If Obama"s going to lose, then when will the drop in the polls happen? He still has a significant lead in electoral votes, and that hasn't changed.
We sill have an eternity to go until the election. I think Carter was still tied or ahead of Reagan at this point in 1980.
Let's not start sucking each other's ****s just yet.
ouch !!!!
Godfather.
It's ridiculous that any Obama supporter could feel even a little complacent at this point.
That quote is kind of funny with the whole gay marriage issue, isn't it? :fp:
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
The video in this thread made mine. (and Jenna Jamison switching positions almost as often as Mitt - I love that one.)
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
If Obama"s going to lose, then when will the drop in the polls happen? He still has a significant lead in electoral votes, and that hasn't changed.
I base my bet on the economy and where I think it will be in early November. People will "feel" the economy and vote with that feeling.
You base yours on polls right now. Personally, I think polls right now - regardless of who they put in the lead - are worth "nada".
If the polls had Romney with a clear lead now, he would more than likely win in Nov. and my guess is you would point to poll results if it supported your stance, but since they don't, they mean nada.
People aren't going to vote solely based on how they feel about the economy, they'll vote on how they feel when they associate Romney with the economy vs. Obama with the economy. Obama will win that with most middle of the road voters.
If the polls had Romney with a clear lead now, he would more than likely win in Nov. and my guess is you would point to poll results if it supported your stance, but since they don't, they mean nada.
Your "guess" is wrong. Take your pom-poms down for a moment and use that fancy thinking box in your head.
Polls several month in advance on a "new" challenger vs. an incumbent are pretty meaningless to gauge who will end up winning the election. Despite what political fans believe, the general public doesn't really know Romney well yet. Not that I'm saying that will really help his cause. lol.
People aren't going to vote solely based on how they feel about the economy, they'll vote on how they feel when they associate Romney with the economy vs. Obama with the economy.
Um... yeh, so they'll vote based on how they feel about the economy.
If Obama"s going to lose, then when will the drop in the polls happen? He still has a significant lead in electoral votes, and that hasn't changed.
I base my bet on the economy and where I think it will be in early November. People will "feel" the economy and vote with that feeling.
You base yours on polls right now. Personally, I think polls right now - regardless of who they put in the lead - are worth "nada".
the indies (imo) will vote according to a 2 things;
dow jones/stock market,,market is up and buffered by QE=obama
unemployment rate, flat, some will argue is upticking/downticking, get over yourself, natl news for voters says its flat to slight deterioration, favors romney slightly
all the other stuff will be fodder for personal/regional preferences.
this is totally subjective, what else are hot buttons for independents?
San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000 MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006 Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010 Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011 Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012 EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012 Dallas-November 2013 OKC-November 2013 ACL 2-October 2014 Fenway Night 1, August 2016 Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018 Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023 Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023 Austin, Night 1 September 2023 Austin, Night 2 September 2023
I don't think so. I think he's Jimmy Carter reincarnated.
The only reason Jimmy Carter didn't win was the Ronald Reagan was a funny and likable guy that knew just how to act and perform on camera. He came across as a person that everyone would love to have in their family.
And if that's the only thing that could beat Jimmy Carter... Mitt The Twit ain't It.
If the polls had Romney with a clear lead now, he would more than likely win in Nov. and my guess is you would point to poll results if it supported your stance, but since they don't, they mean nada.
Your "guess" is wrong. Take your pom-poms down for a moment and use that fancy thinking box in your head.
Polls several month in advance on a "new" challenger vs. an incumbent are pretty meaningless to gauge who will end up winning the election. Despite what political fans believe, the general public doesn't really know Romney well yet. Not that I'm saying that will really help his cause. lol.
People aren't going to vote solely based on how they feel about the economy, they'll vote on how they feel when they associate Romney with the economy vs. Obama with the economy.
Um... yeh, so they'll vote based on how they feel about the economy.
Obama will win that with most middle of the road voters.
I don't think so. I think he's Jimmy Carter reincarnated.
So you're going to break out the pom pom reference whenever I disagree with you? I'd be saying the same thing if the parties were reversed, because I'm using my noggin. If you'd take your Ron Paul goggles off for a moment, things will make more sense.
The election is about an incumbent vs. a challenger. You can look at Carter and Bush Sr. on how an incumbent can lose. Carter's approval ratings were significantly lower than Obama's are, but in the polls, Carter and Reagan were close. Voters were going with Carter, albeit tentatively, until the one and only debate that went in Reagan's favor. This was how people 'got to know' Reagan. Basically his charisma made people feel better in a crappy time, and there was the swing.
Bush Sr.'s approval ratings were also lower than Obama's at this time, Clinton also led in the polls. Voter's had already decided that they weren't voting for Bush (this also led to Perot getting votes). A bad economy, "no new taxes", and a candidate that made them feel better, Clinton, led to his loss.
Undecided, middle road voters need a reason to be pulled away from voting for the incumbent. Polls reflect that this isn't happening at this time. Romney has almost zero ability to do this, other than the fact that he's not Obama. Those people would vote for my dog over Obama anyway. Romney only delivers question marks for those in the middle, and the more we get to know Romney, the more his slimeball comes out. He doesn't provide comfort to those looking for it in a candidate like Reagan and Clinton did. Therefore, it's easier for them to vote with what they know, because that's comforting in itself.
People like to discount the polls as insignificant. Yes, they fluctuate over time, but when viewed in relation to other factors, it's valuable information. I'll eat my shoe if more than one of the blue states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast go with Romney. Romney can have Indiana, maybe New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida for his swing states. He wont get Ohio. Everyone in the historically red states can get as excited as they want because they hate Obama, but it's not enough for Romney to win.
People like to discount the polls as insignificant. Yes, they fluctuate over time, but when viewed in relation to other factors, it's valuable information. I'll eat my shoe if more than one of the blue states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast go with Romney. Romney can have Indiana, maybe New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida for his swing states. He wont get Ohio. Everyone in the historically red states can get as excited as they want because they hate Obama, but it's not enough for Romney to win.
