US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Coito ergo sum]

Concur. Which is why I'm hoping beyond realistic hope that she (or Mike Huckabee) gets the nomination in 2012. Unless Obama came down with explosive diarrhea during the debates, he'd walk away with a landslide.

Huckabee would likely beat Obama handily. He's got as good or better a grasp of the issues, plus he's got much greater appeal to the religious right. The only thing that could stop him would be lack of sufficient funding due to lack of support from the business community.

Unfortunately, he'd have similar policies to Obama - big government and support for religion - both of which are things I'd want to be getting away from.

Not sure where to start, except that I disagree with every word of that other than Huckabee having support from the religious right. He wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against Obama.

You overestimate Obama's appeal. Obama won because of the "independents" were not going to vote for Bush's successor. He's lost the independents, probably for good. Those are folks who are not economically or politically savvy, didn't really pay attention to exactly what he was promising them other than to hear what they wanted to hear (that it would all get better), and are now seeing Obama do what he promised to do domestically -- and they don't like it at all. That's why Obama's approval rating is awful right now, and dropping.

The latest economic news doesn't bode well. We are NOT coming out of this recession, and in fact some economists have rumbled that it is now a depression, not just a recession. One Democratic Congressman today or yesterday, Bennett I think his name is, said that for the $1 trillion we spent on "stimulus" we got "nothing."

The wheels are starting to come off the bus...

Says you, Mr. The Economy Has No Hope Whatsoever. It's like your thing.

It has hope. It's just tanking, and the administration is making it worse. Have you visited the evidence I posted in the "Here's the other economic shoe dropping" thread? Just yesterday, economists came out opining that we are in a depression, not a recession, now. New home sales are now at their lowest level ever recorded. The Dow is predicted to drop to 5,000, and the guy who developed the "Hindenburg Omen" regarding stock market crashes pulled all his money out of the stock market and said that we have a very high likelihood of a stock market crash. But, yeah, it's just my "thing...."

Maybe I should just put on some red shoes and click my heels together and wish us all to economic prosperity....

Congressman whatshisname said that, but the CBO also just said that the stimulus saved over 3 million jobs and kept the economy from a negative growth rate.

Have you read beneath the numbers? Do you have an understanding of how the CBO came to that conclusion? It was fed the information that it was forced to use by the Administration and the Congresssional leadership. Garbage in - garbage out. "Saved or created" jobs is, quite simply, a bullshit, fanciful statistic that is based on not much more than hot air. You don't have to tell me. I'll just ask you to think to yourself what you'd think of that number if Bush was President.

And the stimulus was but a fraction of the debt incurred with Bush's tax cuts, costing us $2.3 trillion over ten years, btw, also for little gain. Feel free to second-guess that, but I think you know there's reason to second-guess all your doom-and-gloom talk as well.

Doom and gloom talk? Doom and gloom talk? Every statement I've made was backed up with citations and links.

The economy is fucked sideways. Call it doom and gloom, but it is. This administration has racked up 2.3 trillion in debt in TWO years (or, at least that's the pace their on). So, they're doing in 2 what you are complaining took Bush his entire term.

I'm not saying Obama's guaranteed to win in 2012. I'm just saying that neither Huckabee nor Palin can possibly beat him.

Both Huckabee and Palin make me want to vomit. So, I say this with no love at all for them. But, the last polls that I saw said Obama loses to ANY Republican candidate, if the election is held now. I do not know what the future holds.

Look at it from a reverse perspective - imagine Dennis Kucinich getting the 2004 nomination instead of John Kerry. Would the election still have been close, even though Bush had his own popularity problems? Nah, that would've been a Republican blowout on the order of 1984. Well, Palin and Huckabee are the GOP's versions of Kucinich.

They aren't, though. Kucinich isn't even all that popular among Democrats across the board. Palin is, for some reason that I have yet to fathom, wildly popular among Republicans. Even friends that I consider to be otherwise above-average intelligence like her, and would vote for her.

Which is why they won't even get the nomination: the conservative Base likes right-wingers, but they like electability even more, which is why Huckabee got whupped in the 2008 primaries by a couple of relative moderates (McCain and Romney).

In my view, Obama would have a better chance of beating Huckabee than Palin. Huckabee is a dufus. Palin, though, has this popularity base that a lot of people on the Democrat side discount due to their own visceral hatred of her. The country is broken right down the middle almost 50/50, and 1/2 the country doesn't mind Palin. The other half hates her.

