Who Can Beat Obama?

 In a piece for Commentary magazine — entitled “What Change Looks Like Under Obama” — Peter Wehner ticks off a few interesting statistics:

A misery index that is at a 28-year high.

America’s credit rating downgraded for the first time in American history.

A standard of living for Americans that has fallen further and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the government began recording it five decades ago.

An unemployment rate that now stands at 9.0 percent. October marks the 33rd consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level that the Obama administration said it would not exceed as a result of his stimulus program. And 28 out of the last 30 months has seen unemployment at 9.0 percent or above—the longest stretch of high unemployment since the Great Depression.

Obama is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.

The share of the eligible population holding a job has reached its lowest level since July 1983.

Chronic unemployment is worse than the Great Depression.

The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression.

Federal spending as a percent of GDP, the budget deficit as a percent of GDP, and the federal debt as a percent of GDP have all reached their highest level since World War II.

Confidence among U.S. consumers has plunged to the lowest level in more than 30 years.

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty has seen a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program.

There’s more …

A few weeks ago in his weekly Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove offered up these statistics:

74 percent of Americans say we’re “on the wrong track.”

No president has won re-election with so many Americans thinking we’re heading in the wrong direction.

Only 13 percent say they’re “satisfied” with how things are going in the country.

Rove tells us no president has even been re-elected with a number that low.

So, how can the Republican nominee – whoever he or she is – possibly lose?

Easy.  As Rove points out, the president’s team can’t run “on a positive record but they can run a negative campaign … Such a strategy will be ugly, but it could be successful.”

Here’s one more statistic, from a Public Policy Poll (associated with the Democratic Party), that was just released:

Barack Obama leads all six Republicans in head to head polls by margins raging from three to 11 points; Romney trails 46 to 43.

So with just about everything seemingly going against him, the president still beats every Republican challenger, as least as of the poll numbers today.

It’s clear that while voters may not be happy with the president, they’re not thrilled with any Republican either. So to all those conservatives who are still staying “any conservative can beat Obama” … think again.  If the election were held today, there’s a good chance none of them could beat Obama.


Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Auth

    Wonderful story, rcekoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well

  • antique frederick

    Heya i’m for the primary time here. I found this board and I in finding It really helpful & it helped me out much. I’m hoping to give something back and aid others like you helped me.

  • uzdatnianie wody

    I’ve read some excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how so much attempt you place to create this sort of great informative web site.

  • oracle ash

    Hi there, I discovered your website via Google whilst looking for a comparable subject, your website got here up, it looks good. I have bookmarked to my favourites|added to bookmarks.

  • 6mm Tungsten Carbide Ring

    Normally I don’t learn post on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to try and do so! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, quite nice article.

  • 10mm Tungsten Carbide Ring

    Hey there, You’ve performed an excellent job. I will definitely digg it and in my view recommend to my friends. I’m confident they will be benefited from this website.







    • Aldi

      I’ve read a few just right stuff here. Definitely worth bokamorking for revisiting. I surprise how so much effort you put to make this kind of great informative site.

  • job search websites

    Hi, i think that i saw you visited my website thus i got here to return the desire?.I am trying to find things to improve my site!I suppose its adequate to use some of your concepts!!

    • Nienieng

      I dlehgit in, lead to I discovered exactly what I used to be looking for. You’ve ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

  • joedee1969
  • Ken E. Arant

    Don’t worry, be happy!
    The Democrat Party is self destructing before our very eyes. Look how interested CNN is in the debates, and they’re doing a great job covering the race. Everybody knows Obama doesn’t even really want to win. He’s already stopped being President! C-E-L-E-B-R-A-T-E ! ! Good times, come on!
    The triple play: Wiener to Corzine to Obama.
    Perry wants to take the fight to Washington D.C.
    Romney wants to take on China.
    Nobody else can win. These are our two gold glovers entering the Olympics of politics. I don’t worry so much about Perry [more Reagan than Reagan], as Romney. If only we could put Mitt into a Star Wars Carbon Freeze so he won’t change his mind, again, from where he stands now. Trust is the key word here. I trust Perry. I don’t really trust Mitt based on his poor record. I just don’t get it, but maybe he has enough people on board to tell him what to think.

    The only other possible nomination winner would be Gingrich, but I ask you – WHAT IN THE HELL DOES “LEGALITY” MEAN? I don’t like it. He wants to talk about being humane, try going to California and see the world’s seventh biggest economy in shambles due to the influx of millions of latinos who have broken our laws, destroyed education, closed ER’s, clogged our courts, filled the prisons and gutted the Golden State financially. That’s why the other states say “Hold It”, we can’t go there. Here’s where Obama’s Orders come into play directing AG Holder to sue. Obama acted like a dictator and he’s being treated like a dictator. Newt is playing with political fire and will get burned.