What if Romney's VP pick is from Ohio?
Indiana is a lock for Romney right now. That is all I know for sure.
So you're going to break out the pom pom reference whenever I disagree with you? I'd be saying the same thing if the parties were reversed, because I'm using my noggin. If you'd take your Ron Paul goggles off for a moment, things will make more sense.
No, I only break it out when you clearly show your a pom-pom'er for the guy in the White house and his party. Ron Paul isn't even involved in this discussion, so I don't know why my hopes for him to be President are even mentioned.
The election is about an incumbent vs. a challenger. You can look at Carter and Bush Sr. on how an incumbent can lose. Carter's approval ratings were significantly lower than Obama's are, but in the polls, Carter and Reagan were close. Voters were going with Carter, albeit tentatively, until the one and only debate that went in Reagan's favor. This was how people 'got to know' Reagan. Basically his charisma made people feel better in a crappy time, and there was the swing.
I'd say you can look at a lot more elections than just Carter and Bush Sr. They are the most recent Presidents to be ousted, but there's a hell of a lot more. Moreover, neither of them... Bush Sr. nor Carter had the horrid economy we have today. Get this through your brain - this economic downturn was worse than it was under Carter and Bush Sr.. Ironically, however, they both went through recessions and guess what - they lost.
Bush Sr.'s approval ratings were also lower than Obama's at this time, Clinton also led in the polls. Voter's had already decided that they weren't voting for Bush (this also led to Perot getting votes). A bad economy, "no new taxes", and a candidate that made them feel better, Clinton, led to his loss.
Polls are pretty meaningless "right now" - they will gain in importance as the election nears. But, I do find it funny how you left out Carter here.
Polls reflect that this isn't happening at this time. Romney has almost zero ability to do this, other than the fact that he's not Obama.
The fact that he's not Obama is probably "the only" reason he would win. The dude isn't a great candidate. But, neither was Obama or Bush and they won.
Those people would vote for my dog over Obama anyway. Romney only delivers question marks for those in the middle, and the more we get to know Romney, the more his slimeball comes out.
I'd argue, Romney offers an alternative to those in the middle who are dissatisfied by the false prophet named Barry. I simply cite his "hope and change" slogan. Or his record of saying he'd get unemployment below a number it's never been below his entire Presidency. You clearly wish people saw Romney the way you do. The reality is your a pom-pom waver for the guy on the other side. You aren't the "middle of the road voter". Your a very far left leaning Democrat. You have no idea how they feel or how they will feel when it's November.
He doesn't provide comfort to those looking for it in a candidate like Reagan and Clinton did. Therefore, it's easier for them to vote with what they know, because that's comforting in itself.
Reagan and Clinton didn't matter as much as the relative performance of the guy who was in the office. Just like John McCain stood absolutely no chance against whoever was put up from the D side because of Bush's presidency. Thats the point. You don't like it. I know that. Everyone here knows that. But, it's a reality. If the economy sucks, Obama loses. Crying about it won't matter. Like I said before, Obama still has a bit of a chance, he needs the Dow at around 13500-14000 and he needs unemployment below 8%. I don't think that's happening.
People like to discount the polls as insignificant. Yes, they fluctuate over time, but when viewed in relation to other factors, it's valuable information. I'll eat my shoe if more than one of the blue states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast go with Romney. Romney can have Indiana, maybe New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida for his swing states. He wont get Ohio. Everyone in the historically red states can get as excited as they want because they hate Obama, but it's not enough for Romney to win.
I never said polls are invaluable. I said there not as valuable as the economy right now. Further, they're not as important now as they will be in several months. Right now, they have little value.
I'm betting your shoe won't be that tasty.
Finally, something you and others need to think about. When was the last time we had 3... count it... 3 consecutive 2 term presidents? We would have this if Obama won. So, when was the last time?
The only other time such a thing occurred was at the beginning of the 19th century - between 1801 and 1825 -with Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
Inlet, you are wrong. Carter's economy was much worse than the economy is now. High unemployment, crippling inflation, and high interest rates dealt pain to everyone. Many people are feeling the pain now, but it's not as bad as 1980.
Here's a good write-up on this if you're interested:
That said, the economy is still middling to bad and definitely presents a challenge to Obama. If the R's had put a good candidate out there then Barack would be in trouble. Unfortunately the R party has chased out any decent moderates (like me).
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
Inlet, you are wrong. Carter's economy was much worse than the economy is now. High unemployment, crippling inflation, and high interest rates dealt pain to everyone. Many people are feeling the pain now, but it's not as bad as 1980.
Here's a good write-up on this if you're interested:
That said, the economy is still middling to bad and definitely presents a challenge to Obama. If the R's had put a good candidate out there then Barack would be in trouble. Unfortunately the R party has chased out any decent moderates (like me).
No, you are wrong.
This was the worst recession since the Great Depression - that was my point. It was worse than the Carter downturn. That's been documented - look at the GDP numbers. And although we're out of the technicality of the text book definition of recession, we're still struggling. In fact, our growth is slowing dramatically and unemployment is rising again.
Further - unemployment is much HIGHER NOW than it was before Reagan beat Carter in the November 1980 election. There are more homes foreclosed than ever. Stock prices are lower than they were five years ago. The EU is currently in recession and our growth in the 2nd quarter was 1.5% and trending down. Our debt is at 100% of our GDP. All of this occurred with the most dramatic printing of money, ever. Interest rates are forced to be at record lows.
So, then there's inflation. Let's look at now - if we measure inflation the way it was measured UNDER CARTER (1980), inflation is currently 8%, not 2% like the CPI says. Why? Hmmm... well, they NOW exclude energy and food prices. They didn't back then. Let's look at the future. The Fed printed boats, and boats of money. What's that mean? It means your dollar in your pocket is worth less. Whether that's properly realized now, or not, just wait. Rising interest rates - IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD.
There's much more, but of all these stats, why the article doesn't discuss unemployment at all is beyond me. They simply try to deal with high frequency indicators and their trends over 6 months leading into the election, but leave a number of important indicators out.
