I find it funny that everyone is an expert on Mormonism when almost nobody is a member of the faith. Hilarious!

have you tried going to thedailyshow.com?

brilliant.. I'm a conservative and I'll readily admit that it's hard to get people to believe that you're end of the spectrum has better ideas when your leadership is a joke. Romney is not the answer.

Why Mitt Romney will fail

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/29/why-mitt-romney-will-fail

It will be between Romney and Perry. It's way to early to guess who will get the nomination. But it's not too early to see severe warning signs for Obama's presidential election. He needs things to turn around quickly. 38% approval rating in Gallup is not going to get him a second term.....

i'd vote for jon huntsman over obama. he's the only one, but he's not dumb enough for the tea partiers to vote for him.

(he's a mormon, too, by the way. as much as i have issues with mormonism, this guy is nonreligious. his religion isn't going to dictate how he votes.)

by the way, here's a fantastic article by christopher hitchens about rick perry.

and this is an interesting article stating why the author thinks romney will fail in his campaign. i don't fully agree with it, but it's some food for thought for our romney-loving friend, l4e. (it seems like an unbiased piece, though i may be wrong.)

And yet Obama and Reagan are very much similar in many ways. And guess who won re-election NL4E.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day. I try not to pay attention to approval ratings, because they change with the wind. One week you're at 46%, the next you're at 38%. It doesn't matter.

Even if he was 68% approval rating, I still wouldn't care about, because I know that at any point that can go up or down. And do it again. If he's at 47% when election day comes, does that mean anything? No.

Is a sign or a signal or warning. Kind of. It's a warning during that moment in time, but not for long term prospects.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-approval-ratings-economy-link/story?id=11182543

He's actually more like Carter, if you want the better analogy (as far as the presidency itself is concerned).

And Ronald Reagan's rating went up in tandem with the improving economy. If unemployment is trending drastically down this time next year, he will win. But every report suggests unemployment rate will be pretty high still (8% if at the very very best).

Economies drive presidential elections, and very rarely do presidential campaigns matter (only if they are very close like Gore/Bush).

A double dip recession now would kill any chance of Obama being re-elected, irregardless if the nominee is Romney, Perry, or Bachmann.

C'mon NL4E. A double dip recession will not completely kill his chances. You're going by an archaic system that doesn't apply anymore.

Look no matter what, this election will be close. There's no doubt about it. No matter how bad the economy is. That's not opinion that's fact. The reason being, the partisanship of the states. I mean, look at Reagan's election results from his first election and second election campaigns. Reagan won 44 states, his second he won 49 states. That will probably never happen again. Mainly because before a single vote has been cast, 42 states have already been decided one way or the other. Because today, states have become more partisan. This isn't a blip, this is the new norm.

The election will come down to 8 states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana. And most of those states will probably be decided by 3 points or less. The closer it is, the better chance he has to pull it out.

I'd would be saying this no matter who was the President. Even if it were a Republican. I would say that that Republican has a good chance to win, even with a double dip recession. Because I think to say anything else is fool hearty. Now, does that mean he will win? No. I'm not predicting he will. But to completely eliminate his chances, when the map pretty much bears out that no matter what he'll have a chance, is being a bit quick with the trigger.

Secondly, I think he could win with an 8% unemployment rate. Mainly because the unemployment rate doesn't matter. It's a number. What matters is consumer confidence. And if the unemployment rate is steadily going down, and thing look like they're improving, then the unemployment rate could be 8% and he'd still win. It's about perspective. 8.2 unemployment looks great, if you were just at 9.1 a year before. It's the direction that is being indicated, not the number itself.

Which is why I think this election, we might have throw the rules out the window. It will be close no matter what. So it will come down to campaigning. Which is why I believe he has a chance no matter what. How big of a chance that is? I don't know. But it is a chance.

It doesn't matter what he's polling in Democratic states. Because they're democratic states. It doesn't matter how much you win by, it's the fact that you win. That's why I don't look at polls. You winning by .5% is still a win. It's still the same number of electoral votes.

So again, it's going to come down to 8 states. I will almost guarantee that neither candidate (Obama or whoever the republican nominee is) will lose by no more than two states (and I mean to say, two medium states in terms of electoral college, not in terms of two states of any size).

And I don't believe that it will take a "drastic" turnaround either. It's a trend. You can have an upward trend of 4 months, and that be enough. It's not about him drastically turning it around in a matter of 365 days. It's developing a trend.

These states are going to be close. I don't know what other way I can say it. They will be close. So it's perfectly possible for him to just barely lose PA, but just barely win Ohio. And vice versa. Putting controversy aside, in 2000 Bush won Florida and Ohio, but lost PA and still won. Florida is the great equalizer. He win Florida, he can afford to lose either of the other two. This election will be close no matter what. And the closer it is the more an actual campaign will matter, and the greater chance Obama could pull upsets in states where some do not expect it.

Things change quickly in politics. A year before the democratic primaries began, Obama basically didn't have a chance to get the nomination. One year later, he's the president. That's how quickly things can change. In a blink of an eye. Politics are hard to predict because of that. Which is why I don't look at polls.

Note: One wild card that almost no one is looking at is: What if Romney wins the nomination? And what if he doesn't pick a tea party candidate as his running mate? If he doesn't then one will probably run as a third party candidate. And that could be enough to drastically tip the scales.

Just as much as elections are decided by the economy, they're also decided by your base, and independents. If Romney doesn't pick a tea party republican, he could lose part of his base when that person runs against him. If he does pick one, then he could lose a good number of independents. And those two things are enough to shift things.