    But – don’t worry, be happy. With a three term, sitting governor of the nations largest Red State, who has served honorably in our armed forces and has been consistently conservative, except for when he was a Democrat, Rick Perry is going to barnstorm the South and we haven’t had a Republican from the South since before my mother was born. I loved his Bush imitation in New Hampshire this month – “Live Free, or Die”. Great theatre, Mr. President!



  • Mike Jackson

    Who could beat Obama? Here’s my list.

    Rick Perry – Very likely. The dem party apparatchik doesn’t like him for the same reason they didn’t like Reagan. He once was one of them and later became republican.
    Mitt Romney – Very likely. Not so many warts, but where’s the message? Plus the media seems to want him to win the GOP nod. That in itself seems alarming to many. The question becomes when do they turn on Romney?
    Newt Gingrich – Very likely. With his warts and all, Newt Gingrich has been consistently on message over the past 30 years. I don’t see that changing. Should he win the nomination, I think folks would hold their nose and vote for him instead of Obama. It would be a closer result than 1980 but I can see Gingrich winning. The media already dislikes him intensly, so no loss there.
    Herman Cain – Very likely. His appearance on Letterman the other night didn’t hurt. He’s affable, intelligent, and knows how to delegate responsibility and authority. The last two are porbably the most needed traits in an effective leader.
    Cain has also withstood the onslaught of a media intent on driving his candidacy into oblivion yet he’s still standing. His tenacity speaks volumes.
    Rick Santorum – No. He couldn’t win reelection in his own state 3 years ago. Granted, it may have been a perfect storm, but come on.
    Ron Paul – Maybe but not likely. Paul has his core supporters but not much more.
    Michele Bachmann – No. She’s good at drawing media bullets but is not being taken seriously.
    John Huntsman – No. I just don’t see him winning the nomination, much less the election. His being an Obama Ambassador is his Achilles heel.
    Who WILL win? On the GOP side, That’s long from decided. But if Romney keeps using the McCain playbook, he’ll be toast.

  • gerry tache

    Strongly suggest Peter Wehner (whomever he is) review the results of the latest election in Spain. Conservatives finally booted out the Socialists who have contributed to the financial demise of Spain. This sounds like a lot of wishful thinking by Wehner, a leftist writer.

  • Ralph Hahn

    ONCE the remaining GOP Presidential candidates stop wasting time and energy hurting themselves, trying to make their fellow Republicans look bad, then, and only then, will the difference grow wider between Obama and the GOP presumed-nominee. Not in Obama’s favor. I have to give it to Newt when he started telling reporters earlier in this race that he would not engage in bashing his fellow GOP’ers for some liberal questioner. Time for some of the seven men and one woman on the stage to start throwing their support behind someone who could beat Obama.

  • Pete

    Harry Truman’s saying was “The buck stops here”. Obama’s saying is “Don’t blame me”. He is the most arrogant, thin skinned, condescending president we have ever had. If he gets re-elected, we are doomed.

    • Bob Hadley

      Here, President Obama may be taking a page from President Reagan’s playbook. Remember how Reagan used to blame everything on Jimmy Carter? He did that leading up to the 1982 elections. During the 1984 presidential election, he campaigned against Jimmy Carter at least as much as he did against Mondale.

      Here, a major difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan is a much more skillful campaigner than Obama. Reagan was masterful.

      • Ron Kean

        Pointing out the faults of your opponent is different than blaming your failures on your predecessor.

        Your point is a false analogy. Reagan had a vision and successes. Obama has a vision and only failures.

        • Bob Hadley

          Uh um er, correct me if I’m wrong, but President Carter WAS President Reagan’s predecessor, NOT his opponent–not in 1982 and not in 1984. Reagan used Carter as a scapegoat for things not improving quickly enough. Later, he added the Democratic congress as an additional scapegoat.

          Whether you like Reagan’s policies and accomplishments or dislike President Obama’s policies and accomplishments is an entirely different matter.

          Your post is evidence of how masterful Reagan was at PR.

          • Paul Courtney

            Bob, wasn’t RR’s opponent in ’84 somehow connected to the Carter admin? Seems fair game to me to attack Mondale as a key figure in a failed admin. RR also touted his accomplishments in the ’84 campaign, a luxury Obama doesn’t have, because his “accomplishments” aren’t playing too well in Peoria.

          • Bob Hadley


            Don’t you think you’re scraping the bottom of the barrell? President Reagan blamed President Carter for everything from when he first took office in 1981 and he didn’t ease up until midway into his second term.

            Here, I’m not talking about his campaign against Mondale “as a key figure of a failed administration.” Yes, doing that in 1984 was legit.

            There’s no two ways about this. Carter was Reagan’s scapegoat.

            Whether you think Reagan’s accomplishments had popular appeal or whether you think President Obama’s accomplishments don’t have popular appeal is a different discussion.

            But, remember, things didn’t start turning around until after the mid-term elections of 1982.