You think Obama's lost the independents for good? I say that's hogwash. "A week in politics is a long time", as they say, and an election cycle is an eternity.

That is my opinion, yes. Obviously, he could prove me wrong by winning them back.

It's 2010, and making predictions about Obama vs Generic Republican Candidate are useless right now. I'm not doing that, I'm just making predictions about Palin and Huckabee. There's a huge range of possibilities on the other side of the ticket. And focusing only on how Obama and the economy are doing right now is kinda futile. Again, I'll just go to history. In 1982 and 1983 the economy was in shambles and Reagan was suffering from lackluster popularity and looking like a goner for re-election.

I'm old enough that I followed the news and politics in 1982 and 1983. Reagan was never viewed as Obama is being viewed right now.

Then came economic recovery, coupled with a not-very-appealing opponent and, well, you know the rest.

Sure, economic recovery would help Obama. The problem is, there are no signs of a recovery right now, and everything the Democrats are doing are, according to most economists I've heard, not going to help private enterprise. From listening to the administration, helping private enterprise is not even their goal or desire.

Same with Slick Willy in '96: in 1994 Clinton's administration was looking unorganized and incompetent, the GOP took back congress, and then... the economy kept growing, the GOP nominated a boring old geezer, and that was that.

Clinton was quite different than Obama. Clinton was a conservative southern Democrat. And, he worked with the Republicans, and did many "conservative" things, like his "ending welfare as we know it" and actually working with Congressional Republicans. If we had a Clinton in the White House now, I would be singing a very different tune.

[Coito ergo sum]

Plus, people are really souring on Obama. Big time.

I agree with you that Obama is being injured pretty badly, but it's the result of a hell of a lot of money being spent to push a lot of misinformation. The people spending the money to take down Obama can do that right now, but they can't easily do so during the Presidential election.

I'm sure they'll try, and find ways. They always do.

Misinformation --- I've found that word is generally used by Obama supporters to refer to any "negative information," and not necessarily "false information."

I've tried a few times to get the daily show video you linked to to play, but it keeps hanging. So, I haven't seen it. But, dude, it's the Daily Show.....it's a comedy and fake news show.

[Robert_S]

Plus, people are really souring on Obama. Big time.

I agree with you that Obama is being injured pretty badly, but it's the result of a hell of a lot of money being spent to push a lot of misinformation. The people spending the money to take down Obama can do that right now, but they can't easily do so during the Presidential election.

I'm sure they'll try, and find ways. They always do.

Misinformation --- I've found that word is generally used by Obama supporters to refer to any "negative information," and not necessarily "false information."

I've tried a few times to get the daily show video you linked to to play, but it keeps hanging. So, I haven't seen it. But, dude, it's the Daily Show.....it's a comedy and fake news show.

It's up front about being satiric, but I think Jon Stewart has a higher than average standard of journalistic ethics.

[Coito ergo sum]

Plus, people are really souring on Obama. Big time.

I agree with you that Obama is being injured pretty badly, but it's the result of a hell of a lot of money being spent to push a lot of misinformation. The people spending the money to take down Obama can do that right now, but they can't easily do so during the Presidential election.

I'm sure they'll try, and find ways. They always do.

Misinformation --- I've found that word is generally used by Obama supporters to refer to any "negative information," and not necessarily "false information."

I've tried a few times to get the daily show video you linked to to play, but it keeps hanging. So, I haven't seen it. But, dude, it's the Daily Show.....it's a comedy and fake news show.

It's up front about being satiric, but I think Jon Stewart has a higher than average standard of journalistic ethics.

What are specific examples of "misinformation?"

[Warren Dew]

Obama won because of the "independents" were not going to vote for Bush's successor.

McCain had a lot going against him irrespective of the "Bush's successor" issue. Economically, McCain seemed to be very much in the big government camp, for example when he advocated suspending campaigning to push TARP through the senate. Socially, McCain definitely seemed to like the idea of government telling people what to do and believe - again, a big government proponent. Militarily, some viewed him with suspicion not unlike that held for Kerry in certain circles.

Certainly there were a lot of people who voted against Bush even though he wasn't running, but I think a lot of Republicans also stayed home in preference to voting for McCain.

[Warren Dew]

I doubt he would beat Palin if the election were held now. I hate Palin, but I wouldn't underestimate her, if I were Obama.

