Personally, I think it's too early to know who will win. I'd bet against Obama, just because I think the economy will turn south this year. But, I think we'll be pretty sure by end of summer though. Because by end of summer, we'll have a good idea of where things will most likely be by November.
what happened to <paraphrasing> "obama has no shot at re-election and anyone who thinks so is a fool"? ...
That is paraphrasing ha ha...
But, yes, I still don't think Obama will win. That said, I do think his chances are a bit better than they were 3-6 months ago. Why? Mainly the economy. Is the economy "really" better? No. Maybe in the short run it seems it is, but it's not. In fact, it's probably going to be really, really bad soon, just as I expected.
But, take unemployment for example. The average American only knows the number, they don't dig into the specifics of why it dropped, and that it most likely will eventually increase again soon. But, could it hold out in the 8.3% to 8.7% range until the election? Yes... it's increasingly possible. I mean, ask yourself this question real quick: why did the unemployment rate rise to roughly 10%, to fall back to about 8.5% (in 2012 - election year), only to go ahead and rise to above 9% (CBO prediction for 2013). Just think about it. So, with these scenarios playing out the potential that the economy could be propped up until the election a bit better than it was last year? Yes. That's why I've ever-so-slightly changed my tune. Yet, I still think he won't win and would bet against him.
But, I'll give Obama and his Keynesian cronies their due, they know marketing and are good with timing of their stimulus to benefit their political/economic agenda. Nevertheless, this short term micro management may be good for election purposes, and may even seem good economically, but when it turns down again and the hangover returns, people won't be happy..
In an interview this morning, CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Romney about perceptions that he doesn't understand the needs of average Americans. In response, Romney said:
This is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.
I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
When O'Brien followed on Romney's I'm-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor comment, the presidential candidate responded:
The challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor.
But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.
(In fact, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the largest benefits of Romney's tax plan go to the wealthy, not the middle class.)
Romney's comment about not being concerned about the poor is his latest statement that his rivals -- either Democratic or Republican -- could use to portray Romney as being out of touch with average Americans. Other examples:
-- his $10,000 bet with Rick Perry (at December GOP debate)
-- "I like being able to fire people," even though he was referring to insurers (at speech in New Hampshire)
-- "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)
-- saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)
-- and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.
no, no one has a shot not named Obama. The GOP candidates (other than Ron Paul, who doesn't have a chance) are all crazy. It's like they were part of "The Hills Have Eyes" and wandered off the set.
Romney says he doesn't care about poor people and is a Mormon, so right there you lose the election. And Romney 100% will be the GOP candidate. I will bet anyone $10,000 that is the case.
Four more years of Obama.
How much are you willing to be that Obama will beat Romney?
Romney clearly has a very good shot at it. He is a perfect traditional Repub candidate, and Repubs seem to win the majority of these things. He's loaded, extremely well funded, and has the unlimited super-PAC's going for him. Also, a lot of people don't like Obama for whatever reason (you know, he's (half) black).
My gut says that Obama pulls it out. Because people REALLY don't like Romney. (with good reason ) He has proven to be a better candidate, campaigner and debater than Romney as well. And Romney seems like a constant gaffe machine (even worse than Biden ), since as somebody who has been rich from birth he can't even come close to relating to real people. Obama's gaffes are more amusing than anything (Special Olympics, spilt milk, etc.)
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Anything is possible in this country , i'm thinking Obama will win another term ..
Do people really think that Obama should of fixed the mess that was left from 8yrs of Republican policy in just one term i don't think this mess could be fixed in 16yrs of any administration ...
Personally, I think it's too early to know who will win. I'd bet against Obama, just because I think the economy will turn south this year. But, I think we'll be pretty sure by end of summer though. Because by end of summer, we'll have a good idea of where things will most likely be by November.
Seriously, anyone who says Romney doesn't have a shot is delusional, and then you post that link. The article is a conservative doing his best to cling to the hope that everyone thinks Obama is so bad that they won't vote for him. He's referencing approval ratings state-by-state and then trying to conclude that will directly translate to how people vote. It doesn't play out that way, and I know you've seen these numbers:
Romney loses votes the more people learn about what a Mormon for President might look like. If he's the nominee, there will also be lower turn-out for conservative Christians, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult. Conservative Christians voted 2 to 1 for Newt in South Carolina. A few may swing to vote for Obama, because even though he a crazy member of the UCC church that's on all their liberal church lists, it's still a church.
