t want to do anything, well, they should be left to fend for themselves…not hang off the tit of the government taxpayers generation after generation.

      We KNOW what obammy ISN’T doing and HASN’T done for FOUR YEARS…let’s give Mitt a chance.

    • Dcthompson66

      You sure sound like the Obama campaign’s talking points — are they paying you???

    • burkanuck

      Hey Winnepegal,
      Quite spouting dnc talking points and making we sane Canadians look as stupid as you. If you can’t fathom the unbelievable damage this current fraud in the oval office has done and continues to do you shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a voting place.

  • joer1

    Amen, Bernie!  I hate to say it, because I don’t want to “jinx” him but, I think the polls are full of crap.   ROMNEY WILL WIN BIG !   Americans are going to vote BIG to get rid of this Dangerous President.  I was tempted to write … “this fool” instead of Dangerous President but, he is no fool!  He has “bought” a lot of votes but not nearly enough.

    • CentralScruntinizer

       I think a clear look at the polls and clear eyed analysis outside the right wing bubble (of which Bernie’s preaching to the hard right chapel here is a small corner) would help you brace for the reality that you’re gonna get four more years of a president who would be described as a moderate Republican if he was white and this was 1980.

      • CCNV

        BERNIE didn’t write this article.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          Thanks for the assist, but I was referring to the entire site.

      • joer1

        Sir,  I am a dark skinned, Hispanic-American … although, I don’t think of myself as “hyphenated”.   I am 70 years old and I hold a PH.D. from an outstanding university.  This election is NOT about “Race”.  The constant playing of the race card is tiresome, divisive and wrong. 
        This President has never had a JOB.  He is the most “unaccomplished”
        man imaginable.  He even got a NOBEL PRIZE for NOTHING. No experience at anything accept getting elected.   Our country, our economy and our foreign policy are in disarray.  He is a good “speaker”, an excellent Golfer and vacationer on the public dime.   Democrats are basically good people … I have voted for many of them.  Barack Obama must go … however, I will accept the decision of my fellow Americans. Good luck to your candidate. I do stand corrected… I see that Bernie did not write this article. I do agree with it’s theme.

        • Mario__P

          Our country has been in disarray and polarized since Reagan’s terms.

          Our foreign policy is in better shape than it has been during the previous presidency. Our nation has somewhat restored the respect we’ve lost from the rest of the world. We’re not starting new wars, we’re wrapping up the unfinished ones, and we’re working with our allies to deal with issues around the world.

          But let me ask you a couple of questions about the shape of our economy:

          1) Had Obama not inherited such an economic disaster, do you believe our economy would be noticeably better than it is today?

          2) Do you think had a Republican won in 2008, would our current economy be in a better shape than under Obama?

          • joer1

             Mario,  with respect I would like to respond to your comments.   It seems you have bought into the “Blame Bush” plan.  Mr. Bush was a decent man who performed well in times that were unprecedented and extraordinarily difficult.  As any human, he was imperfect but, the notion that the media and the Democrats have tried to sell that he was to blame for everything is absurd.  The Dems were bitter they lost the Presidency in 2000 and they were determined that Bush would fail and they could get back in in 2004.  They and the media spent 7 years bashing him at every turn and starting in 2007,   the bashing and blaming intensified further.  It is understandable that many citizens would ultimately buy into that ridiculous fantasy.  Mr. Obama has gone on to add the tsunami, the floods, the fires, the tornados, BP, the economic collapse of Europe, the banks, greedy wall street, the “rich” ,  et. al to the “blame game”.  Evidently, HE is responsible for NOTHING.  A non-political analysis of what has happened is far too complex and Democrats won’t want to hear it.

            We have no Foreign Policy … to say it is in disarray says we have one … we don’t.  Mr. Obama knows NOTHING about our international relationships and there is NOTHING in his background that would lead anyone to think he does know something.  He is just the anti-Bush and he thinks that’s enough.  It is NOT enough.

            1.  Mr. Obama inherited a very difficult economy.  He was woefully personally and professionally  inadequate to handle it, so he made it FAR WORSE than it needed to be.  

            2.  John McCain was a horrible candidate in 2008 … I don’t know what we would have today but, he was a lot more “qualified”. 

            The bottom line is:  that was then, this is now.   MR. ROMNEY is way better prepared to handle the mess he will inherit.

            I do not mean to be insulting to anyone in this response.  I mean to be Non-political and as “truthful” as I can be.  Knowing of course, that TRUTH may be a matter of opinion.