The objective of that article was to paint the picture that "6 MONTH TRENDS" for Obama aren't as bad as they were for Carter going into the election. What I'll say back is the "LEVELS" are worse now AND LONGER TERM TRENDS were worse as well. Moreover, we have no clue what will happen over the next two-three months. Right now, bottom line - the economy sucks and the economic trends are "WORSENING".
Anyways, good luck with the whole Obama is greater than Carter argument. The fact that it can even be debated shows why Obama has little chance.
Hahaha, careful with this. I got a warning pm from Kat a while ago when I did this same thing as a joke. She does not take kindly to people altering quotes, let me tell you!!!! I haven't done it since!!!
Thank you Cincy for spreading the word. You got a 'caution'... Each person's words are their own. Comments about them are fine but the quoted text isn't for changing. Only the utterer can change them. Have a great weekend.
Inlet, you are wrong. Carter's economy was much worse than the economy is now. High unemployment, crippling inflation, and high interest rates dealt pain to everyone. Many people are feeling the pain now, but it's not as bad as 1980.
Here's a good write-up on this if you're interested:
That said, the economy is still middling to bad and definitely presents a challenge to Obama. If the R's had put a good candidate out there then Barack would be in trouble. Unfortunately the R party has chased out any decent moderates (like me).
No, you are wrong.
This was the worst recession since the Great Depression - that was my point. It was worse than the Carter downturn. That's been documented - look at the GDP numbers. And although we're out of the technicality of the text book definition of recession, we're still struggling. In fact, our growth is slowing dramatically and unemployment is rising again.
Further - unemployment is much HIGHER NOW than it was before Reagan beat Carter in the November 1980 election. There are more homes foreclosed than ever. Stock prices are lower than they were five years ago. The EU is currently in recession and our growth in the 2nd quarter was 1.5% and trending down. Our debt is at 100% of our GDP. All of this occurred with the most dramatic printing of money, ever. Interest rates are forced to be at record lows.
So, then there's inflation. Let's look at now - if we measure inflation the way it was measured UNDER CARTER (1980), inflation is currently 8%, not 2% like the CPI says. Why? Hmmm... well, they NOW exclude energy and food prices. They didn't back then. Let's look at the future. The Fed printed boats, and boats of money. What's that mean? It means your dollar in your pocket is worth less. Whether that's properly realized now, or not, just wait. Rising interest rates - IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD.
There's much more, but of all these stats, why the article doesn't discuss unemployment at all is beyond me. They simply try to deal with high frequency indicators and their trends over 6 months leading into the election, but leave a number of important indicators out.
The objective of that article was to paint the picture that "6 MONTH TRENDS" for Obama aren't as bad as they were for Carter going into the election. What I'll say back is the "LEVELS" are worse now AND LONGER TERM TRENDS were worse as well. Moreover, we have no clue what will happen over the next two-three months. Right now, bottom line - the economy sucks and the economic trends are "WORSENING".
Anyways, good luck with the whole Obama is greater than Carter argument. The fact that it can even be debated shows why Obama has little chance.
Whatever you want to think. Inflation has been almost nonexistent for a few years now. Mortgages are available under 4%, compared to 15-20% under Carter. It just ain't the same thing. You obviously are gonna think what you wanna think, and that's fine.
Carter also had embarrassing foreign policy events and absurdly decided to boycott the Olympics.
Sadly I think the most valid analogy for this election is W in 2004 vs. Kerry is to BO in 2012 vs. Romney. Kerry just couldn't win Ohio, and neither will Romney.
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
Whatever you want to think. Inflation has been almost nonexistent for a few years now. Mortgages are available under 4%, compared to 15-20% under Carter. It just ain't the same thing. You obviously are gonna think what you wanna think, and that's fine.
Once again, if we measure inflation the way it was measured under Carter, you're just plain wrong. It's very existent - 8% (is not small)... it's higher than all but about 5-years within the 20-year point from 1982-present. Moreover, there's more people jobless now than ever. Interest rates, since you seem to really want to bring them up, are not a function of the President. They are a function of the FED. Volker was the reason for the rising interest rates in the late-70s. He was a smart man.
Mortgage rate availability is meaningless if you just foreclosed on your home (which is at record highs) and have no job (which is also at record highs).
Carter also had embarrassing foreign policy events and absurdly decided to boycott the Olympics.
Sadly I think the most valid analogy for this election is W in 2004 vs. Kerry is to BO in 2012 vs. Romney. Kerry just couldn't win Ohio, and neither will Romney.
You're entitled to think what you will. But, I continue to say:
Foreign policy is pretty meaningless right now. The economy is worse now than it has been since the Great Depression. The economy is not even comparable now to where it was in 2004. The economy will be the focus of the election, regardless if that helps your guy or not. I think Obama has a chance, if the economy improves substantially in the next two months (for example - unemployment is below 8% by November). Otherwise, he's done. It doesn't matter who the opposition candidate and whether he looks like a game show host or not.
Interest rates, since you seem to really want to bring them up, are not a function of the President. They are a function of the FED. Volker was the reason for the rising interest rates in the late-70s. He was a smart man.
Come on. NOTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY IS A FUNCTION OF THE PRESIDENT. People blame or credit the prez for the economy all the time, and the level of economic performance has some correlation with the incumbent party's performance, but I'm sure you realize the president has little actual power to influence the economy. I'm sure you're not that naive. Right?
One more thing, and I'm done with this circular argument. You realize many still blame Bush for the bad economy right? Look I'm not saying it's fair to blame any one person for getting foreclosed or being unemployed, just that that's how people perceive it.
Your analysis of pointing to whatever economic indicators fit your story and to nothing else is just cherry picking and wishful thinking. Other indicators tell a different story, such as the S&P 500 being up 65% since 1/20/2009.
***
One more thing on foreign policy. Carter is the guy who botched the Iran Hostage crisis and boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Obama's the guy who "ended the Iraq War" (yeah I know it was really Bush who set the timetable, but the troops were pulled out on Obama's watch) and killed bin Laden. Little bit of a difference I'd say. It means something to some people, even if it's not the #1 issue.