            If Obama is re-elected and this economy turns around and starts to flourish, liberals will look back at Obama as a great president similar to how conservatives look back at Reagan as a great president. If the Democrats had succeeded in blocking Reagan’s re-election, conservatives would not have as much of a basis to revere Reagan’s accomplishments in his first term.

          • Bob Hadley

            Paul, Don’t you think you’re scraping the bottom of the barrell? President Reagan began blaming President Carter for everything bad from the beginning of his first term in 1981. He didn’t ease up on this until well into his second term.

            There’s no two ways about this: Reagan used Carter as a scapegoat. And he was extraordinarily successful at it.

            This is separate from his 1984 campaign against Vice-President Mondale as a “key figure in a failed administration.”

            Whether you think Reagan’s accomplishiments had a popular appeal and whether you think President Obama’s accomplishments (so far) do not have such an appeal is a different discussion.

            But, remember that the economy did not begin to turn around until well after the 1982 mid-terms.

            If Obama is re-elected and if the economy turns around and flourishes during his second term, he will be later seen as a good president by the majority of Americans. If Reagan had not been re-elected in 1984, his accomplishments during his first term would appear meager.

      • Micaela

        DianaCostaaa on November 7, 2011 My fiavrote food is Spaghetti Bolognese, can eat that all day, and my mom does the best, now i want to eat some, annnnnnnh :3Awesome giveaway btw ????

      • Lucia

        Hiya! I just wish to give a huge thubms up for the nice data you’ve gotten right here on this post. I will probably be coming back to your weblog for more soon.Regards Nick

  • lisa


    • EddieD_Boston

      You’re one of probably 12 people in the world you hasn’t figured out yet that Obama is a completely clueless fool.

      And I thought once we got rid of Bush the rest of the world would stop hating us?

      Now? They’re laughing at us.

  • Brian Saint-Yves

    Questions like “are we on the right or wrong track” are meaningless as long as the “right track” is not described or defined. Last year about two weeks after the November election in which the Republicans swept the House and almost captured the Senate, I got a Zogby survey, and in it was a “right track/wrong track” question. Thinking of the recent election, I answered that we were on the right track. There was no provision for explanation. What Zogby thought I was trying to say, I have no idea, and I’m certain my reply fit into some statistic that did not reflect what I was trying to say.

  • Drew Page

    Most of us here have our own favorites for the Republican presidential nominee and we have our own reasons for feeling the way we do. Let’s not take cheap shots at one another or each other’s choices. Let’s not give aid and comfort to the Democrats who will use every negative they can dig up to discredit each and every Republican nominee. Although I have made my choice, I will support the Republican nominee, no matter who it is, over the disaster that is the current occupant of the White House.

  • Drew Page

    So what do you want us to do Bernie, concede the election and slit our wrists? Of course Obama is going to blame everything on the Republicans. He will whine that he inherited a mess and the Republicans wouldn’t let him fix it. Will it matter that that the Democrats had control of the House and Senate and White House during his first two years in office? Hell no, it won’t matter. He will still blame everyone else for his inability to restore employment and consumer confidence. Half the country (the half that doesn’t pay income tax and are on food stamps) will happily vote for this nincompoop as will all the Hispanics that can’t wait for him to declare general amnesty for all illegal aliens.

    • Bob Hadley

      The Demorcatic caucus in the Senate had a super-majority only after Arlen Spector left the Republicans and after Al Frankin was sworn in.

      Even then, the liberal Democrats had to tread lightly on many non-tax issues to keep the moderates on-board. For example, the liberal Democrats had to compromise on the health care bill by not having a public option or the so-called single payer system. Similarly, liberal Democrats had to go along with a smaller stimulus bill weighted heavily with more tax cuts (1/3) than they wanted.

      But, yes, President Obama had a favorable field for the first half of his term.

      I agree with Charles Krauthammer that President Obama accomplished much of his agenda during this time.

  • Dave Robinson


    Thanks for the article. I believe you are right, Obama might win and if he does I think it means more than he had the help of a 90% liberal news media or that the Republican candidates were that bad. So how could people miss the fact that he is such a bad president and still vote him back in?

    I think it means that people in our country have become too lazy to question what is going on in the world, and too selfish and preoccupied with entertainment to care. They are far more concerned about who wins the supper bowl, or the world series, or American Idol, or union wages not going up, than if our country goes bankrupt. And that is because we are already spiritually and intellectually bankrupt as a nation. But at least web sites like yours help to replenish some of the dwindling wisdom of this country.

    • Dave O’Connor

      On point, Dave:
      And it starts so simply; as you say, “too preoccupied with entertainment to care”. Think about that period of entertainment, when our perceptions are relaxed, then think of the influence of mid-night comics.
      And when media using entertainment, becomes the organ of politics – not reporters of it, it becomes propaganda.