          • Mario__P

            I understand why a Republican would like to forget about the mess Bush2 left behind, but you can’t ignore what has happened during his administration, even today. Claiming that Bush is gone, or that four years have passed, are weak arguments, because the impact of the previous presidency will we felt anywhere from a decade to several generations. Let me start with the problems Bush2 has caused, which carried over into Obama’s presidency, and will carry over into several future presidencies. 1) Bush passed the “SUV tax-break” in 2001 which gave businesses up to $75K in tax breaks if they purchased vehicles weighing over 6K pounds. Business owners, or the self-employed, who would normally have bought a Ford Explorer ended up getting a loaded Expedition or Excursion. Instead of trying to reward fuel efficiency, Bush pushed for oil dependence. Research in new energy has been put on back burner, while our nation’s gluttony for gasoline set a new record in 2007, which still stands. 2) Bush crippled the stem cell research. During his two terms progress could have continued on discovering new cures and medical procedures. However all that was put on hold, extending the suffering, and even death, to the ones who needed the cures for those eight years.3) Bush passed his 2001 and 2003 tax breaks, which added $200B-$400B annually to the national debt, with interest. Our grandchildren will be paying for that payoff. Most of the breaks, about 80%, went to the wealthy, because Bush still believed in the Trickle-Down/Supply-side economic. (You can tax the businesses at 0%, but if there is no increased demand for their goods or services, they are not going to hire a single worker. You can’t inject the money into the economy at the top, and then expect there to be an increase in demand for business from the middle class.)  4) Bush’s Iraq War accomplished very little to our nation’s benefit, if anything. The war cost us $100B per year, all of which was charged to the federal credit card. And there were those 4,500 lost lives, soldiers whose families will carry that grief to their deaths. The war also left behind thousands physically injured, and over 50,000 veterans with persistent symptoms requiring specialized care. You know who’ll be paying those medical bills for the next several decades, right?5) Bush inherited a surplus in 2001, a surplus our nation has not experienced since Carter. With Bush’s very first budget (of 2002), his deficit was 80% of what Clinton added to the national debt during his eight years (when adjusted for inflation). Bush managed to take a surplus and a nation not in a recession, and he turned it into an unprecedented shopping spree. Instead of continuing balancing the budget and keeping the debt at around $6T so the nation could charge on its credit card when truly needed, like during slow economic times, Bush used up the credit line frivolously.   6) Bush pushed for his “Home Ownership Society”, which was the caused of the housing bubble. In 2001 Bush lowered the fed rate from 6% to 1.75%. What do you think such a move did to the housing prices? People quickly realized they could afford a pricier home for the same mortgage payment, and bidding wars on houses ensued. In late 2003 Bush passed the American Dream Downpayment Act, which removed the last hurdle to purchasing a home. Bush knew the lending deregulation that took place in the 1990’s, but he needed to eliminate even more regulations. Minorities were one of his targeted demographic with that move. Should anyone be surprised the sub-prime lending tripled in 2004, 2005, and 2006? Bush’s housing bubble peaked in 2006, and his recession started in late 2007. He had a chance to avoid the financial collapse in late summer of 2008 by risking $20B of taxpayer money on bailing out the Lehman Brothers’ before declaring bankruptcy, but he didn’t want to take that risk. Boy, did he risk the taxpayers’ money only a couple of months later, on a giant scale, eh?7) The economy Bush left behind was in shambles due to the financial meltdown he decided not to address during the critical time. The unemployment rate was climbing as much as 0.5% month over month. The DOW was crashing hundreds of points a day. The GDP retracted like never before. The banks would not issue loans. Businesses were failing because there was no financial liquidity. Many mergers and takeovers occurred, which reduced competition and eliminated numerous redundant positions. Additional positions were eliminated to minimize expenses so businesses would remain solvent. Once the employers realized they could squeeze more out of their remaining workforce and generate the same output, those terminated positions would never be filled again. The middle class burned through their savings and cut into their retirement funds. Others lost their homes and their good credit.So, how long do you think Bush’s legacy will be felt for? Two years? Four years? Ten years? Some of the effects from his mistakes will echo within our society for decades. Bush’s bubble was felt around the world, so the entire globe will be hearing those echos just as long. You give way too much credit to Bush for having to deal with some “unprecedented and extraordinary difficult[ies]”, but then you forget the unprecedented disaster of our generations Obama has faced.Finally, you attack Obama. Although Obama’s experience in leadership and politics may not be there in years, he has proven to be an effective and achieving leader at home and around the world. He surely surpassed his predecessor in every category. Most of the criticism Obama receives from the Right is not due to incompetence, but is due to shortcomings the Right would find completely acceptable with the predecessor. The Right magnifies the issues, because there is nothing big and concrete to pin on the president. (Benghazi or Iraq. Which of the two should be more troubling? And for which did you express more bitterness?)Obama took over the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, with two wars raging, and the nation addicted to deficits. Really, what other president experienced such a transition? With all that on his plate, he still managed to return the stock market to within 5% of its peak, the GDP to all-time high, and the unemployment rate to the level he inherited, all in less than four years. Except for one, ALL the Republican presidents since the Great Depression have increased the unemployment rate during their terms, and none inherited the mess Obama did. So hey, give him a break, because based on history, chances are would a Republican president been elected in 2008, our economy would be worse off than it is today.Oh, and your post are political, like the majority of the posts on here, including mine. If would be beneficial to support your opinions with facts and data, because the truth you see, is far from the real one.

