2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

I woudn't toss rocks Warren given the Repuglies treasonous action over the last few years.
The rest of the world wonders openly why most of them are not locked up in either the loonie bin or the brig.
Obama's done okay given the outrageous actions of your fav party.
Even The Economist can't tolerate the Repuglies and they are hardly left wing.

1. What treasonous acts are you referring to?

2. Maybe the rest of the world thinks they should be locked up because they are unfamiliar with political dissent or opposition?

3. LOL - Obama has done okay by achieving what? Not reducing the deficit, as he promised to to do. Not reducing unemployment as he promised to do. Removing troops from Iraq in the same timetable as would have happened under McCain. Not closing Guantanamo Bay. Not stopping warrantless wiretapping. Not stopping indefinite detentions without trial. Not spurring on economic growth beyond a moribund 1% or so. Backing off the ABM initiatives. Cancelling American manned space flight, and not starting any new programs. Raising taxes under Obamacare. Expanding the war in Afghanistan with no measurable success. Going nowhere with Iran. And, sitting still during the Arab spring which has become a winter.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no idea who will win.

The polls are all over the place. The biggest concerns for Romney in the polls is 538 and the Princeton Election Consortium. However, I think the reduction in support for Obama from 2008 is palpable. He appears to be losing among independents, and he is speaking to 1/2 empty stadiums. Romney is drawing huge crowds by comparison. However, in early voting, Democrats have turned out more than Republicans, but by a much smaller margin than in 2008. And, in 2008, the GOP got most of its gains on election day, not in early voting. Some pollsters that are historically pretty accurate show Romney with leads where 538 and PEC do not, but 538 and PEC are meta polls, and they are supposedly factoring in those individual pollsters into their analysis.

The bottom line is -- we'll see. Obama may win over 300 EC votes, or it may be much closer. Romney, too, may win over 300.

I think I will go out on a limb and at the final gate I will predict an Obama win, with a very close popular vote.

If Obama wins --- good luck and best wishes for a good second term, which I can only say I hope will finally involve deficit reduction, expansion of employment at a reasonable level, expansion of the economy and the GDP at a reasonable level, and real efforts to help business and industry succeed. I have no idea what Obama plans to do in his second term, as I don't think anything done or said in this campaign is necessarily what he will actually do in a second term. But, I want only the best for the United States, and I will be left only with the hope that we'll head in a better direction.

If Romney wins -- I hope that he will accept the job without bitching about having inherited a bad economy and whatnot. He is being hired to fix it, and I hope he does do just that. I plan on being harder on him than I was on Obama. I barely criticized Obama in his first year, except I voiced mild opposition to the Stimulus and Cash for Clunkers which I felt were wastes of money. But, I didn't start holding Obama responsible for the state of the economy until 2010. With Romney, I will be watching to make sure he takes immediate action to help business and industry grow and get red tape lifted as much as possible, while retaining healthy regulation. I will be watching to make sure the middle class does not get a tax hike, as he promised. I will be watching to make sure that in his firs 100 days he hits the ground running and fixes the problems he is faced with. I plan to be very critical of Romney, to the fullest extent possible.

I have a stock of Yeungling beer in the refrigerator at home with my name on it, and some tasty appetizers ready to be crisped in the oven. And, I plan on watching the festivities tonight, and clicking through the main channels to see who is calling what state for whom.

Once this election is over, however, I plan on taking a deep breath, whoever wins, and forgetting about arguing politics as much as possible.

"I'm tired...tired...of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Rom-in-knee ...."

[macdoc]

getting drunk on the Koolaid. When you refuse to serve the people and instead campaign to entirely to block any legislation that's treason in my terms I'm not alone in that view.
Dissent has nothing to do with treachery and that's all the Repuglies had to offer the American public they are supposed to serve.

Lets look at reality instead of your koolaid dosed view.

In SPITE of the constant blocking...

With the release of Friday's jobs report -- the last one before the election -- we thought it made sense to update one of our favorite charts comparing Obama's first term vs. George W. Bush's first term, when it comes to jobs. We first saw the one made this summer by Invictus at The Big Picture.

The left side of the chart shows the first Bush years. The right is Obama's.

The red line represents the trajectory of private sector jobs, while the blue and green lines represent the trajectory of state and local government jobs. All are set at 100 to the beginning, just for the sake of normalizing each number to the same point.

