romney

As anyone who reads this blog somewhat regularly knows, I feel there is a big risk of a President Bachmann in 2013. I have given plenty of reasons previously, but the biggest one that scares me is the enthusiasm gap on the left. A new Public Policy Polling poll verifies that fear:

There's been plenty of bad news for Barack Obama this month in the form of his approval numbers, but our polling finds that his problems go deeper than that. Democratic enthusiasm about voting in next year's election has hit a record low this month. 

Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were 'very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the 'very excited' number has dipped below 50%. 

In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats 'very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%. 

Face it - the left is getting fed up. The President has constantly caved to the demands of the right, yet the right and the media makes it sound like everything sound like a victory for the left. Team Obama is also doing nothing to soothe over the disconnect between him and the base. That can easily lead to disaster next month.

With Bachmann in the top three in the Republican field and barring any last minute entries by some golden child, the fear of President Bachmann continues to grow. Just consider the two leading Bachmann - Romney and Perry. Both have parts of the base that absolutely doesn't like them. Bachmann is somewhat back burner now, so most people don't have much of an opinion of her, except that she has an R by her name. 

When asked about the economy, none of them (well except Ron Paul) would give Bush any blame for the economy. The spin machine was in full force trying to blame everyone else, but the person who voters traditionally blame. With the news of 17,000 jobs lost yesterday, that could really end up hurting the eventual GOP nominee:

For Republicans already facing an economic headwind, the jobs numbers could prove punishing. Traditionally, the party holding the White House is blamed for bad economic times -- and credited for booms -- and economists said yesterday that this year should be no different, even if GOP candidates continue to distance themselves from President Bush.

Here is the big story of the day, a heated exchange between Romney and a reporter about lobbyists being on Mitt's campaign.

Mitt's entire argument is that these people are not paid and are just "advisers". Now let's look at the definition of a lobbyist:

A member of the lobby; a person who solicits members of a legislature for the purpose of influencing legislation.

So in other words this person is lobbying Mitt - right? Now if he was working for Romney and being paid by the campaign that would make him an employee. It sounds like Mittsters excuse could lead him into even more trouble.

That is the tone being set by Republican presidential candidates:

Four days after the Democrat's 'landmark' YouTube debate in South Carolina, only Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) have agreed to participate in CNN's next web-oriented debate.

"Aside from those two candidates, we haven't heard from anyone else," Sam Feist of CNN told the Washington Post.

[SNIP]

"Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said he's unlikely to participate," the Post's blogger added. "Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, said the former Massachusetts governor has seven debate invitations covering a span of 11 days in September."

Since this is a time when they can answer questions from voters, I guess they are also saying "screw the people". So if these Republicans don't have what it takes to face YouTube, or the people of this country, then how can they have what it takes to face the terrorists?