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
Come on. NOTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY IS A FUNCTION OF THE PRESIDENT. People blame or credit the prez for the economy all the time, and the level of economic performance has some correlation with the incumbent party's performance, but I'm sure you realize the president has little actual power to influence the economy. I'm sure you're not that naive. Right?
I'd say you're semi-right that the President does little for the economy in the short run. I'd say they can certainly sway the economy with policy implementation, however. In the long run, consistent policy alterations by the President can weigh against the economy in my opinion. Fiscal policy certainly DOES matter, typically by constraining growth - so not sure what you mean there. But, regardless, my point all along is:
The average voter thinks the President is the figurehead of the economy. That's true, whether it works against your fav President ever or doesn't. Obama will be blamed for the economy, just like he'd be rewarded for the economy. Trying to ignore that, is ignoring a fact, and we don't want to do that - do we?
One more thing, and I'm done with this circular argument. You realize many still blame Bush for the bad economy right? Look I'm not saying it's fair to blame any one person for getting foreclosed or being unemployed, just that that's how people perceive it.
I think they did blame Bush, yes. That's why McCain got destroyed in the last election by a guy with little to no experience in my opinion. However, it's been roughly 4 years since then. Obama "owns" this economy, for better or worse. Other than hardcore Dems, I don't see how Obama could possibly insulate himself from the blame. He's going to get it, whether you like it or not.
Your analysis of pointing to whatever economic indicators fit your story and to nothing else is just cherry picking and wishful thinking. Other indicators tell a different story, such as the S&P 500 being up 65% since 1/20/2009.
First, my analysis of pointing to economic indicators is a reality. That weak article from NYT you posted which basically said don't listen to them - Obama's not as bad as Carter - used was exactly what you're rallying against "pointing to whatever economic indicators fit your story and to nothing else is just cherry picking and wishful thinking". That's why I responded with indicators showing that the author had an agenda. He excluded the fucking unemployment rate ha ha. Seriously? He looked at only 6 months! Seriously? Dude, reality is all around you. Look around. Do you honestly think the economy is doing well? Seriously, you don't need to look at data to know it's a shit storm. Unemployment is higher than it was when Obama took office - he's going to be blamed for that, whether it's right or wrong. I know a ton of people who have been laid off. The poverty level is climbing to the highest level since the 60s! Black unemployment is the highest in a quarter century. Seriously? Youth unemployment is the highest since WWII? These were his base, man! Even the stock market, is lower than it was five years ago, man. This is after more money has been printed than in the history of civilization. You really think that's his go-to number? Really? Without the QE, the Dow would be at 6000, maybe 7000.
You're trying to argue that "I'm cherry picking"? Really? As for wishful thinking, I could not care less who wins this Presidency. You do! You want Obama. Who's really "wishful thinking"?
One more thing on foreign policy. Carter is the guy who botched the Iran Hostage crisis and boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Obama's the guy who "ended the Iraq War" (yeah I know it was really Bush who set the timetable, but the troops were pulled out on Obama's watch) and killed bin Laden. Little bit of a difference I'd say. It means something to some people, even if it's not the #1 issue.
[/quote]
I'd say it's pretty negligible. I'd say you're right that killing Bin Laden gave him some points, for sure. Other than that, I don't think he really gets anywhere. In my opinion, people won't vote on the following:
Social issues
Foreign policy
They will vote on...
The economy.
I'm quite aware that this wasn't always the case because we weren't in (what I call a depression) in those cases. And I'm quite aware that this scenario, which is not all his fault, may give Obama a bad hand in this upcoming election. But, it's a reality. I could have told you this in 2008. The dude was set to be a one term Pres.
Moreover, I've said it before. There's very little chance (given history) that the US will have 3 two-term presidents in a row. Statistics are saying it hasn't happened in the past, and the current economic data is saying it won't happen. I'm simply saying to you, despite all your desire that Obama is re-elected, it's not looking good bro, sorry.
I'd say it's pretty negligible. I'd say you're right that killing Bin Laden gave him some points, for sure. Other than that, I don't think he really gets anywhere. In my opinion, people won't vote on the following:
Social issues
Foreign policy
They will vote on...
The economy.
I'm quite aware that this wasn't always the case because we weren't in (what I call a depression) in those cases. And I'm quite aware that this scenario, which is not all his fault, may give Obama a bad hand in this upcoming election. But, it's a reality. I could have told you this in 2008. The dude was set to be a one term Pres.
Moreover, I've said it before. There's very little chance (given history) that the US will have 3 two-term presidents in a row. Statistics are saying it hasn't happened in the past, and the current economic data is saying it won't happen. I'm simply saying to you, despite all your desire that Obama is re-elected, it's not looking good bro, sorry.
And this is why I say you wave the Ron Paul pom poms. You keep pushing that middle road voters have the same view and priorities that you do. You're the one with the blind spots. I'm not waving pom poms, I'm looking at historical trends and how they apply to this election. You look at how excited you Libertarian online buddies get about Ron Paul and then over generalize that to others. Carter pretty much was (and is) solely blamed for a lot that happend in his four years and the state of the economy at that time. The blame on the current state of the economy has been successfully spread around, enough so to give Obama an out. You stated earlier I left Carter out of polling reference, but I didn't. I said Carter was "close" to Reagan in the polls.
It seems like you do care who wins the election, because you're struggling to look at this objectively. You've announced that Obama is the worst president ever, and you also post a fairly meaningless factoid about 3 two term presidents in a row. You were sure earlier in the year that the unemployment rate would take a big jump after all these people who dropped out of the job market would then re-enter it. A lot of your claims reflect bias. Maybe you could pull back some at look at things from a different angle.
The thing about 3 straight two-term presidents is absurd. I would also say it's wrong.
FDR - FOUR straight terms (Five for FDR/HST)
then
DDE - 2 straight terms
then
JFK/LBJ - 2 straight terms
then
Nixon - 2 straight terms
But if you're going to let deaths/assassinations/resignations fit your story then so be it.