To add to that, Romney's charisma is like an out of touch robots.
Personally, I think it's too early to know who will win. I'd bet against Obama, just because I think the economy will turn south this year. But, I think we'll be pretty sure by end of summer though. Because by end of summer, we'll have a good idea of where things will most likely be by November.
Seriously, anyone who says Romney doesn't have a shot is delusional, and then you post that link. The article is a conservative doing his best to cling to the hope that everyone thinks Obama is so bad that they won't vote for him. He's referencing approval ratings state-by-state and then trying to conclude that will directly translate to how people vote. It doesn't play out that way, and I know you've seen these numbers:
Romney loses votes the more people learn about what a Mormon for President might look like. If he's the nominee, there will also be lower turn-out for conservative Christians, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult. Conservative Christians voted 2 to 1 for Newt in South Carolina. A few may swing to vote for Obama, because even though he a crazy member of the UCC church that's on all their liberal church lists, it's still a church.
To add to that, Romney's charisma is like an out of touch robots.
got a 2nd term. Do you really want to tell me he has no chance?
Neo-cons will come out in droves to vote against Obama. That is the 2 party play book...vote against the other guy
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Anything is possible in this country , i'm thinking Obama will win another term ..
Do people really think that Obama should of fixed the mess that was left from 8yrs of Republican policy in just one term i don't think this mess could be fixed in 16yrs of any administration ...
I'm not too sure how all that works but I wonder why couldn't it be fixed in one term ? I'm not looking for an answer on the train I'm just curious why not ? what is that stops any president from changing thing's to improve our country,I know it's a little complicated I'm sure and I know he is fighting the Repubs on these changes but crap if it were changed in Bush's terms (good or bad) why can't Obama change it back ?...what the heck is going on in the friggin White House ?????
it may sound like a childish question but really why not ? isn't that why everybody voted for him.."change you can believe in" what the heck happened ????
Anything is possible in this country , i'm thinking Obama will win another term ..
Do people really think that Obama should of fixed the mess that was left from 8yrs of Republican policy in just one term i don't think this mess could be fixed in 16yrs of any administration ...
My father-in-law was bitching that Obama wasn't doing anything about the stock market in March 2009.
Honestly, on 1/20/09 this country was on the precipice of a depression; things looked really fucking bleak. It certainly isn't great today but we're far from complete economic collapse.
I was a realistic supporter in 2008; I knew he wasn't going to change the world. Things don't work that way. He has certainly made some missteps, but I would say given the cards dealt to him has played fairly well. And he is fucking badass on terrorism. Al Qaeda's worst nightmare.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
it may sound like a childish question but really why not ? isn't that why everybody voted for him.."change you can believe in" what the heck happened ????
That was the campaign slogan but realistically most supporters didn't really believe that could all happen. Democracy is a messy type of government; it's not like we can implement 5-year programs like Stalin. (Thank God)
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
it's not like we can implement 5-year programs like Stalin. (Thank God)
Not like Stalin, but we should have had a frank discussion--led by Obama--on what needs to be done with the mess we were in.
It's unfortunate though, in the nation of instant gratification, with a society of "wired" homo-sapiens who have the attention span of a sloth (no offense to sloths), a 5 year plan would never, ever work.
it's not like we can implement 5-year programs like Stalin. (Thank God)
Not like Stalin, but we should have had a frank discussion--led by Obama--on what needs to be done with the mess we were in.
It's unfortunate though, in the nation of instant gratification, with a society of "wired" homo-sapiens who have the attention span of a sloth (no offense to sloths), a 5 year plan would never, ever work.
Anything is possible in this country , i'm thinking Obama will win another term ..
Do people really think that Obama should of fixed the mess that was left from 8yrs of Republican policy in just one term i don't think this mess could be fixed in 16yrs of any administration ...
I'm not too sure how all that works but I wonder why couldn't it be fixed in one term ? I'm not looking for an answer on the train I'm just curious why not ? what is that stops any president from changing thing's to improve our country,I know it's a little complicated I'm sure and I know he is fighting the Repubs on these changes but crap if it were changed in Bush's terms (good or bad) why can't Obama change it back ?...what the heck is going on in the friggin White House ?????
it may sound like a childish question but really why not ? isn't that why everybody voted for him.."change you can believe in" what the heck happened ????
Godfather.
Really he was behind the 8ball from the get go being that the GOP made it their mission to make him a one term president , not what was best for the whole country but just make sure he doesn't win reelection ...
