Posted by Rojas @ 8:21 pm on August 13th 2011

I couldn’t help myself

(AP) WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 9- In what many political insiders are seeing as a blow to his long-term election prospects, President Obama finished second in yesterday’s Presidential election.

The referendum, which measures support among likely voters via a balloting process, was conducted in all fifty states. With 100% of the vote counted, Obama stood at 47% and was deemed likely to earn 177 electoral votes. While Obama campaign spokesman sought to convey a sense of strength, terming the result “a strong second” and discussing “a performance well in excess of expectations, especially given the state of the economy,” others questioned whether the results of the poll would pose serious problems for the President going forward.

“While one must always be skeptical of limited samples and questionable voter models such as this one”, said Dr. Forrest Stevens of the University of Iowa, “this result raises serious questions about the President’s electability. With more than half the country unwilling to back the President, one has to wonder which Republicans might be best poised to move into the vacuum–either one of the announced contenders or a wild-card such as Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush.”

“Particularly at this late stage,” said Stevens, “results like these demonstrate that it’s still anybody’s ballgame.”

The first-place finisher in the voting, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, pulled in an estimated 53% of the vote and 358 votes in the electoral college. Paul’s strong showing was reflective of his enthusiastic libertarian support, which regularly enables him to overperform in straw polls and online surveys. Stevens noted that Paul’s showing “further illustrates his credibility among Tea Party voters, where he can claim a following that, on occasion, rivals that of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.”

3 Comments »

  1. Deploy “heh” in 3…2…1…

    Heh.

    Comment by Brad — 8/14/2011 @ 1:01 am

  2. A great piece in the D.C. Examiner on this subject.

    Why do the mainstream media and the Republican establishment persist in ignoring and dismissing Paul?

    There is no one answer. You cannot chalk it all up to Paul’s perceived long-term viability problems: I know no serious forecaster or GOP operative who gives Bachmann a significant chance of being the Republican nominee, yet she is showered with coverage at every turn.

    In part, the media ignore Paul’s success at events like Ames and the Conservative Political Action Committee because they think he’s almost breaking the rules by having such a dedicated following.

    But also, and I think there is something to this, is that people seem dedicated to ignoring him because he’s simultaneously outside the conventional political narrative, and usually right. And that’s annoying, when you find yourself invested in the idea that the political center is also the center of intelligent and worthwhile political thinking.

    Comment by Brad — 8/15/2011 @ 8:47 am

  3. Now, even the Washington Post ombudsman is on the prowl, taking his paper to task for its relative dearth of Ron Paul coverage.

    Comment by Brad — 8/29/2011 @ 12:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.