Bottom line is none of that has anything to do with this election. Incumbents by default are the favorite in any election, including presidential. It usually takes a transcendent personality (i.e. Reagan & Clinton) to unseat an incumbent.
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
And this is why I say you wave the Ron Paul pom poms. You keep pushing that middle road voters have the same view and priorities that you do. You're the one with the blind spots. I'm not waving pom poms, I'm looking at historical trends and how they apply to this election. You look at how excited you Libertarian online buddies get about Ron Paul and then over generalize that to others. Carter pretty much was (and is) solely blamed for a lot that happend in his four years and the state of the economy at that time. The blame on the current state of the economy has been successfully spread around, enough so to give Obama an out. You stated earlier I left Carter out of polling reference, but I didn't. I said Carter was "close" to Reagan in the polls.
No, you're waving Democratic party Pom-Poms.
Obama will be blamed for the state of the economy on election day, no matter how much you hope and pray he won't be. That's what I've been saying all along. I know, everyone here knows, how much you hope and pray he gets re-elected. I get it. You love him. Now, I'm saying to you, look... you've got a shot of getting your prayers answered, but to pretend like the economy doesn't exist is laughable. Unfortunately, if things don't improve, your hero may not win re-election. Sorry, bro.
It seems like you do care who wins the election, because you're struggling to look at this objectively. You've announced that Obama is the worst president ever, and you also post a fairly meaningless factoid about 3 two term presidents in a row. You were sure earlier in the year that the unemployment rate would take a big jump after all these people who dropped out of the job market would then re-enter it. A lot of your claims reflect bias. Maybe you could pull back some at look at things from a different angle.
Said it before, I'll say it again. You have a stake in the election, I do not. I don't think President Obama will win because I don't think the economy will be in the correct position by Nov. That's been my opinion. That's a pretty sound opinion.
Now you on the other hand, you're the one with pom-poms in hand cheering on President Obama saying back "nah uh". Look at the polls that show a 3 point lead or whatever. I say back - it's August. The Rep nominee hasn't even been officially been nominated yet. You're trying to now argue the economy won't matter because the blame has been shifted around. Seriously? You claim your not waving pom-poms? Then you go and say I'm Ron Paul cheering in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him. It's kinda ridiculous.
To address a couple of these other points, because I don't feel like remaking the wheel - I'm not sure I really think Obama is the worst President ever. I think I could think of a few others that may have been worse, but he's certainly up there.
The factoid about 3 two-term presidents isn't a meaningless. It's a statistic, and I'd add a pretty important one. I'd say it's probably as important as "current" polls.
Bottom line is none of that has anything to do with this election. Incumbents by default are the favorite in any election, including presidential. It usually takes a transcendent personality (i.e. Reagan & Clinton) to unseat an incumbent.
Or a horrible economy (i.e. countless other Presidents).
Obama will be blamed for the state of the economy on election day, no matter how much you hope and pray he won't be. That's what I've been saying all along. I know, everyone here knows, how much you hope and pray he gets re-elected. I get it. You love him. Now, I'm saying to you, look... you've got a shot of getting your prayers answered, but to pretend like the economy doesn't exist is laughable. Unfortunately, if things don't improve, your hero may not win re-election. Sorry, bro.
It seems like you do care who wins the election, because you're struggling to look at this objectively. You've announced that Obama is the worst president ever, and you also post a fairly meaningless factoid about 3 two term presidents in a row. You were sure earlier in the year that the unemployment rate would take a big jump after all these people who dropped out of the job market would then re-enter it. A lot of your claims reflect bias. Maybe you could pull back some at look at things from a different angle.
Said it before, I'll say it again. You have a stake in the election, I do not. I don't think President Obama will win because I don't think the economy will be in the correct position by Nov. That's been my opinion. That's a pretty sound opinion.
Now you on the other hand, you're the one with pom-poms in hand cheering on President Obama saying back "nah uh". Look at the polls that show a 3 point lead or whatever. I say back - it's August. The Rep nominee hasn't even been officially been nominated yet. You're trying to now argue the economy won't matter because the blame has been shifted around. Seriously? You claim your not waving pom-poms? Then you go and say I'm Ron Paul cheering in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him. It's kinda ridiculous.
To address a couple of these other points, because I don't feel like remaking the wheel - I'm not sure I really think Obama is the worst President ever. I think I could think of a few others that may have been worse, but he's certainly up there.
The factoid about 3 two-term presidents isn't a meaningless. It's a statistic, and I'd add a pretty important one. I'd say it's probably as important as "current" polls.
Anyway, say hi to your Barry Obama poster for me.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have such a chub for Obama. I think maybe it's a projection based on me disagreeing with you on different topics. I do think he's a better prez than McCain would have been, and I do think he'll be better than Romney, so that's where I'm at for this election. I'm not hoping and praying, and I'm not saying the economic issues aren't important to voters. It's the most important thing right now, and it's also important to voters how each candidate will be perceived with how they'll handle the economy. Sorry, but Obama wins that one. People's satisfaction levels are a bit higher than in the fall of '08. Now combine it with Obama's approval rating, likability vs. Romney's, and the history of how incumbents lose, and everything is leaning Obama's way. I'm using evidence to support my stance. It's not hope and prayer.
My larger stake in the election and making a prediction is because it interests me. I think it's important who the president is, because I don't buy the notion that 'they're all the same'. I like the polling data, the numbers, the tactics, the media spin, and the psychology of the group in response. You seem to be taking the aloof, Libertarian route, clinging to your dogma like you're above it all.
People like to discount the polls as insignificant. Yes, they fluctuate over time, but when viewed in relation to other factors, it's valuable information. I'll eat my shoe if more than one of the blue states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast go with Romney. Romney can have Indiana, maybe New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida for his swing states. He wont get Ohio. Everyone in the historically red states can get as excited as they want because they hate Obama, but it's not enough for Romney to win.