The GOP mission to make him a one term president has caused nothing but further the crisis to our country. They are sacrificing millions of peoples lives to fit a few handful of peoples terrible agendas. I can't take it anymore. It is down right disgusting.
Seriously, anyone who says Romney doesn't have a shot is delusional, and then you post that link. The article is a conservative doing his best to cling to the hope that everyone thinks Obama is so bad that they won't vote for him. He's referencing approval ratings state-by-state and then trying to conclude that will directly translate to how people vote. It doesn't play out that way, and I know you've seen these numbers:
Romney loses votes the more people learn about what a Mormon for President might look like. If he's the nominee, there will also be lower turn-out for conservative Christians, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult. Conservative Christians voted 2 to 1 for Newt in South Carolina. A few may swing to vote for Obama, because even though he a crazy member of the UCC church that's on all their liberal church lists, it's still a church.
To add to that, Romney's charisma is like an out of touch robots.
got a 2nd term. Do you really want to tell me he has no chance?
Neo-cons will come out in droves to vote against Obama. That is the 2 party play book...vote against the other guy
Bush at Kerry went back and forth in the polls about this time in 2004, and then Bush pulled away in Sept. Bush had his two wars and his free pass with the press in the bizarro years after 9/11. Those factors are why he won. Neo-cons are already being counted in the polls and clearly won't fall into the undecided category.
Seriously, anyone who says Romney doesn't have a shot is delusional, and then you post that link. The article is a conservative doing his best to cling to the hope that everyone thinks Obama is so bad that they won't vote for him. He's referencing approval ratings state-by-state and then trying to conclude that will directly translate to how people vote. It doesn't play out that way, and I know you've seen these numbers:
Romney loses votes the more people learn about what a Mormon for President might look like. If he's the nominee, there will also be lower turn-out for conservative Christians, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult. Conservative Christians voted 2 to 1 for Newt in South Carolina. A few may swing to vote for Obama, because even though he a crazy member of the UCC church that's on all their liberal church lists, it's still a church.
To add to that, Romney's charisma is like an out of touch robots.
got a 2nd term. Do you really want to tell me he has no chance?
Neo-cons will come out in droves to vote against Obama. That is the 2 party play book...vote against the other guy
Bush at Kerry went back and forth in the polls about this time in 2004, and then Bush pulled away in Sept. Bush had his two wars and his free pass with the press in the bizarro years after 9/11. Those factors are why he won. Neo-cons are already being counted in the polls and clearly won't fall into the undecided category.
Plus, Kerry was a terrible candidate for the Dems. If we are to talk about out of touch robots, we should put Kerry in that category too. Not only that, John Edwards seemed like a creep back then, and time has proven those instincts to be correct. I'm kinda glad they didn't win. I voted for the Green Party ticket (Cobb/LaMarche) that year although I'm not sure what good that did. :oops:
I think Obama has got this. He would have to eff up things really badly to lose to Romney. Stranger things have happened, but right now I think Obama will carry most if not all of the states he won in 2008. He's got my vote, even though he won't need it in Massachusetts.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well, I think we can say this: consumer spending was flat (or fell very slightly) in December. People expected a big month, they didn't get it. Housing may be at it's bottom, but it's not growing. Consumer confidence plummeted recently. Unemployment is projected to worsen. Then there's the issues abroad and issues with our own debt. One sign I don't get is the stock market is moving up, despite some bad econ news. Why? I'm clueless. Personally, I think the jobs numbers will be interesting on Friday because the birth/death model will be factored in (I think).
I really, really want the economy to improve and want the market to jump up, I just honestly don't see the picture as rosey as you do. That's all. I see it as a scary picture. In fact, to me it's so scary, I'm reluctant to sell my house (we're outgrowing) and move into a bigger one right now. Seriously. I am worried that I'd be tying my hands financially.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits in the United States fell more than expected last week, pointing to more healing in the nation's battered jobs market.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 367,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
Job growth has gained momentum in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to a near three-year low of 8.5 percent in December. (OPEN link to read more... don't want to fill up the page)
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Bush at Kerry went back and forth in the polls about this time in 2004, and then Bush pulled away in Sept. Bush had his two wars and his free pass with the press in the bizarro years after 9/11. Those factors are why he won. Neo-cons are already being counted in the polls and clearly won't fall into the undecided category.
so what has the press, other than fox news, held President Obama responsible for?
what has he taken responsibility for on his own?
looks like Romney does ok head to head in just about every poll I see.