  • Larry Clardy

    People who bad mouth other people usually have a worst bad mouth themselves. People can learn and change… some people not obama and his cronies…I believe that Newt has changed and regrets some of the things that he did in the past. Newt I believe will white wash obama in any debate. Romney comes across weak..he seems like a white obama..saying all the right things to get elected. We do not want or need another person without guts–We need some one that would have the guts to tell obams exactly where he is headed in such a way that even the black population would agree…

    • Ron Kean

      I think Romney needs defending. 1. He’s consistently led Obama in the polls. 2. He’s consistently led Obama in the polls.

      Predictions about his future behavior is irrelevant. He has a moral outlook and a fire in his belly to lead the country in the way evidently so far most people want. Abortion, immigration, military, education, and employment matters have to be more the way of conservative thought than Obama obviously.

      Romney’s clean.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Clean as whistle. Plus, never forget he ran for governor in the looney fringe capital of America. He did what was necessary to win. You may not agree with it but it was the right thing to do politically.

    • Drew Page

      I agree. I do not believe that Romney is half the conservative he makes himself out to be. Newt Gingrich has been my choice since the day he declared his candidacy. I didn’t give him much of a chance at first, but I think he has learned quite a bit since his stint as Speaker of the House. I think he has learned that he doesn’t have to express every idea that comes into his head. I also think he has learned some humility and is a more mature adult. He has the experience, knowledge and passion for conservative principals this country needs to reverse the ruinous course this country has been set upon.

  • flataffect

    Mitt Romney is clearly the most qualified and accomplished candidate. He’s well funded and well organized, having been preparing for 4 years. He’s not an opportunist candidate.

    However, he’s being savaged among evangelicals and other groups who have managed to create an Anybody-But-Romney attitude among the ultraconservative base. He’s called pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, a big spender and pro-Obamacare, etc. They even claim that he’s against the Boy Scouts! Huckabee helped create this whispering campaign that has now infected the internet, based on an anti-LDS effort launched 30 years ago by evangelicals who discovered that they were losing members to the LDS church. This hasn’t really hurt the church, which continues to grow in the face of all opposition, but it has inspired a dedicated effort to smear Romney and try to prevent his nomination.

    None of the others really has a chance against Obama, despite the enthusiasm among the conservative base that surges and falls as they search for a Not-Romney candidate. The propaganda against Romney only helps Obama in the end, but it comes from the fever swamp of the religious far right.

    But now they’re surging for Gingrich who hasn’t been smeared in the conspiracy theory wing of GOP primary voters. But his true record wiil put a quick end to that. And then we come back to the starting point. Which of these looks, sounds and behaves the most presidential and has the best credentials? You might wish it were someone else, but in the end, it’s Romney.

    • Dave Robinson

      I agree with “flataffect” except:

      I think Newt currently is far more qualified than Mitt could ever be, (and I happen to be LDS) and I think Newt has changed for the better over the years and become a far better man. But the average voters of this country are shallow and will only judge a man on his looks. I hope that turns out not to be true and Newt becomes our next president.

      Mitt on the other hand is not so radical or self serving as small minded people want to believe but I don’t think he can sell people on his ideas as well as Newt could (if people judged him on his content rather than his looks).

  • Dave O’Connor

    Any of the Republican candidates can beat Obama in terms of governance and experience no matter how well he’s funded. The issue to face is what element can defeat the media propagandists whom he fronts and whose funds include iin house salaraies and expenses not declared in filings and should be calculated as “in kind”.
    Those figures are force multipliers.

  • Wil Burns

    Bernie, Bush inherited a healthy economy and took it to the crapper. When Clinton was president we had a surplus. We were paying down the national debt. Then the Republicans seized power and the surplus quickly became a deficit. They cut taxes for the rich and started two expensive wars. The deregulated the financial markets and allowed the big banks to steal to the point of global economic collapse.

    Do you really want to back to the Bush era?…. I don’t!

    • ph16

      Wil Burns (once again to be unofficial detractor, have you one thing to agree with Bernie?)

      I don’t think most people (even conservatives) would want to go back to the Bush era since Bush (as Bernie and others have written and I did not see where Bernie wanted to go back to the Bush era) and the Republicans sold out their principles in that era and the Democrats well acted like their usual selves. Also, don’t forget Obama has continued Bush’s policies, so the blame is on him and the adminstration now. In any case, here’s what you might want to read on the Clinton surplus: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    • Dave Robinson

      Clinton had a Republican majority in the House and Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House. The Republican legislation balanced the budget and gave us a surplus and Clinton signed it into law but he didn’t write it. Burns, without Newt and the Republican support that he got we never would have had any cuts in spending.

      Since Obama has been President the debt has increased from 9 trillion to 14 trillion. And what did we get for this sky rocketing debt? Only temporary government jobs that didn’t help the economy at all. Is that really the direction you want to keep going Burns???

      • scarlett biloshi

        If you refuse to give Clinton credit for the surplus,and say the republican congress is responsible, then why now will you not concede that Obama cannot, I repeat CANNOT be held responsible for the current state of events?