A recent Rasmussen poll has Obama leading Palin 48%-42%:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_palin_42

[Coito ergo sum]

I doubt he would beat Palin if the election were held now. I hate Palin, but I wouldn't underestimate her, if I were Obama.

A recent Rasmussen poll has Obama leading Palin 48%-42%:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_palin_42

The fact that Sarah Palin could muster 42% of the vote astounds me.

[Kristie]

I doubt he would beat Palin if the election were held now. I hate Palin, but I wouldn't underestimate her, if I were Obama.

A recent Rasmussen poll has Obama leading Palin 48%-42%:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 8_palin_42

The fact that Sarah Palin could muster 42% of the vote astounds me.

+1 and add

[Warren Dew]

Congressman whatshisname said that, but the CBO also just said that the stimulus saved over 3 million jobs and kept the economy from a negative growth rate.

Given that Obama got the stimulus bill passed by talking about how the unemployment rate would peak at about 9% if it wasn't passed, and the unemployment rate actually peaked at nearly 10% with the bill passed, any job savings must have been more than offset by job losses due to other Obama administration actions.

And the stimulus was but a fraction of the debt incurred with Bush's tax cuts, costing us $2.3 trillion over ten years, btw, also for little gain.

$2.3 trillion over 10 years is $230 billion per year. $787 billion in stimulus passed a year and a half ago is considerably more than that on an annualized basis.

[Coito ergo sum]

Congressman whatshisname said that, but the CBO also just said that the stimulus saved over 3 million jobs and kept the economy from a negative growth rate.

Given that Obama got the stimulus bill passed by talking about how the unemployment rate would peak at about 9% if it wasn't passed, and the unemployment rate actually peaked at nearly 10% with the bill passed, any job savings must have been more than offset by job losses due to other Obama administration actions.

Actually, he said 8%, so he was only 20% off. Close enough for government work, as the saying goes.

And the stimulus was but a fraction of the debt incurred with Bush's tax cuts, costing us $2.3 trillion over ten years, btw, also for little gain.

$2.3 trillion over 10 years is $230 billion per year. $787 billion in stimulus passed a year and a half ago is considerably more than that on an annualized basis.

And, the stimulus isn't all that was spent. The deficits for 2010 and 2009 are greater than for 2001 through and including 2008 inclusive. So, Obama will pass Bush's total debt by the end of this year - just counting 09 and 10, and not counting 08 (we'll pin that one on Bush since Obama took office in 1/08).

[Ian]

Sure, economic recovery would help Obama. The problem is, there are no signs of a recovery right now

Apparenty you've only been focusing on the negative stuff. You're really good at focusing only on the negative stuff! But the notion that there are no signs of recovery (your words) is simply false. I hear about them and I read about them, so either 1) you aren't aware of any good news, or 2) you second-guess everything that sounds like a recovery. I have a good feeling that it's #2 with you, and that is probably because you seem pre-disposed towards assuming that Obama's policies are just never going to work. You're perfectly entitled to be a total pessimist, of course. And I'm entitled to second-guess those reasons why you feel we're not going to climb back out of the toilet.

You made about a dozen other points on my last post, but I'm not going to address them. Why not? Because of the format you use. You itemize pretty much every sentence other people write and then give your quick response, which means that we can't counter each individual point without making the whole post very long and very messy. Very clever of you. Also very annoying and very pussy. But I'll give a succinct summary of my whole point:

Obama vs Generic Republican Candidate in 2012 = Who the heck knows? Two years is a long time!
Obama vs either Palin or Huckabee = Virtual guarantee of an Obama victory. Independents and GOP moderates (including a great many like you) despise those two too much.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure, economic recovery would help Obama. The problem is, there are no signs of a recovery right now

Apparenty you've only been focusing on the negative stuff.

Well, when I hear supposed positive stuff, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If it's out there, though, I'd love to see it.

[
You're really good at focusing only on the negative stuff!

I would be happy to focus on positive economic stuff, but I don't see it. I'm sure you could provide it, though.

[

But the notion that there are no signs of recovery (your words) is simply false. I hear about them and I read about them,

Then post them.

[

so either 1) you aren't aware of any good news,

Quite possible. Like all humans, my awareness is finite, and a purpose of forums like this is to raise everyone's awareness.