Keep thinking they have no chance and see what happens. GWB not only won a second term, he won a first one that shouldn't even have been close. If you doubt the RNC and their political dealings you will do so at your own peril.
Obama has a nearly 8.5 % unemployment rate, an economy that is perceived to be in stagnation...a housing market that continues to be propped up...a looming war with Iran...even though he has continued the same path as Bush foreign policy wise he is labeled as weak...This isn't a slam dunk...and as someone who wants a different choice for the presidency...i implore you to keep thinking it is...
It won't matter though...mitt, obama, they are very much the same...economic manipulation of markets to benefit their main donors...I mean, what is the difference between a 750 billion dollar deficit and a trillion dollar deficit?
nothing like spending a close to 2 billion dollars between two parties to prove that ALL these fuckers are doing it for personal gain and very little else
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but why wasn't he able to get things done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? That, to me, is his biggest failure. He's supposed to be a leader, but I hear a lot of "the Repulicans won't cooperate" coming form his campaign and supporters as if everyone forgets the first half of his term ever existed. For example, he talked about cutting subsidies to the oild industry in his State of the Union Address this year. He wanted that done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and it didn't get passed. If he couldn't get that passed when his party held the majority in both houses, why mention it now? Could it be that now he can blame Republican opposition for it not getting done and hope people forget that the Democrats didn't want it, either? The whole "I can't get things done because the Republicans don't want me to succeed" arguement is silly.
Really he was behind the 8ball from the get go being that the GOP made it their mission to make him a one term president , not what was best for the whole country but just make sure he doesn't win reelection ...
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but why wasn't he able to get things done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? That, to me, is his biggest failure. He's supposed to be a leader, but I hear a lot of "the Repulicans won't cooperate" coming form his campaign and supporters as if everyone forgets the first half of his term ever existed. For example, he talked about cutting subsidies to the oild industry in his State of the Union Address this year. He wanted that done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and it didn't get passed. If he couldn't get that passed when his party held the majority in both houses, why mention it now? Could it be that now he can blame Republican opposition for it not getting done and hope people forget that the Democrats didn't want it, either? The whole "I can't get things done because the Republicans don't want me to succeed" arguement is silly.
Really he was behind the 8ball from the get go being that the GOP made it their mission to make him a one term president , not what was best for the whole country but just make sure he doesn't win reelection ...
First, Scott Brown took office in Feb of 2010, so the Dems controlled both houses for a year. That is not half of his first term. After Feb of 2010, the Dems only had a House majority. So, that is about the time that obstructionism took hold of DC. And, whether you are a rep or Dem or neither, it is clear that obstructionism was implemented as an approach to defeat Obama. Some like this obstructionism because it halted the plans of the radical socialist. therefore, it is okay to admit it occurred. I wish there was some obstructionism in Bush's early first term. The "republicans won't cooperate" statement is accurate, and it is also something that Republicans support, considering they do not like his policies.
Second, Health Care was a debacle and should have never been a priority in the first 2 years--or maybe in the first term. Obama did not run on the individual mandate. Hillary did. Obama ran on medicare for children. he gave control of Health Care to the Dems in Congress and it was his biggest mistake to date.
Third, there was a lot of shit to sort out and a lot of problems to assess. The idea that things get done at the drop of a hat is ludicrous. Once again it is a symptom of our instant gratification, lack of critical thinking culture.
Well, I think we can say this: consumer spending was flat (or fell very slightly) in December. People expected a big month, they didn't get it. Housing may be at it's bottom, but it's not growing. Consumer confidence plummeted recently. Unemployment is projected to worsen. Then there's the issues abroad and issues with our own debt. One sign I don't get is the stock market is moving up, despite some bad econ news. Why? I'm clueless. Personally, I think the jobs numbers will be interesting on Friday because the birth/death model will be factored in (I think).
I really, really want the economy to improve and want the market to jump up, I just honestly don't see the picture as rosey as you do. That's all. I see it as a scary picture. In fact, to me it's so scary, I'm reluctant to sell my house (we're outgrowing) and move into a bigger one right now. Seriously. I am worried that I'd be tying my hands financially.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits in the United States fell more than expected last week, pointing to more healing in the nation's battered jobs market.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 367,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
Job growth has gained momentum in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to a near three-year low of 8.5 percent in December. (OPEN link to read more... don't want to fill up the page)
"Trends" in jobless claims are important, no doubt. But, one week's numbers are pretty much meaningless. It's a weekly indicator, so it's volatile. The jobs number of Friday will be important, but even that won't be a sign that things are rosy. This number, you provided, will impact that number. Yet, we need to keep in mind... it's one week or it's one month (depending on the indicator). So, don't get too excited. The jobs data has been going in the right direction, but jobless claims are still way too elevated - historically. It should also be highlighted that unemployment is a lagging indicator.