What if Romney's VP pick is from Ohio?
Indiana is a lock for Romney right now. That is all I know for sure.
That would bump him up for Ohio. I wonder if he'll go with Rubio, though.
As a Hoosier, I know '08 was one of those freakish events.
Comments
ouch !!!!
Godfather.
I base my bet on the economy and where I think it will be in early November. People will "feel" the economy and vote with that feeling.
You base yours on polls right now. Personally, I think polls right now - regardless of who they put in the lead - are worth "nada".
<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="
It's ridiculous that any Obama supporter could feel even a little complacent at this point.
That quote is kind of funny with the whole gay marriage issue, isn't it? :fp:
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
Godfather.
Glad I made your day.
The video in this thread made mine. (and Jenna Jamison switching positions almost as often as Mitt - I love that one.)
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
http://youtu.be/kVA2Tr_GTlk
look here... this mitt dude is out of control.
quite the bullshit artist if i ever saw one
mitt is not getting my vote... ever!!!
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
how the fuck can this man reconcile the 2 completely opposite positions that he has taken on every issue?
what a joke.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If the polls had Romney with a clear lead now, he would more than likely win in Nov. and my guess is you would point to poll results if it supported your stance, but since they don't, they mean nada.
People aren't going to vote solely based on how they feel about the economy, they'll vote on how they feel when they associate Romney with the economy vs. Obama with the economy. Obama will win that with most middle of the road voters.
Your "guess" is wrong. Take your pom-poms down for a moment and use that fancy thinking box in your head.
Polls several month in advance on a "new" challenger vs. an incumbent are pretty meaningless to gauge who will end up winning the election. Despite what political fans believe, the general public doesn't really know Romney well yet. Not that I'm saying that will really help his cause. lol.
Um... yeh, so they'll vote based on how they feel about the economy.
I don't think so. I think he's Jimmy Carter reincarnated.
<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="
the indies (imo) will vote according to a 2 things;
dow jones/stock market,,market is up and buffered by QE=obama
unemployment rate, flat, some will argue is upticking/downticking, get over yourself, natl news for voters says its flat to slight deterioration, favors romney slightly
all the other stuff will be fodder for personal/regional preferences.
this is totally subjective, what else are hot buttons for independents?
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
The only reason Jimmy Carter didn't win was the Ronald Reagan was a funny and likable guy that knew just how to act and perform on camera. He came across as a person that everyone would love to have in their family.
And if that's the only thing that could beat Jimmy Carter... Mitt The Twit ain't It.
So you're going to break out the pom pom reference whenever I disagree with you? I'd be saying the same thing if the parties were reversed, because I'm using my noggin. If you'd take your Ron Paul goggles off for a moment, things will make more sense.
The election is about an incumbent vs. a challenger. You can look at Carter and Bush Sr. on how an incumbent can lose. Carter's approval ratings were significantly lower than Obama's are, but in the polls, Carter and Reagan were close. Voters were going with Carter, albeit tentatively, until the one and only debate that went in Reagan's favor. This was how people 'got to know' Reagan. Basically his charisma made people feel better in a crappy time, and there was the swing.
Bush Sr.'s approval ratings were also lower than Obama's at this time, Clinton also led in the polls. Voter's had already decided that they weren't voting for Bush (this also led to Perot getting votes). A bad economy, "no new taxes", and a candidate that made them feel better, Clinton, led to his loss.
Undecided, middle road voters need a reason to be pulled away from voting for the incumbent. Polls reflect that this isn't happening at this time. Romney has almost zero ability to do this, other than the fact that he's not Obama. Those people would vote for my dog over Obama anyway. Romney only delivers question marks for those in the middle, and the more we get to know Romney, the more his slimeball comes out. He doesn't provide comfort to those looking for it in a candidate like Reagan and Clinton did. Therefore, it's easier for them to vote with what they know, because that's comforting in itself.
People like to discount the polls as insignificant. Yes, they fluctuate over time, but when viewed in relation to other factors, it's valuable information. I'll eat my shoe if more than one of the blue states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast go with Romney. Romney can have Indiana, maybe New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida for his swing states. He wont get Ohio. Everyone in the historically red states can get as excited as they want because they hate Obama, but it's not enough for Romney to win.
Godfather.
Indiana is a lock for Romney right now. That is all I know for sure.
No, I only break it out when you clearly show your a pom-pom'er for the guy in the White house and his party. Ron Paul isn't even involved in this discussion, so I don't know why my hopes for him to be President are even mentioned.
I'd say you can look at a lot more elections than just Carter and Bush Sr. They are the most recent Presidents to be ousted, but there's a hell of a lot more. Moreover, neither of them... Bush Sr. nor Carter had the horrid economy we have today. Get this through your brain - this economic downturn was worse than it was under Carter and Bush Sr.. Ironically, however, they both went through recessions and guess what - they lost.
Polls are pretty meaningless "right now" - they will gain in importance as the election nears. But, I do find it funny how you left out Carter here.
Yup, the fact that their neighbor's home is foreclosing and their other neighbor is out of work - is .... um... the reason.
The fact that he's not Obama is probably "the only" reason he would win. The dude isn't a great candidate. But, neither was Obama or Bush and they won.
I'd argue, Romney offers an alternative to those in the middle who are dissatisfied by the false prophet named Barry. I simply cite his "hope and change" slogan. Or his record of saying he'd get unemployment below a number it's never been below his entire Presidency. You clearly wish people saw Romney the way you do. The reality is your a pom-pom waver for the guy on the other side. You aren't the "middle of the road voter". Your a very far left leaning Democrat. You have no idea how they feel or how they will feel when it's November.
Reagan and Clinton didn't matter as much as the relative performance of the guy who was in the office. Just like John McCain stood absolutely no chance against whoever was put up from the D side because of Bush's presidency. Thats the point. You don't like it. I know that. Everyone here knows that. But, it's a reality. If the economy sucks, Obama loses. Crying about it won't matter. Like I said before, Obama still has a bit of a chance, he needs the Dow at around 13500-14000 and he needs unemployment below 8%. I don't think that's happening.