[

or 2) you second-guess everything that sounds like a recovery.

I second guess everything. Period. It's called being skeptical. I especially second guess things that are self-interested statements by those who gain by the truth of the assertion, and I want evidence.

[

I have a good feeling that it's #2 with you,

It should be with everyone. When I read an article about an economic item, I try to access the underlying data to see whether it makes sense, who is making the assertion, what their bias is, etc. For example, when the guy who came up with the Hindenburg Omen (economic indicator of a collapse) has pulled all of his money out of the stock market, and the numbers are the numbers, then I take that fairly seriously. When Biden says "we're headed in the right direction," I like to second guess that a bit more. Don't you?

[

and that is probably because you seem pre-disposed towards assuming that Obama's policies are just never going to work.

I don't see evidence that they are working, do you? If so, what is that?

[

You're perfectly entitled to be a total pessimist, of course. And I'm entitled to second-guess those reasons why you feel we're not going to climb back out of the toilet.

I think we will eventually. However, whether I am a pessimist or an optimist does not change reality.

[

You made about a dozen other points on my last post, but I'm not going to address them. Why not? Because of the format you use. You itemize pretty much every sentence other people write and then give your quick response, which means that we can't counter each individual point without making the whole post very long and very messy. Very clever of you. Also very annoying and very pussy. But I'll give a succinct summary of my whole point:

Huh - actually - it's the opposite of pussy since I (a) actually address points people make, take them seriously and rebut them where I disagree, and (b) try not to gloss over what people actually say. What's pussy is to skip the issues. If you care to rebut anything, you can. All you have to do is respond. You can respond in one full paragraph if you like. I think the point/counter-point method makes sense because then I don't have to repeat what you say in order to make sure it's known what issue we're talking about.

For the record - I don't fear any issue. You want to debate? Let's go. I'll start with pointing out that despite your general assertion to being privy to boatloads of positive information about the economy, you cited not-a-one.

[
Obama vs Generic Republican Candidate in 2012 = Who the heck knows? Two years is a long time!
Obama vs either Palin or Huckabee = Virtual guarantee of an Obama victory. Independents and GOP moderates (including a great many like you) despise those two too much.

I am fine with your opinion on Obama and Huckabee/Palin - I disagree with it, but we're both just opining based on our feeling of where the voters are and may be at election time. I fully expect that my predictions may be wrong - it's simply the vibe I'm getting.

On the economy, though - I have provided evidence. You haven't.

[Robert_S]

Plus, people are really souring on Obama. Big time.

I agree with you that Obama is being injured pretty badly, but it's the result of a hell of a lot of money being spent to push a lot of misinformation. The people spending the money to take down Obama can do that right now, but they can't easily do so during the Presidential election.

I'm sure they'll try, and find ways. They always do.

Misinformation --- I've found that word is generally used by Obama supporters to refer to any "negative information," and not necessarily "false information."

I've tried a few times to get the daily show video you linked to to play, but it keeps hanging. So, I haven't seen it. But, dude, it's the Daily Show.....it's a comedy and fake news show.

It's up front about being satiric, but I think Jon Stewart has a higher than average standard of journalistic ethics.

What are specific examples of "misinformation?"

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

I like Jon Stewart and his show is hilarious. But, he says himself it's fake news and comedy bits. It's not a compliment for one to get their news from Comedy Central. In a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed. "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe". Pew. Retrieved 2006-10-24. http://people-press.org/report/200/cabl ... s-universe

[Robert_S]

I think you'll be wanting to talk to Randydeluxe about the misinformation.

As far as Jon Stewart's credibility goes, he has a wide range of guests, he seems to try to be fair, and he is up front about his position as a liberal.

He might take a satiric look at the news, but it is often thought provoking and informative satire.

I like Jon Stewart and his show is hilarious. But, he says himself it's fake news and comedy bits. It's not a compliment for one to get their news from Comedy Central. In a 2004 campaign survey conducted by the Pew Research Center those who cited comedy shows such as The Daily Show as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the Internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the Internet were still found to be the most informed, while those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed. "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe". Pew. Retrieved 2006-10-24. http://people-press.org/report/200/cabl ... s-universe

True, but it's loads better than Fox. But I guess that's not saying much since sitting in a windowless room with no access to any media will leave you better informed than Fox.

My point is that while The Daily Show might not be sufficient as your only news source, I have yet to see them mislead.