Here, however, is a great article on why Europe could tank very soon. It also touches on the US tightening lending standards, and in my opinion, leaves open to the reader that the US will follow:
the reason why obama will win is because ultimately, the powers that be like continuity ... obama has sold out to them and they will ensure he gets his second term ... to the corporations that control washington - they don't care if it's a republican or democrat ... same thing ... everyone gets their 2 terms and they move on ...
romney will win the nomination and then during the lead up to the election ... the cards will fall obama's way ... it will have nothing to do with the economy or anything of the sort ...
Sorry, but you're wrong. Brown did take office in 2010 like you said, but the Democrats had a 60-40 majority in the Senate until Kennedy died (thechnically, 58-40 plus Joe Lieberman and an Independent from VT). Brown's victory just made the split 59-41 (or 57-41-2 if you prefer). The only reason it was as big a deal as it was is the 60-40 split protected the Democrats from fillibusters. They still had a majority of the Senate after that election, though. That was just the sign that Democrats were in danger in the mid-term elections. Republicans didn't win control of either house of Congress until November 2010 when they won control of the House of Representatives, meaning they didn't actually take control until the 2011 session began. The Democrats retained control of the Senate in that election. They currently have 51 seats in the Senate (plus Joe Lieberman, who is listed as an Independent Democrat on the Senate website), the Republicans have 47, and there is 1 Independent (2 if you count Lieberman). So yes, he did have a majority in both houses for the first half of his term.
Also, I understand that not everything can change at once, but there were things that absolutely could have been changed that weren't. It doesn't take years to get a bill passed to remove tax breaks for oil companies, for example. His party held the majority in both houses and he wasn't able to get them to pass it. Now he's trying to do it again when he has 1 less house under Democratic control and the other has a smaller majority than it did the first time he tried for it. He knows it won't pass, but he'll be able to point the finger at Republicans this time and hope enough people believe that's the reason it hasn't happened when he could have had it passed much sooner if he'd been better at leading his own party.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but why wasn't he able to get things done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? That, to me, is his biggest failure. He's supposed to be a leader, but I hear a lot of "the Repulicans won't cooperate" coming form his campaign and supporters as if everyone forgets the first half of his term ever existed. For example, he talked about cutting subsidies to the oild industry in his State of the Union Address this year. He wanted that done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and it didn't get passed. If he couldn't get that passed when his party held the majority in both houses, why mention it now? Could it be that now he can blame Republican opposition for it not getting done and hope people forget that the Democrats didn't want it, either? The whole "I can't get things done because the Republicans don't want me to succeed" arguement is silly.
First, Scott Brown took office in Feb of 2010, so the Dems controlled both houses for a year. That is not half of his first term. After Feb of 2010, the Dems only had a House majority. So, that is about the time that obstructionism took hold of DC. And, whether you are a rep or Dem or neither, it is clear that obstructionism was implemented as an approach to defeat Obama. Some like this obstructionism because it halted the plans of the radical socialist. therefore, it is okay to admit it occurred. I wish there was some obstructionism in Bush's early first term. The "republicans won't cooperate" statement is accurate, and it is also something that Republicans support, considering they do not like his policies.
Second, Health Care was a debacle and should have never been a priority in the first 2 years--or maybe in the first term. Obama did not run on the individual mandate. Hillary did. Obama ran on medicare for children. he gave control of Health Care to the Dems in Congress and it was his biggest mistake to date.
Third, there was a lot of shit to sort out and a lot of problems to assess. The idea that things get done at the drop of a hat is ludicrous. Once again it is a symptom of our instant gratification, lack of critical thinking culture.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Brown did take office in 2010 like you said, but the Democrats had a 60-40 majority in the Senate until Kennedy died (thechnically, 58-40 plus Joe Lieberman and an Independent from VT). Brown's victory just made the split 59-41 (or 57-41-2 if you prefer). The only reason it was as big a deal as it was is the 60-40 split protected the Democrats from fillibusters. They still had a majority of the Senate after that election, though. That was just the sign that Democrats were in danger in the mid-term elections. Republicans didn't win control of either house of Congress until November 2010 when they won control of the House of Representatives, meaning they didn't actually take control until the 2011 session began. The Democrats retained control of the Senate in that election. They currently have 51 seats in the Senate (plus Joe Lieberman, who is listed as an Independent Democrat on the Senate website), the Republicans have 47, and there is 1 Independent (2 if you count Lieberman). So yes, he did have a majority in both houses for the first half of his term.