        3rd grade social studies taught us who is responsible for writing and passing the laws. Our Congress can’t pass a thing, so even though Obama does have veto power, he hasn’t even had the chance to use it.

        When he had influence over Congress, he used it expertly and encouraged CONGRESS to pass healthcare reform, just like he said he would. That’s why he was elected.

        I promise to spread the word that this coming November is even more crucial than 2008. If you think the Obama machine was powerful before, just wait.

        Watch us BARACK THE VOTE again!

    • Ron Kean

      You’re right.

      We don’t want to stay with crazy high spending no matter who does it.

      That’s why Obama has to be defeated.

  • Jeannette

    Bernie: I’m afraid you’re right. And, yes, I’m really afraid. The very idea that we could have four more years of that one nearly makes me gag. I’ve said before that I’m voting for “Abbo”: Anybody But Barack Obama.

    By the way, it almost makes me sick to type those words that spell out the name of the caricature in chief.

  • Ken Besig, Israel

    I have a hard time telling the weather four days in advance, in fact, I often have problems telling where I will even be a week in advance.
    Okay so I am not running for office against a proven winner(ha,ha) like Barack Obama but just to set the record straight, overestimating Obama is just as wrong as underestimating him, and doing it eleven months before the election strikes me as just plain silly.
    There’s a story about a King who told a Jew to either train his dog to speak or face death. The Jewish guy asked the king for year to accomplish the task, the king agreed. But the Jewish fellow’s friends and family were very upset, what would he do since a year would pass but he would never teach the dog to talk.
    The Jewish guy just told them a year is a long time and a lot can happen, the king might die, I might die, the dog might even die, or with the grace of the Almighty, I might even teach the dog to speak.
    In short, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves!

    • Drew Page

      When Obama suggested that Isreal give back all the land they conquered during the six Day war back in 1967, maybe he suggested that they do it within 12 months. Is that why American Jews are still in love with this guy?

      With its back to the sea Isreal is surrounded on the North, East and South by Arab nations dedicated to the proposition that Isreal has no right to exist, A majority of American Jews support Obama who thinks that Iran wants to develop nuclear facilities expressly for peaceful purposes, despite the fact that the megalomanic Ahmadinejad denies Isreal’s right to exist. Everyone it seems, except Obama and the majority of American Jews, seem to think that Isreal will be perfectly safe despite Iran’s intention to build nuclear weapons. Can the majority of American Jews really be that naive? Are they that disconnected from Isreal and the people that try to live there?

  • Bob Weber

    This is exactly why Ron Paul should get the nomination. Let’s run someone who is the polar opposite of Obama.

    • Drew Page

      I support a lot of what Ron Paul preaches, with respect to following the Constitution, auditing the Federal Reserve and smaller government. Unfortunately we live in a world where many countries count us as their enemy. I am one who believes that strength promotes peace and perceived weakness causes aggression. I see Ron Paul as a good man, but with striking resemblence to Neville Chamberlain.

  • Gary Gross

    The head-to-head matchup numbers don’t reflect what people will think in Sept. 2012. Things WILL CHANGE quickly when the RNC and the GOP nominee start bombarding the airwaves with commercials.

    If there’s anything that we know for certain, it’s that President Obama’s ratings tumble in direct proportion to his face time on TV.

    Especially if the GOP nominee is Newt, the GOP nominee’s ads will be a mix of Newt’s vision for America going forward & hardhitting ads highlighting President Obama’s failures.

    Meanwhile, the RNC will run ads that highlight scandals like Solyndra, Operation Fast & Furious. Bet on it that they’ll remind union workers about the Keystone XL Pipeline jobs that President Obama refused to create.

    Once those things get highlighted, President Obama’s polling numbers won’t look very good.

    • scarlett biloshi

      If Rev Wright didn’t ruin Obama, you think Solyndras- a project with good intentions that went belly up- will? You need to wake up.

      45 million on food stamps, right? You think they care about Solyndras? No, they don’t. But they will vote to keep those benefits in tact. They’ll be voting for Obama.

      Medicare recipients? You think they won’t vote for the guy who refuses to cut their benefits? They will. Obama, again.

      Hispanic communities who are sick of the ridicule, profiling, and stereotyping will be voting for Obama.

      Young professionals who cannot find employment but find themselves in massive student debt will be voting for Obama.

      Religious people who dedicate their lives to the less fortunate will vote for Obama. Yep, abortion and gay marriage Obama will still get their votes.

      Who’s left to vote republican? The selfish, the wealthy (only 1%, and not all of them are republican), abortion haters, racists, and all the others born with silver spoons in their mouths. It doesn’t look good on the right.

  • RecknHavic

    The Media has gone after every GOP front runner except one. Why do you suppose they layoff of Mitt Romney?

