Thursday Open Thread [2.16.12]

Filed in Open Thread by on February 16, 2012

Nate Silver gives Santorum a 77% chance of winning the Michigan primary. He also now says the fundamentals favor an Obama victory in the fall.

Given Mr. Obama’s current approval ratings and consensus forecasts on the economy, he rates as about a 60 percent favorite to win the popular vote against Mitt Romney, with somewhat higher chances against any of the other Republicans running for the nomination. By contrast, in the November version of the model, Mr. Obama was an underdog to Mr. Romney, with a 40 percent chance of winning; the president’s approval ratings were about 6 points lower then and economic forecasts were somewhat more pessimistic.


MICHIGAN (Mitchell Research/Rosetta Stone): Santorum 34, Romney 25, Paul 11, Gingrich 5.

MICHIGAN (Detroit News): Santorum 34, Romney 30, Gingrich 12, Paul 9

Said pollster Richard Czuba: “Right now Michigan is not Mitt Romney’s firewall. He’s fighting for his political life in this state.”

ARIZONA (American Research Group): Romney 38, Santorum 31, Gingrich 15, Paul 11

NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Santorum 39, Romney 27, Gingrich 15, Paul 10

Key finding: “Perhaps more tellingly, Santorum now trounces Romney 55% to 34% in a one-on-one matchup among likely GOP primary voters. This is the first time any challenger has led Romney nationally in a head-to-head match-up.”


MICHIGAN (PPP): Obama d. Romney (54-38), Obama d. Gingrich (56-34), Obama d. Santorum (50-39), Obama d. Paul (52-34).

OHIO (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (46-44); Obama d. Santorum (47-41); Obama d. Paul (46-40); Obama d. Gingrich (50-38)

NATIONAL (CNN/Opinion Research): Obama d. Romney (51-46), Obama d. Santorum (52-45), Obama d. Paul (52% to 45), Obama d. Gingrich (55-42)

BATTLEGROUND STATES [Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin] (Fox News): Obama d. Romney (47-39), Obama d. Santorum (48-38), Obama d. Paul (48-37), Obama d. Gingrich (52-32)

About the Author ()

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    It’s the economy stupid, and that’s why Republicans have been working so hard to fuck shit up. The one thing you can say in the defense of the GOP is that they have been perfectly transparent about what they were up to.

  2. Que Pasa says:

    You’re damn right it is!

    And guess what?

    The economy STILL sucks after what’s-his-name spent trillions and oodles of political capital on hollow promises to fix things.

    Maybe it’s high time you guys owned-up to the fact that you picked the wrong Socialist.

  3. puck says:

    I don’t know Jason. If people are getting jobs now because they have capitulated to a lower standard of living (lower pay, lower benefits, worse working conditions) while the rich are getting richer – then the Republicans have won. Keep your eye on real wages.

    When the new health care kicks in there might be better health coverage but lower real wages. I do hope they remember to account for the individual mandate in the calculation of real wages.

  4. MJ says:

    And the Kennedy’s return to politics –

    Hey QP – don’t you ever get tired of using that socialist canard?

  5. reis says:

    On puck’s comment: Now we’re Great Britain again!

  6. Jason330 says:

    Robin Goodfellow, Obviously it is going to take multiple decades to repair all the damage that Bush inflicted on the economy. We are, however, and optimistic and forward looking people. As long as job growth is trending in the right direction it is good for the President and the country.

  7. puck says:

    Mitt Romney blasting unions in Michigan was an all time great political blunder, throwing goodwill away with both hands. It was as if Ted Kennedy had criticized unions in Massachussetts.

    Romney could easily have proclaimed himself a union supporter – what’s one more flip for Mitt?

  8. Que Pasa says:

    Nope, not when it’s all about redistributive “economics”.

  9. Que Pasa says:

    Hey MJ…don’t you guys ever get tired of the Kennedy canard?

    I mean, seriously, the Kennedy’s can neither drive, fly, ski, swim, pilot a boat, nor hold their liquor or their pain pills…yet, for some odd reason, think they know what’s best for the rest of us.

  10. Que Pasa says:

    Question: Will the rather detailed accusation of JFK’s serial molestation of a 19 year-old intern in the White House wipe any of the ‘sheen’ off Camelot for you guys?

    Or is it just another oh-so-cool story about a crippled, media inflated pill-popper who was a mediocre President at best?

  11. Delaware Dem says:

    John F. Kennedy was a womanizer? This is news?

  12. Delaware Dem says:

    Your question, QP, just proves that you conservatives are preoccupied with sex and the banning of it.

  13. Que Pasa says:

    Yes, particularly because in this case, JFK was about 2 years from being a pedophile. Though, for a 46 year-old man, in a position of supreme power, to lure a teenager like he did; he ostensibliy was!

    Regardless, I thought you guys were all about protecting women from abuse. Oh, right, only if the alleged abuser is a Republican do your man-panties get twisted up in righteous indignation.

  14. socialistic ben says:

    i remember this kid from school. He used to start fights and say outlandish things to people to get attention because he had a bad home life and no one cared about him. the reaction he got from being a dickbag was the only thing he had in his life.

  15. Jason330 says:

    Did I say, “We” are, however, and optimistic and forward looking people? I meant, most of us.

  16. Que Pasa says:

    “Your question, QP, just proves that you conservatives are preoccupied with sex and the banning of it.”

    It proves nothing, Delaware Dem. I’m all for sex and have lots of it. I just know when and with whom its appropriate; unlike that lecherous leprechaun you guys idolize.

    You’re inability to distance yourself from JFK’s miserable deeds merely shows how out of touch you are. I wonder if your party bosses know this? OR do they approve as well?

  17. Que Pasa says:

    Someone’s projecting…LOL!!!

  18. Jason330 says:

    I feel someone’s pain. There is no shame in it. Let it out.

  19. cassandra m says:

    Why — exactly — should anyone here distance themselves from anything that JFK did? He’s dead, we’re alive and most of us didn’t even vote for the guy.

    AND — Mr. JFK didn’t run as a holier-than-thou Family Values purist. Unlike the serial adulterers, molesters, johns, sexually confused and just plain perverts from your own party.

    yet, for some odd reason, think they know what’s best for the rest of us.

    An ironic bit, this — from the man who is comfortable whinging on about what is best for the City of Wilmington without having the cojones to step up and help fix it.

  20. Jason330 says:

    This guy reminds me a of an olden days blogger who mentioned Clinton’s blow job every-time Bush fucked something up. So, he was mentioning Clinton’s blow job every other day. I think his argument was that Clinton got a blow job, so nobody should pay any attention to how effed up Bush was. I’m not sure, I never really go the connection.

  21. cassandra m says:

    Well, yes. Trying to establish the connection is likely crazy since they don’t have any. It is just about deflection as always. No wonder they are so eager to be lied to. But have mercy, JFK? That is quite the reach, even for Our Lady of the Perpetual Resentments here.

  22. MJ says:

    “It proves nothing, Delaware Dem. I’m all for sex and have lots of it. I just know when and with whom its appropriate;”

    Guess we should turn you into the authorities for abusing your right and left hands.

  23. Joe Cass says:

    Great to see Rob Tornoe’s work over at Media Matters

  24. Jason330 says:

    I second that Tornoe comment. What a talented guy.

  25. Joe Cass says:

    Sen. Chris Coons, War Hawk