Also, I understand that not everything can change at once, but there were things that absolutely could have been changed that weren't. It doesn't take years to get a bill passed to remove tax breaks for oil companies, for example. His party held the majority in both houses and he wasn't able to get them to pass it. Now he's trying to do it again when he has 1 less house under Democratic control and the other has a smaller majority than it did the first time he tried for it. He knows it won't pass, but he'll be able to point the finger at Republicans this time and hope enough people believe that's the reason it hasn't happened when he could have had it passed much sooner if he'd been better at leading his own party.
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but why wasn't he able to get things done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? That, to me, is his biggest failure. He's supposed to be a leader, but I hear a lot of "the Repulicans won't cooperate" coming form his campaign and supporters as if everyone forgets the first half of his term ever existed. For example, he talked about cutting subsidies to the oild industry in his State of the Union Address this year. He wanted that done when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and it didn't get passed. If he couldn't get that passed when his party held the majority in both houses, why mention it now? Could it be that now he can blame Republican opposition for it not getting done and hope people forget that the Democrats didn't want it, either? The whole "I can't get things done because the Republicans don't want me to succeed" arguement is silly.
First, Scott Brown took office in Feb of 2010, so the Dems controlled both houses for a year. That is not half of his first term. After Feb of 2010, the Dems only had a House majority. So, that is about the time that obstructionism took hold of DC. And, whether you are a rep or Dem or neither, it is clear that obstructionism was implemented as an approach to defeat Obama. Some like this obstructionism because it halted the plans of the radical socialist. therefore, it is okay to admit it occurred. I wish there was some obstructionism in Bush's early first term. The "republicans won't cooperate" statement is accurate, and it is also something that Republicans support, considering they do not like his policies.
Second, Health Care was a debacle and should have never been a priority in the first 2 years--or maybe in the first term. Obama did not run on the individual mandate. Hillary did. Obama ran on medicare for children. he gave control of Health Care to the Dems in Congress and it was his biggest mistake to date.
Third, there was a lot of shit to sort out and a lot of problems to assess. The idea that things get done at the drop of a hat is ludicrous. Once again it is a symptom of our instant gratification, lack of critical thinking culture.
losing the 60th vote in the senate was a devestating blow for obama and the democrats, becase the republicans have filibustered a record number of legislation. the most in the history of the filibuster. if you don't believe me look it up. so yes, the senate, especially this one, really is the place where potential legislation goes to die. kennedy passing hanstrung the administration...
i would actually like to see the senate go to the gop and then the dems can filibuster everything. that way the gop will realize that the filibuster needs to be heavily revamped or downright banned as the dems have been saying for years.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i would actually like to see the senate go to the gop and then the dems can filibuster everything. that way the gop will realize that the filibuster needs to be heavily revamped or downright banned as the dems have been saying for years.
The filibuster was brought out of mothballs by Democrats during the GWB admin, although the current Pubs have taken it to another level.
It's asinine that you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Comments
That is paraphrasing ha ha...
But, yes, I still don't think Obama will win. That said, I do think his chances are a bit better than they were 3-6 months ago. Why? Mainly the economy. Is the economy "really" better? No. Maybe in the short run it seems it is, but it's not. In fact, it's probably going to be really, really bad soon, just as I expected.
But, take unemployment for example. The average American only knows the number, they don't dig into the specifics of why it dropped, and that it most likely will eventually increase again soon. But, could it hold out in the 8.3% to 8.7% range until the election? Yes... it's increasingly possible. I mean, ask yourself this question real quick: why did the unemployment rate rise to roughly 10%, to fall back to about 8.5% (in 2012 - election year), only to go ahead and rise to above 9% (CBO prediction for 2013). Just think about it. So, with these scenarios playing out the potential that the economy could be propped up until the election a bit better than it was last year? Yes. That's why I've ever-so-slightly changed my tune. Yet, I still think he won't win and would bet against him.