  • Bill Hurdle

    I’ve read the comments and most people seem to be basing their confidence in an Obama defeat on their own dissatisfaction. Please be aware that in the minds of the opposition supporters ideology and perception trumps reality. The Obama attempt to blame Bush and the Congressional Republicans as being responsible for conditions has been highly successful – how else could you explain polls that show massive discontent with conditions but yet Obamas’s support remains high. Do not underestimate the need to win over independents with economic arguments and not alienate them with social issues!

  • Fred Pasek

    Most Americans don’t even know who the Republicans are running right now. They’re not all political junkies like us. I think the reason Rove, Coulter, and most of the good folks at Fox news are throwing their support behind Romney is because they think he’s got the fewest skeletons in his closet. That’s absolutely the wrong approach. Romney has no imagination. He doesn’t show any in his campaign, and he doesn’t show any in his platform. He has been rehearsing the role of presidential contender for the last five years, and still he can’t manage to inspire the Republican base to get behind him. He has done NOTHING else, for those four years. All he did was to polish some of the rough edges off.

    Gingrich has skeletons in the closet the the Dems will attack, but if there’s one thing Republicans should have learned from the 2008 election, all that skeletons in the closet do is give the candidate a slight dip, and then they get explained away. The Republicans ran a war hero against a guy with a graveyard in his closet, and people ignored the skeletons. They wanted hope and change. Romeny doesn’t inspire, Newt does. Newt pulls on that knowledge of history and speaks in terms that reinforce American exceptionalism once again. Just because the current polls don’t reflect that at this time, I think he would freight-train Obama.

    • Wil Burns

      Fred, I cannot understand why Gingrich is presenting himself as a conservative candidate. He was accused of improprieties while Speaker of the House; his role was white-washed (typical of Congress) but he was forced to resign in disgrace. If family values mean anything to Republicans, Gingrich is a serial bigamist – having had an affair while still married to his first wife. His first wife learned that he wanted to divorce her while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer. While still married to his second wife, he began yet another affair with the woman who would become his third wife.

      I would vote for the Devil before giving a vote to that hypocrite. He is a sleaze

      • Jeffreydan


        If your choices for President were Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or Speaker Gingrich, who’s your pick?

        Thought so.

        Gingrich might say his resignation & return of the publisher’s advance was an effort to take the high road, but I think it was a mistake. The outrage against him was manufactured. Don’t even attempt to claim his biggest detractors were ethical, above-board public servants. It was strictly, transparently political, just like what motivates you.
        You’d vote for scumbags like Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, and Stark if they were on your ballot; you’re a democrite.

        Oh, and before you scram for good, let me congratulate you for waiting as long as you did before tossing in your mandatory “Pathetic Liberal Blaming President Bush for BO’s crappy performance” tripe. Such restraint.

      • Dave Robinson


        Haven’t you heard about Obama’s Solyndra scandal or his “Fast and Furious Scandal?” You praised Bill Clinton and don’t seem to bat an eye about his scandals. Sounds like you have a huge double standard to me.

        • Elias

          Dorothy Posted on i like the names dootrhy, kendall, simone, taylor, anna caroline, elizabelle, miranda and la laine, makensie and shawnmy top 5 are: Dorothy, simone, la laine, kendall and makenzie

    • Drew Page

      Fred — I agree with you completely.

  • Roadmaster

    Whoever the GOP nominee is, it will be a David VS. Goliath contest. When Obama can raise a billion dollars, many of them questionable (yet hardly ever are) he’ll be buying every commercial slot available. All we can hope for is that people will be so sick of his face by election day, they’ll vote against him for spite.

    Newt seems to be developing a strategy to not engage in refuting all charges, which would certainly take all his time. He could actually go around the media like Reagan did, with positive, big solutions that would contrast with the steady stream of slime that will emanate from Obamanites.

    The fact the Down Stream Media and most dhimmicrat politicos are holding their fire on Romney tells me a story. I’m betting they’re all cued up to totally trash him, once they manipulate enough stupid people to make him our choice. We may well have another “front runner” next week, yet I find it interesting that Romney never moves up or down more than a few points. What’s up with that?

    Polls are interesting, BUT I don’t ever remember such volatility and rapid fluctuation. Opinion seems to be sloshing back and forth like water in the hold of a ship, foundering in rough seas. My thought is: there are lies, damned lies and polls. Few commentators will dig into the metrics of a poll and show where loaded questions and jiggered demographics can achieve the desired results. But thanks to people like Mr. Goldberg, most of these phony polls can be shown for what they are – flat out manipulation of public opinion.

    Keep up the good work, Bernie. If we’re busy, performing our mundane evening tasks with O’Reilly on in the background and you come on, we stop what we’re doing and listen to what you’ve got for us. We only do that for Miller (for laughs), Tonya Reiman, and you.

  • Bruce A.

    Thank you for reminding us of the misery index.
    It makes me miss Jimmy Carter even more.

  • rick geiger

    G_d love Bernie, but in the end, his head is still at CBS. Obama/Axelrod will do two things to try to win in 2012.