          • joer1

            You will vote to re-elect Pres. Obama and I certainly understand your view. I do not agree but, as you know this is a political argument with no end because it is so dependent upon interpretation and political views. You are a fellow American whose views I respect. No one will cut either of our heads off and for that I am grateful that we live in such a great country.


          • Mario__P


            “Obama and I certainly understand your view.”

            That’s nice. Romney and I certainly understand your views. 

            Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but when someone’s opinions become a tool used to affect our nation, especially in a negative way, the innocence of an opinion is eliminated. My opinions are based on history, facts, data, and logic. Although many voters in 2008 had “hope” for a change, I was guided by what my opinions are based on and not some blind hope. The success of most of each party’s policies can be traced down in history. Occasionally untested policies will be presented  and a risks will be taken for good intentions (green energy). I find most of the Republican policies either repeating the mistakes of the past (Trickle-down Theory) or making no sense when scrutinized in more detail (Drill-Baby-Drill).

            And you are correct, this is a great country to live in, so let’s keep it that way.

          • joer1

            Regarding “trickle down”….I don’t know how old you are but, in 1960 a great Democrat who believed in Energy independance and who I happily voted for, said : “A rising tide, raises all boats” and many of us loved him. Times change, people change, political parties change. In the 60’s, it was the Democrats who said “Segregation now … Segregation forever” !
            We all have short memories and we all change. History will judge whether we change for the better or change for the worse.

          • Mario__P

            It’s interesting how you mix in the line, “A rising tide lifts all boats” by a president who did not believe in the Supply-Side economics, into your argument. While the line implies that economy needs to be viewed as a whole, you use it to your benefit to concentrate on the upper class.

            Although the line is a metaphor, there is more to it than just a hidden meaning. “The rising tide lifts all the boats” from beneath, and not by pulling them up from above.

            But enough about catchy lines and metaphors. Logic will tell you that the Supply-Side economics does not work efficiently in a strong economy, and it does not work at all in a weak economy. Any arguments for that theory are easily refuted with simple examples. Anyone endorsing the theory is either doing so for personal gain or by not understanding the workings of the idea.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          Thanks for the civil reply – You don’t always get that around here (or at Daily Kos, admittedly.)

          However, the notion that Obama has never had a job is ridiculous. Like Right Wing hero Paul Ryan, he’s never had a job in the public sector, but he was a law professor and a community organizer, which, despite the scorn from the right, isn’t an easy job. I have a couple friends who bypassed high paying jobs out of Brown University and law school to do that in Downtown Los Angeles.

          The notions of golf and vacation are silly, given that he vacations less than his predecessor who broke Reagans record for vacations on the public dime.

          As for the economy, it’s doing better, and there’s not too much argument where the wreckage came from. The economy is in considerably better shape right now than when Obama took it over. Right now we’re arguing about whether he is repairing it fast enough, while the alternative is handing the keys back to the drunk tax cut/deregulate & spend crowd that destroyed everything in the first place.

          I agree that the Libyan Consulate attack has been awfully handled, but compared to things like the Invasion of Iraq on falsified intel (costing 5000 American lives and 100000+ Iraqui civilian lives based on a deliberate lie) and compared to Iran Contra, I’m not seeing this reason to put Romney in the White House instead. And as for cross aisle bonifides, I admire yours, and will add that my first vote was for Reagan, and am a very distant aquaintance of the first President Bush, Barbara and a couple of the kids (never met Dubya or Jeb, though.) So I am no knee jerk GOP hater – But I don’t recognize the angry anti-science, anti-intelligence, party of misinformation and rage that it’s become.