I never said polls are invaluable. I said there not as valuable as the economy right now. Further, they're not as important now as they will be in several months. Right now, they have little value.
I'm betting your shoe won't be that tasty.
Finally, something you and others need to think about. When was the last time we had 3... count it... 3 consecutive 2 term presidents? We would have this if Obama won. So, when was the last time?
The only other time such a thing occurred was at the beginning of the 19th century - between 1801 and 1825 -with Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
Keep the pom-poms waving though.
<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="
Here's a good write-up on this if you're interested:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/economically-obama-is-no-jimmy-carter/
That said, the economy is still middling to bad and definitely presents a challenge to Obama. If the R's had put a good candidate out there then Barack would be in trouble. Unfortunately the R party has chased out any decent moderates (like me).
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
No, you are wrong.
This was the worst recession since the Great Depression - that was my point. It was worse than the Carter downturn. That's been documented - look at the GDP numbers. And although we're out of the technicality of the text book definition of recession, we're still struggling. In fact, our growth is slowing dramatically and unemployment is rising again.
Further - unemployment is much HIGHER NOW than it was before Reagan beat Carter in the November 1980 election. There are more homes foreclosed than ever. Stock prices are lower than they were five years ago. The EU is currently in recession and our growth in the 2nd quarter was 1.5% and trending down. Our debt is at 100% of our GDP. All of this occurred with the most dramatic printing of money, ever. Interest rates are forced to be at record lows.
So, then there's inflation. Let's look at now - if we measure inflation the way it was measured UNDER CARTER (1980), inflation is currently 8%, not 2% like the CPI says. Why? Hmmm... well, they NOW exclude energy and food prices. They didn't back then. Let's look at the future. The Fed printed boats, and boats of money. What's that mean? It means your dollar in your pocket is worth less. Whether that's properly realized now, or not, just wait. Rising interest rates - IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD.
There's much more, but of all these stats, why the article doesn't discuss unemployment at all is beyond me. They simply try to deal with high frequency indicators and their trends over 6 months leading into the election, but leave a number of important indicators out.
The objective of that article was to paint the picture that "6 MONTH TRENDS" for Obama aren't as bad as they were for Carter going into the election. What I'll say back is the "LEVELS" are worse now AND LONGER TERM TRENDS were worse as well. Moreover, we have no clue what will happen over the next two-three months. Right now, bottom line - the economy sucks and the economic trends are "WORSENING".
Anyways, good luck with the whole Obama is greater than Carter argument. The fact that it can even be debated shows why Obama has little chance.
<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="
Thank you Cincy for spreading the word. You got a 'caution'...
Whatever you want to think. Inflation has been almost nonexistent for a few years now. Mortgages are available under 4%, compared to 15-20% under Carter. It just ain't the same thing. You obviously are gonna think what you wanna think, and that's fine.
Carter also had embarrassing foreign policy events and absurdly decided to boycott the Olympics.
Sadly I think the most valid analogy for this election is W in 2004 vs. Kerry is to BO in 2012 vs. Romney. Kerry just couldn't win Ohio, and neither will Romney.
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
Once again, if we measure inflation the way it was measured under Carter, you're just plain wrong. It's very existent - 8% (is not small)... it's higher than all but about 5-years within the 20-year point from 1982-present. Moreover, there's more people jobless now than ever. Interest rates, since you seem to really want to bring them up, are not a function of the President. They are a function of the FED. Volker was the reason for the rising interest rates in the late-70s. He was a smart man.
Mortgage rate availability is meaningless if you just foreclosed on your home (which is at record highs) and have no job (which is also at record highs).
You're entitled to think what you will. But, I continue to say:
Foreign policy is pretty meaningless right now. The economy is worse now than it has been since the Great Depression. The economy is not even comparable now to where it was in 2004. The economy will be the focus of the election, regardless if that helps your guy or not. I think Obama has a chance, if the economy improves substantially in the next two months (for example - unemployment is below 8% by November). Otherwise, he's done. It doesn't matter who the opposition candidate and whether he looks like a game show host or not.
<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="
Come on. NOTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY IS A FUNCTION OF THE PRESIDENT. People blame or credit the prez for the economy all the time, and the level of economic performance has some correlation with the incumbent party's performance, but I'm sure you realize the president has little actual power to influence the economy. I'm sure you're not that naive. Right?
One more thing, and I'm done with this circular argument. You realize many still blame Bush for the bad economy right? Look I'm not saying it's fair to blame any one person for getting foreclosed or being unemployed, just that that's how people perceive it.
Your analysis of pointing to whatever economic indicators fit your story and to nothing else is just cherry picking and wishful thinking. Other indicators tell a different story, such as the S&P 500 being up 65% since 1/20/2009.
***
One more thing on foreign policy. Carter is the guy who botched the Iran Hostage crisis and boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Obama's the guy who "ended the Iraq War" (yeah I know it was really Bush who set the timetable, but the troops were pulled out on Obama's watch) and killed bin Laden. Little bit of a difference I'd say. It means something to some people, even if it's not the #1 issue.
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
I'd say you're semi-right that the President does little for the economy in the short run. I'd say they can certainly sway the economy with policy implementation, however. In the long run, consistent policy alterations by the President can weigh against the economy in my opinion. Fiscal policy certainly DOES matter, typically by constraining growth - so not sure what you mean there. But, regardless, my point all along is:
The average voter thinks the President is the figurehead of the economy. That's true, whether it works against your fav President ever or doesn't. Obama will be blamed for the economy, just like he'd be rewarded for the economy. Trying to ignore that, is ignoring a fact, and we don't want to do that - do we?
I think they did blame Bush, yes. That's why McCain got destroyed in the last election by a guy with little to no experience in my opinion. However, it's been roughly 4 years since then. Obama "owns" this economy, for better or worse. Other than hardcore Dems, I don't see how Obama could possibly insulate himself from the blame. He's going to get it, whether you like it or not.