    One they will run the dirtiest, most personally ugly campaign that ever happened against whoever is the Repub candidate. If it is Romney they would push the anti-Mormon bigotry to a point that will astonish and of course the MSM would nearly completely ignore the bigotry, because in the end for the MSM it is OK to be a bigot as long as the targets are the Jews, Mormons, Christians in general. If it is Newt, they will basically charge him with being a lowlife philanderer, because as we all know, Democrats never cheat and never get divorced.

    But the biggest thing that Obama/Axelrod will do is to create a massive turnout, of both legitimate voters and fraudulent voters…both Obama and Axelrod have the DC/Chicago gangster disease that says winning is everything…as neither one of them believes in Heaven or G_d.

    And the fact is that it would be nearly impossible for Romney to win a turnout battle because if you don’t understand by now that the conservative base has NO enthusiasm for Romney then you literally must have your head in the sand. Romney is a near sure loser to Obama, that is why the MSM want him to be the Repub candidate.

    Right now, unless a miracle happens and Sarah Palin somehow gets in, Newt is the only Repub that has a legitimate shot at beating Obama, and this is for two reasons. One, conservatives will turn out for Newt, despite some of his non-conservative flakiness. Two, Newt will relentlessly bring it to Obama, no holds barred, whereas Romney would never, ever engage in a no holds barred campaign…Romney would do the same as McCain like when he was asked during the 2008 election by a woman in the audience if she should be afraid if Obama gets elected, McCain said no, when what McCain should have said is YES, be Deathly afraid because Obama is an amoral hard left wing ideologue that cares about nothing but his personal power and his anti-American ideology….Now Newt would say that, whereas Romney would never say that.

    Bernie is smart, but the again so is Krauthammer and Bill Kristol and Brit Hume…etc and yet none of them really understand the primary instincts of the American people that is why their election predictions are usually wrong. The American people want an RELENTLESS fighter who is strident and will not take crap from anyone. Repubs like McCain and Dole and Romney just don’t fit that bill. Bottom line is Newt is the only candidate now with a reasonable chance of beating Obama

  • samantha perumal

    da stats ,are too good !Good job on yet another article,sir !

  • Noonien Soong

    It seems that Romney may very well beat Obama, but Gingrich would completely plow through Obama’s obfuscations in a one on one debate no doubt. Gingrich would be the most grown up and most smarter than Obama.
    Republican operatives will have to travel softly through the pre-debate minefield to make any intellectual headway. They had better brush up on Sun Tzu’s philosophy of the Arr of War to have an effect.

    • Bette

      Excellent !

    • Wil Burns

      You know, Newt never makes mistakes, never have doubts about what is good and true and right. He has all the answers. Look at the record. The Republicans were right about Social Security, about Civil Rights, about gays and communists taking over everything, about the mortal threat to THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE by the Islamo-Fascist/Marxists. Hell, in the last eight years they were right about Iraq and Afghanistan, about the economy, about New Orleans. The Republicans have always been right.
      He is the supremely magnificent spokesman for the Republicans. He so eloquently state the obvious that we, the left, are hopelessly lost in the wilderness and all we need do is embrace the likes of Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Palin and him and walla, we’ll have been saved.

      So, consider us saved, Newt will save the day!

      • EddieD_Boston

        The difference b/w Newt and Obama is Newt actually is brilliant.

        • scarlett biloshi

          yeah, it took big brains to get that degree in European History. What a joke! Any of you on this blog been to law school? Do you know what it takes to write for the law review? If so, you know exactly how smart Obama is to have become the EDITOR of the law review. At HARVARD, no less. The man taught constitutional law, geesh. I’m putting my money on Obama all day everyday in a debate.

  • Cmacrider

    Bernie: If the Republicans cannot beat Obama with his dismal presidency it will not be because the American people don’t like the Republican leader it will be because the Republican Establishment is remarkably inept. First, you have had years and the best you can come up with as a nominee is Romney!!! Second, you seem content to assume that Blacks, Trade Unionists, lower income earners, and Latino’s are the property of the Democratic Party. In fact this is a very unstable coalition for the Dems to maintain and yet I see no effort on the part of the Republicans to drive a wedge between these groups and the Dems. The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example. I hear the Republicans talking about “loss of jobs”, oil dependency on unfriendly powers … etc. etc. I do not hear you talking to the average american worker. Why not state the obvious. Obama had a choice between what was good for the average american worker and his own political neck and he chose to attempt to save his own skin. Why not point out that there are hundreds of trade union workers, restaurant owners and waitressess, etc who are struggling to find money to feed their kids and pay their mortgage and Obama said I don’t care you can wait until after the election. Why not say that there are hundreds of African Americans and Latino’s looking for work so they can feed their families who would gladly take a job on this pipeline but Obama says no … you can go hungry because it is not good for my re-election prospects. The only place Republicans have half heartedly driven a wedge between Dems and their traditional supporters is on the Israeli question. That I suggest has provided good dividends since the Jewish community is less than enthusiastic about Obama. If Republicans would speak to the people in real terms … Obama and his teleprompter would be toast irrespective of who the ultimate Republican nominee turns out to be.
    Cameron D. MacKay

  • EddieD_Boston


    Polls at this point are heavily influenced by name recognition. At least I hope so.
    Romney is the Republican who’s the least threatening to independents and that is where elections are won.
    Hopefully Republicans won’t be stupid.
    Head to head in a general election Romney wins in a landslide.