          • joer1

            I also was taken in by the “University Professor ” gambit. I actually apologized to my colleagues who told me that. I was a university professor. On further inspection, I found that he Bar exam but, they allowed him to teach. An Adjunct is a person who is a part-timer … a person who comes in, teaches a couple of classes and goes home. Mr. Obama had never been The “hope” to be offered a real job as a member of the faculty. An actual member of the faculty must be in his office before 9 am, sit on Committees, advise students, conduct research, hold regular office hours and otherwise document 35 hours of on-campus work . After 3 years of service, he is considered for promotion to Assistant Professor … then Tenure ans so on. Mr Obama was offered a real job … starting at the rank of Instructor. He declined that offer… preferring instead to fill the unpaid role of “Community Organizer”. Mr. Ryan has created an experience background of service in the U.S. House of Representatives. I believe he has been re-elected 3 times so, while he has no “private sector” experience, he is a skilled and knowledgeable member of Congress who is an expert in the legislative process. Mr Obama spent 132 days in the Senate before declaring for the presidency. He knew ver little about the “legislative process” that’s why he handed it all over to Reid and Pelosi. Finally, Mr. Bush’s “vacations” consisted of visiting his ranch in Crawfordsville and going to Camp David. Neither was a popular destination for the media because their was NO Ritz Carlton or Hyatt Regency’s around for them and they had to drive a long way to find the fu-fu dinners they favored. Believe it or not, the above is non-political … it is just TRUTH.

          • joer1

            Sir, the attached reply corrects my typo’s. My word processing program sometimes skips around without my knowledge and it made my response confusing. I have made the proper corrections:

          • joer1

            I also was taken in by the “University Professor ” gambit.  I actually apologized to my colleagues who told me that Mr. Obama had been a university professor. I was a university professor.  On further inspection,  I found that he had taught a couple of classes per semester at the University of Chicago…. As a Part-timer.     These positions are held by folks who are given the title of Lecturer or Adjunct.     An Adjunct / Lecturer is a person who is a part-timer … a person who comes in, teaches a couple  of classes and goes home.  Mr. Obama had never been a University Professor.   Lecturers take these positions with the “hope”  they will be offered a real job as a member of the faculty. 

            An actual member of the faculty must be in his office before 9 am,  sit on University Committees, advise students, conduct research, hold regular office hours and otherwise document 35 hours of on-campus work .  After 3 years of service,  he may be considered for promotion to Assistant Professor … then considered for Tenure or be let go.     Mr.  Obama was offered a real job … starting at the rank of Instructor.  He declined that offer… preferring instead to fill the unpaid role of “Community Organizer”…. whatever that is. Mr. Ryan has created an experience background of service in the U.S. House of Representatives.  I believe he has been re-elected 3 times so, while he has no “private sector” experience, he is a skilled and knowledgeable member of Congress who is an expert in the legislative process.  Mr.  Obama spent 132 days in the Senate before declaring for the presidency.  He knew very little about the “legislative process”  that’s why he handed it all over to Sen. Reid and Cong. Pelosi.  Finally,  Mr. Bush’s “vacations” consisted of visiting his ranch in Crawfordsville, Tx.  and going to Camp David.   Neither was a popular destination for the media because there  was NO Ritz Carlton or Hyatt Regency’s  around for them and they had to drive a long way to find the fu-fu dinners they favored.  Believe it or not, the above is non-political … it is just TRUTH.

        • Mario__P


          It’s interesting how you mix in the line, “A rising tide lifts all boats” by a president who did not believe in the Supply-Side economics, into your argument. While the line implies that economy needs to be viewed as a whole, you use it to your benefit to concentrate on the upper class.

          Although the line is a metaphor, there is more to it than just a hidden meaning. “The rising tide lifts all the boats” from beneath, and not by pulling them up from above.

          But enough about catchy lines and metaphors. Logic will tell you that the Supply-Side economics does not work efficiently in a strong economy, and it does not work at all in a weak economy. Any arguments for that theory are easily refuted with simple examples. Anyone endorsing the theory is either doing so for personal gain or by not understanding the workings of the idea.

  • Mike doesn’t see it your way Bernie.  Obama has a slight edge in the spread amongst the swing states, especially Ohio.

    • Patrick

      It’s not Bernie who wrote this article

    • Drew Page

      I guess we will just have to wait and see.

  • James King

    I voted early for Romney. This is the first time I have voted for a D or R in more than 30-years. It will also be the last, as neither party believes in the Constitution, and neither will obey it.

    But I still believe BO wins. It’s really hard to defeat a sitting president because the office holds too much respect in the minds of voters. This can be seen by really listening to words. When talking about the president, regardless of who the president is, the title is nearly always given by adding, “of the United States.”

    Now I know that sounds wacky, but the phrase doesn’t need to be added when everyone knows that is who you are speaking of. It’s similar to another wacky idea of mine, and that is how to tell if the overwhelming majority of people worldwide place importance by observing how they hold hands.