But, I'll give Obama and his Keynesian cronies their due, they know marketing and are good with timing of their stimulus to benefit their political/economic agenda. Nevertheless, this short term micro management may be good for election purposes, and may even seem good economically, but when it turns down again and the hangover returns, people won't be happy..
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -very-poor
In an interview this morning, CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Romney about perceptions that he doesn't understand the needs of average Americans. In response, Romney said:
This is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.
I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
When O'Brien followed on Romney's I'm-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor comment, the presidential candidate responded:
The challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor.
But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.
(In fact, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the largest benefits of Romney's tax plan go to the wealthy, not the middle class.)
Romney's comment about not being concerned about the poor is his latest statement that his rivals -- either Democratic or Republican -- could use to portray Romney as being out of touch with average Americans. Other examples:
-- his $10,000 bet with Rick Perry (at December GOP debate)
-- "I like being able to fire people," even though he was referring to insurers (at speech in New Hampshire)
-- "There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip" (during remarks in New Hampshire)
-- saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" (on "TODAY" back in January)
-- and the ultimate release of his 2010 tax returns, which showed him paying an effective tax rate of less than 15%.
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
That is some decent confidence.
My gut says that Obama pulls it out. Because people REALLY don't like Romney. (with good reason
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Good economic news?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/01/news/co ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Maybe Southwest will hire them...
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Do people really think that Obama should of fixed the mess that was left from 8yrs of Republican policy in just one term
Seriously, anyone who says Romney doesn't have a shot is delusional, and then you post that link. The article is a conservative doing his best to cling to the hope that everyone thinks Obama is so bad that they won't vote for him. He's referencing approval ratings state-by-state and then trying to conclude that will directly translate to how people vote. It doesn't play out that way, and I know you've seen these numbers:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Romney loses votes the more people learn about what a Mormon for President might look like. If he's the nominee, there will also be lower turn-out for conservative Christians, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult. Conservative Christians voted 2 to 1 for Newt in South Carolina. A few may swing to vote for Obama, because even though he a crazy member of the UCC church that's on all their liberal church lists, it's still a church.
To add to that, Romney's charisma is like an out of touch robots.
got a 2nd term. Do you really want to tell me he has no chance?
Neo-cons will come out in droves to vote against Obama. That is the 2 party play book...vote against the other guy
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm not too sure how all that works but I wonder why couldn't it be fixed in one term ? I'm not looking for an answer on the train I'm just curious why not ? what is that stops any president from changing thing's to improve our country,I know it's a little complicated I'm sure and I know he is fighting the Repubs on these changes but crap if it were changed in Bush's terms (good or bad) why can't Obama change it back ?...what the heck is going on in the friggin White House ?????
it may sound like a childish question but really why not ? isn't that why everybody voted for him.."change you can believe in" what the heck happened ????
Godfather.
My father-in-law was bitching that Obama wasn't doing anything about the stock market in March 2009.
Honestly, on 1/20/09 this country was on the precipice of a depression; things looked really fucking bleak. It certainly isn't great today but we're far from complete economic collapse.
I was a realistic supporter in 2008; I knew he wasn't going to change the world. Things don't work that way. He has certainly made some missteps, but I would say given the cards dealt to him has played fairly well. And he is fucking badass on terrorism.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
That was the campaign slogan but realistically most supporters didn't really believe that could all happen. Democracy is a messy type of government; it's not like we can implement 5-year programs like Stalin. (Thank God)
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Not like Stalin, but we should have had a frank discussion--led by Obama--on what needs to be done with the mess we were in.
It's unfortunate though, in the nation of instant gratification, with a society of "wired" homo-sapiens who have the attention span of a sloth (no offense to sloths), a 5 year plan would never, ever work.
I don't mean to derail the thread, but is this your kid's favorite tune?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ8_dswW-18
You called me a sloth
Reported
Woot
Really he was behind the 8ball from the get go being that the GOP made it their mission to make him a one term president , not what was best for the whole country but just make sure he doesn't win reelection ...
PS Mitt was Glitter Bombed today in Minneapolis.
Bush at Kerry went back and forth in the polls about this time in 2004, and then Bush pulled away in Sept. Bush had his two wars and his free pass with the press in the bizarro years after 9/11. Those factors are why he won. Neo-cons are already being counted in the polls and clearly won't fall into the undecided category.