    • John Daly

      I think there’s about zero chance of a GOP landslide in the general election. It’s going to be tight.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Don’t agree. Obama is toast. Nobody has any confidence in him but the looney fringe. He’s made it obvious he has no idea what he’s doing.

        Romney has fewer negatives than all the other republicans.

        Independents choose the president.

        • Potsy Webber

          1. The looney fringe controls most of the U.S. media.
          2. You’d be surprised how many of the uninformed voters there are in this country.

          I talk to them everyday. They say things like: “if the republicans would just get out of the way and let Obama do his thang” Where do you think the “uninformed” get that from? You guessed it.

          • EddieD_Boston

            Yes, the media is on the looney fringe. No doubt. But their influence is only over the clueless and the clueless don’t vote in large numbers.
            People who think are fed up and the David Gregorys and Brian Williams of the world don’t have the ability to sway them in the other direction. I hope not anyway.

          • scarlett biloshi

            oh the “uninformed” will be voting in large numbers. again. wait till the machine gets running. Barack the Vote Pt.2!

    • Pam Schulz

      The more conservative wing of the Republican party was told to hold their collective nose and take one for the team with McCain. Had Palin not energized the base, it would have been an even bigger landslide for Obama. 2008 was a political epoch ago. With the advent of the Tea Party and the prospect of the Republicans in the House caving on their “Read my lips – no tax increase,” pledge they made to take the House in 2010, Romney will find very little sympathy or support from the base. The independents better really LOVE Romney, because they will have a great deal of real estate to cover when the Republican base sits home.

      The Republican base has enough history/experience with moderate Republicans to know they can’t be trusted. The country is going down economically and every other way you want to look at it. Better to have it go down on Obama/Dem’s watch than a moderate Republican with a weak RINO Congress. Maybe there will be a glimmer of hope with the Republican prospects in 2016. But with Romney/RINO congress, TRUE Conservatism will be in dry dock for at least a generation. It will be too easy for Romney and a RINO congress to take the path of least resistance and not fight for real reform. Romney’s refusal to not walk back ROMNEYCARE is a bridge too far for most conservatives. I think this is why you saw Romney’s poll numbers start to tank after his refusal to do so. I’m not sure Gingrich has the staying power. Good article here by Tom Bevan. http://tinyurl.com/79ua4t7

      I know it sounds crazy, but I still think Rick Perry is the one to watch.

    • RecknHavic

      Not only will Romney lose, but he could even kill any chance of the GOP retaking the Senate.
      The “scare Republicans into voting for a liberal nominee” schtick is getting old.

  • Pam Schulz

    Why is Pawlenty (not still competing) shown but Perry (who still is competing and is essentially tied with Bachmann) not shown?

    • Oriana

      I have learn some good stuff here. Certainly worth bmrokaoking for revisiting. I wonder how a lot effort you place to make any such wonderful informative site.

  • Denbo

    You know things are bad when people are looking at Newt seriously now. He wasn’t even running for president; he was just shamelessly plugging his book.

    I like Romney personally but he has Romneycare going against him with conservative and the fact he is a New England Mormon. I know southerners who would succeed again from the union again before voting for that combination. I wish it wasn’t true.

    • Nancye

      Denbo said:

      I like Romney personally but he has Romneycare going against him with conservative and the fact he is a New England Mormon. I know southerners who would succeed again from the union again before voting for that combination. I wish it wasn’t true.


      I’m a southerner and Romney’s religion and where he lives in this country has nothing to do with why I wouldn’t vote for him in the primary. But his RomneyCare would.

      In the 2012 election, if he manages to be the GOP candidate, I suppose I’d hold my nose – tighter than I did when I voted for McCain – and vote for him over Obama, but I’d hate it!!!

      Please don’t accuse southerners of disliking Mormans or people who live in the northeast, or anywhere else in this country.

      I still stand by what I’ve been saying and that being that ANYONE could beat Obama – even my dog, arf…arf…

    • Potsy Webber


      I’m a southerner and I didn’t know all that about Romney.

      Thanks for the info; I’ll be sure to write in the communist candidate this election, then shoot myself.

  • Joseph Maloney

    Between the candidates bashing one another, and the MSM’s attacks on the frontrunner. It’s no wonder why they all trail Obama in face to face match-up polls. Once the primaries decide on the eventual candidate. I believe the focus will be on the economy, and the spending issues that should dominate, but MSM has other issues to propagandize.