    I know it’s off track, but stay with me for a second. The overwhelming majority, not all, of people worldwide establish a believe that males are more important by how they hold hands.

    The superior position of anything is the top position. When a woman holds the hand of a child she automatically assumes the top hand position, just as she automatically assumes the inferior (bottom) position when she holds hands with a man. Children automatically assume the bottom position with either a man or woman.

    While I am not a psychologist, I believe this is because people place males in a superior position in their minds, just as they place greater position with the president by adding “of the United States,” when it is not necessary.

    So when you run against a president it takes on less importance than when it is against the President of the United States, and the phrase is added well after it has been established that the conversation is in fact about the holder of the Oval Office, and it is done automatically. This more than anything will assure that BO wins and the nation loses.

    • Artlouis

       Incumbents  Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush lost in 1976 and 1992, so don’t rule it out this time. The case against Obama is pretty strong. He has shown himself totally ineffectual in dealing with the nation’s economic problems, and has no plan going forward.

      As for hand-holding, maybe we should get Romney and Obama to hold hands, and see who takes top position.

      • Artlouis

         Oops, I meant Carter in 1980.

  • nickshaw

    If Mitt is ahead with men, even with women and way ahead with independents, why are we even having an election?
    Why not just hand it to Mitt now and save a bunch of money? 😉

    • Artlouis

      No objection here, and I would win $6.35.

    • Nobody

      If I can dare ask a question without flaming trolls appearing.  But, could somebody give me a scenario where Romney being pinned down defending Florida is a sign of strength.   Seriously, somebody educate me on how that is not a sign of Romney losing momentum.  

      • nickshaw

         Pinned down? Ahead by 5 points and you think he’s pinned down?
        A better question is how people can still be willing to say they will be  voting for Zero when he is directly responsible for the death of an ambassador (along with 3 brave men) and lied through his teeth about it.
        At least Nixon never got anyone killed over Watergate!

  • hillplus

    Your lips to God’s ears!! 

    • Artlouis

       I would prefer the other way around.

  • rlpincus

    As with most wingers, Arthur reads one poll and “makes an argument”.  Good luck with that kind of thinking.

    • nickshaw

       Ha…ha…ha. That’s that sardonic laughter again, Helen.
      By the way, aren’t you technically a “winger” too?

    • Artlouis

       Rasmussen is a statistically sound poll, though perhaps not perfect. I don’t see the value of looking at other polls that are statistically unsound. They don’t add anything; quite the opposite.

  • John nazzaro

    The 75% chance is probably in the ballpark. Tracking polls have validity to the extent they consolidate trajectory. More to the point the Obama campaign has to have a show up which actually exceeds his 2008 experience to compensate for his extraordinary deterioration among independents. While anecdotal, the Ohio experience in Columbus is indicative: the Obama early on campus voting at Ohio  State University circa EOM October 2008 was around  8000 -its now 3000. Obama’s observation that Hispanic voters will be his difference maker if he wins is candid and accurate, and his base appeal dominates rhetorically because he knows the independent data is so negative. My forecast would be that Romney actually wins modestly (3-4%) in the popular vote, but carries-to the media surprise-between 320 and 330 electoral votes. This trajectory is a slow motion version of Reagan’s victory over Carter.

    • Gfinnnn

      Hey John, posting wishful thinking as fact may make you feel good, but it ignores all logic. After a very impressive bump in the polls for Romney a week after the first debate, the race has flattened out, and the reality is that Obama is the one who has gained in polling when you consider the only thing that matters – the electoral college. This “Romney Momentum” theory was all fun and games weeks ago, but now it’s just hot air propagated by Karl Rove (an old trick of his) and the right wing media. Things can change, but if the polls are correct and things continue as they have for the last two weeks then Obama will win. It’s as simple as that. 

      • Mordo

        Right wing media. Whose choom gang are you with smoking whatever. The media had never been right wing. It is so left wing, they have calluses on their left shoulder from leaning so far left.
        The polls are leaning heavily toward Romney, not BO. You need to quit drinking the kool aid and see what is happening around you 

        • CentralScruntinizer

           There is the mainstream media, which is biased toward profit and sensationalism, then there is the right wing media which exists to amplify various right agendas and in doing so often creates very skewed narratives.   

          Case in point is that Romney absolutely surged in all polls after Obama crapped himself in the first debate. That momentum slowed but continued after the second debate until it stopped and the plurality of swing state polls started inching back in Obama’s direction. 

    • Artlouis

       I hope he wins big, because it might mute the opposition once he starts cleaning up the  mess.