Plus, Kerry was a terrible candidate for the Dems. If we are to talk about out of touch robots, we should put Kerry in that category too. Not only that, John Edwards seemed like a creep back then, and time has proven those instincts to be correct. I'm kinda glad they didn't win. I voted for the Green Party ticket (Cobb/LaMarche) that year although I'm not sure what good that did. :oops:
I think Obama has got this. He would have to eff up things really badly to lose to Romney. Stranger things have happened, but right now I think Obama will carry most if not all of the states he won in 2008. He's got my vote, even though he won't need it in Massachusetts.
how did you know?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://news.yahoo.com/manufacturing-pic ... 25175.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits in the United States fell more than expected last week, pointing to more healing in the nation's battered jobs market.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 367,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
Job growth has gained momentum in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to a near three-year low of 8.5 percent in December. (OPEN link to read more... don't want to fill up the page)
so what has the press, other than fox news, held President Obama responsible for?
what has he taken responsibility for on his own?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... -match-up/
looks like Romney does ok head to head in just about every poll I see.
Keep thinking they have no chance and see what happens. GWB not only won a second term, he won a first one that shouldn't even have been close. If you doubt the RNC and their political dealings you will do so at your own peril.
Obama has a nearly 8.5 % unemployment rate, an economy that is perceived to be in stagnation...a housing market that continues to be propped up...a looming war with Iran...even though he has continued the same path as Bush foreign policy wise he is labeled as weak...This isn't a slam dunk...and as someone who wants a different choice for the presidency...i implore you to keep thinking it is...
It won't matter though...mitt, obama, they are very much the same...economic manipulation of markets to benefit their main donors...I mean, what is the difference between a 750 billion dollar deficit and a trillion dollar deficit?
nothing like spending a close to 2 billion dollars between two parties to prove that ALL these fuckers are doing it for personal gain and very little else
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
First, Scott Brown took office in Feb of 2010, so the Dems controlled both houses for a year. That is not half of his first term. After Feb of 2010, the Dems only had a House majority. So, that is about the time that obstructionism took hold of DC. And, whether you are a rep or Dem or neither, it is clear that obstructionism was implemented as an approach to defeat Obama. Some like this obstructionism because it halted the plans of the radical socialist. therefore, it is okay to admit it occurred. I wish there was some obstructionism in Bush's early first term. The "republicans won't cooperate" statement is accurate, and it is also something that Republicans support, considering they do not like his policies.
Second, Health Care was a debacle and should have never been a priority in the first 2 years--or maybe in the first term. Obama did not run on the individual mandate. Hillary did. Obama ran on medicare for children. he gave control of Health Care to the Dems in Congress and it was his biggest mistake to date.
Third, there was a lot of shit to sort out and a lot of problems to assess. The idea that things get done at the drop of a hat is ludicrous. Once again it is a symptom of our instant gratification, lack of critical thinking culture.
"Trends" in jobless claims are important, no doubt. But, one week's numbers are pretty much meaningless. It's a weekly indicator, so it's volatile. The jobs number of Friday will be important, but even that won't be a sign that things are rosy. This number, you provided, will impact that number. Yet, we need to keep in mind... it's one week or it's one month (depending on the indicator). So, don't get too excited. The jobs data has been going in the right direction, but jobless claims are still way too elevated - historically. It should also be highlighted that unemployment is a lagging indicator.
Here, however, is a great article on why Europe could tank very soon. It also touches on the US tightening lending standards, and in my opinion, leaves open to the reader that the US will follow:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/vicious-cycles-persist-global-lending-standards-tighten
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
romney will win the nomination and then during the lead up to the election ... the cards will fall obama's way ... it will have nothing to do with the economy or anything of the sort ...
i would like to think he would be above that, but these days ya never know...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Also, I understand that not everything can change at once, but there were things that absolutely could have been changed that weren't. It doesn't take years to get a bill passed to remove tax breaks for oil companies, for example. His party held the majority in both houses and he wasn't able to get them to pass it. Now he's trying to do it again when he has 1 less house under Democratic control and the other has a smaller majority than it did the first time he tried for it. He knows it won't pass, but he'll be able to point the finger at Republicans this time and hope enough people believe that's the reason it hasn't happened when he could have had it passed much sooner if he'd been better at leading his own party.
i would actually like to see the senate go to the gop and then the dems can filibuster everything. that way the gop will realize that the filibuster needs to be heavily revamped or downright banned as the dems have been saying for years.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The filibuster was brought out of mothballs by Democrats during the GWB admin, although the current Pubs have taken it to another level.
It's asinine that you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16