First, my analysis of pointing to economic indicators is a reality. That weak article from NYT you posted which basically said don't listen to them - Obama's not as bad as Carter - used was exactly what you're rallying against "pointing to whatever economic indicators fit your story and to nothing else is just cherry picking and wishful thinking". That's why I responded with indicators showing that the author had an agenda. He excluded the fucking unemployment rate ha ha. Seriously? He looked at only 6 months! Seriously? Dude, reality is all around you. Look around. Do you honestly think the economy is doing well? Seriously, you don't need to look at data to know it's a shit storm. Unemployment is higher than it was when Obama took office - he's going to be blamed for that, whether it's right or wrong. I know a ton of people who have been laid off. The poverty level is climbing to the highest level since the 60s! Black unemployment is the highest in a quarter century. Seriously? Youth unemployment is the highest since WWII? These were his base, man! Even the stock market, is lower than it was five years ago, man. This is after more money has been printed than in the history of civilization. You really think that's his go-to number? Really? Without the QE, the Dow would be at 6000, maybe 7000.
You're trying to argue that "I'm cherry picking"? Really? As for wishful thinking, I could not care less who wins this Presidency. You do! You want Obama. Who's really "wishful thinking"?
[/quote]
I'd say it's pretty negligible. I'd say you're right that killing Bin Laden gave him some points, for sure. Other than that, I don't think he really gets anywhere. In my opinion, people won't vote on the following:
Social issues
Foreign policy
They will vote on...
The economy.
I'm quite aware that this wasn't always the case because we weren't in (what I call a depression) in those cases. And I'm quite aware that this scenario, which is not all his fault, may give Obama a bad hand in this upcoming election. But, it's a reality. I could have told you this in 2008. The dude was set to be a one term Pres.
Moreover, I've said it before. There's very little chance (given history) that the US will have 3 two-term presidents in a row. Statistics are saying it hasn't happened in the past, and the current economic data is saying it won't happen. I'm simply saying to you, despite all your desire that Obama is re-elected, it's not looking good bro, sorry.
<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="
And this is why I say you wave the Ron Paul pom poms. You keep pushing that middle road voters have the same view and priorities that you do. You're the one with the blind spots. I'm not waving pom poms, I'm looking at historical trends and how they apply to this election. You look at how excited you Libertarian online buddies get about Ron Paul and then over generalize that to others. Carter pretty much was (and is) solely blamed for a lot that happend in his four years and the state of the economy at that time. The blame on the current state of the economy has been successfully spread around, enough so to give Obama an out. You stated earlier I left Carter out of polling reference, but I didn't. I said Carter was "close" to Reagan in the polls.
It seems like you do care who wins the election, because you're struggling to look at this objectively. You've announced that Obama is the worst president ever, and you also post a fairly meaningless factoid about 3 two term presidents in a row. You were sure earlier in the year that the unemployment rate would take a big jump after all these people who dropped out of the job market would then re-enter it. A lot of your claims reflect bias. Maybe you could pull back some at look at things from a different angle.
FDR - FOUR straight terms (Five for FDR/HST)
then
DDE - 2 straight terms
then
JFK/LBJ - 2 straight terms
then
Nixon - 2 straight terms
But if you're going to let deaths/assassinations/resignations fit your story then so be it.
Bottom line is none of that has anything to do with this election. Incumbents by default are the favorite in any election, including presidential. It usually takes a transcendent personality (i.e. Reagan & Clinton) to unseat an incumbent.
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
No, you're waving Democratic party Pom-Poms.
Obama will be blamed for the state of the economy on election day, no matter how much you hope and pray he won't be. That's what I've been saying all along. I know, everyone here knows, how much you hope and pray he gets re-elected. I get it. You love him. Now, I'm saying to you, look... you've got a shot of getting your prayers answered, but to pretend like the economy doesn't exist is laughable. Unfortunately, if things don't improve, your hero may not win re-election. Sorry, bro.
Said it before, I'll say it again. You have a stake in the election, I do not. I don't think President Obama will win because I don't think the economy will be in the correct position by Nov. That's been my opinion. That's a pretty sound opinion.
Now you on the other hand, you're the one with pom-poms in hand cheering on President Obama saying back "nah uh". Look at the polls that show a 3 point lead or whatever. I say back - it's August. The Rep nominee hasn't even been officially been nominated yet. You're trying to now argue the economy won't matter because the blame has been shifted around. Seriously? You claim your not waving pom-poms? Then you go and say I'm Ron Paul cheering in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him. It's kinda ridiculous.
To address a couple of these other points, because I don't feel like remaking the wheel - I'm not sure I really think Obama is the worst President ever. I think I could think of a few others that may have been worse, but he's certainly up there.
The factoid about 3 two-term presidents isn't a meaningless. It's a statistic, and I'd add a pretty important one. I'd say it's probably as important as "current" polls.
Anyway, say hi to your Barry Obama poster for me.
<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="
Or a horrible economy (i.e. countless other Presidents).
<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="
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have such a chub for Obama. I think maybe it's a projection based on me disagreeing with you on different topics. I do think he's a better prez than McCain would have been, and I do think he'll be better than Romney, so that's where I'm at for this election. I'm not hoping and praying, and I'm not saying the economic issues aren't important to voters. It's the most important thing right now, and it's also important to voters how each candidate will be perceived with how they'll handle the economy. Sorry, but Obama wins that one. People's satisfaction levels are a bit higher than in the fall of '08. Now combine it with Obama's approval rating, likability vs. Romney's, and the history of how incumbents lose, and everything is leaning Obama's way. I'm using evidence to support my stance. It's not hope and prayer.
My larger stake in the election and making a prediction is because it interests me. I think it's important who the president is, because I don't buy the notion that 'they're all the same'. I like the polling data, the numbers, the tactics, the media spin, and the psychology of the group in response. You seem to be taking the aloof, Libertarian route, clinging to your dogma like you're above it all.
That would bump him up for Ohio. I wonder if he'll go with Rubio, though.
As a Hoosier, I know '08 was one of those freakish events.