As you can see, under Bush's first term, private sector jobs never got to their start point, while public sector jobs soared.

Under Obama private sector jobs have now easily surpassed the level they were when he started, while public sector employment is way down, with no comeback having yet commenced.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-bus ... z2BSHeGO6Q

neither the world nor we hope the American voters buy the crap from the right wing anymore.
The rest of the planet looks on in disbelief at your totally whacked right wing.

[Coito ergo sum]

getting drunk on the Koolaid. When you refuse to serve the people and instead campaign to entirely to block any legislation that's treason in my terms I'm not alone in that view.

Which bills?

Not that it matters - voting against legislation is not treason. I don't care if you're "not alone in that view." It's a garbage view, and is essentially a statement that if people don't agree with the Democrat view of it, then they're committing treason. That, my friend, is a load of horse shit.

Dissent has nothing to do with treachery and that's all the Repuglies had to offer the American public they are supposed to serve.

Again, such as?

Lets look at reality instead of your koolaid dosed view.

In SPITE of the constant blocking...

...of what, exactly? Bad ideas?

Under Obama private sector jobs have now easily surpassed the level they were when he started, while public sector employment is way down, with no comeback having yet commenced.

This is just fucking false.

neither the world nor we hope the American voters buy the crap from the right wing anymore.
The rest of the planet looks on in disbelief at your totally whacked right wing.

Unemployment under George W. Bush.

2001 4.7
2002 5.8
20031 6.0%
20041 5.5
20051 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8


Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2010 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719. ... z2BSLS5g3R

Right now it is 7.9. In 2011 it was 8.9. In 2010 9.6 -- LOL --

And, why has the unemployment rate been as "low" as it is in the Obama years (even though unemployment is much worse under Obama than Bush)?



Work force participation rates are at an all-time low. If the same workforce participation rate was considered now as was considered in 2008, well, Obama's unemployment rate would be about 11%. We haven't had a drop in work force age population, so the reality is that the people who answer the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey indicating that they are looking for work has drastically gone down. And that allows the unemployment rate to be about 8% instead of about 11%.

The reality is, that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, macdoc.

[Tero]

I already called it. One of my two maps will be the outcome.

[Tero]

I ran a couple of scenarios. Obama gets Ohio in both. If Obama gets NM, likely, he wins.

Not sure what you did to get a possible Republican win in New Mexico on that first map, considering that every poll that's been run has shown a solid Obama lead there.

OK, switch Iowa and NM, still the only way Romney wins. He will not get Ohio.

[Ian]

Coito - Even if we were to subscribe to everything you're saying about the true unemployment rate (and that's asking a lot), aren't indications of long-term unemployed people increasingly re-entering the workforce actually a good sign? Yes, it means the unemployment rate percentage won't go down as fast as anyone would like, but it also means the recovery is actually even better than it seems on the surface. I think there's been a lot of denial as to how severe the recession really was, and a lot of this denial has been on the right, since Democratic leaders and policies could hardly be blamed for causing the problem in the first place.

Anyway, your post to macdoc at the top of the page was terrible. Obama HAS reduced the deficit. Not enough IMO, but raising taxes after compromsing on keeping the Bush tax cuts extended in 2010 ought to help a lot. Unemployment is in fact going down (a much larger stimulus would have helped; I cite this as one of Obama's key faults), blaming Obama for doing what you think McCain would have done anyway (despite his rhetoric) just sounds sad, keeping Guantanamo open is almost entirely the fault of congressional Republicans, increasing success in Afghanistan is measurable and I've proved it with numbers before, etc. Typical conservative whining - factually inacurrate in some places, out of context in others. I'm just aching to post a list of the President's achievements, but I think I'll refrain today.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - Even if we were to subscribe to everything you're saying about the true unemployment rate (and that's asking a lot),

No, it isn't asking a lot, actually. Just check out the U-6 unemployment rate -- http://www.cnbc.com/id/48468748/Real_Un ... re_Jobless

And, Ezra Klein's article in WaPo makes the point about it being really 11% if the workforce participation rate had not declined: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

aren't indications of long-term unemployed people increasingly re-entering the workforce actually a good sign? Yes, it means the unemployment rate percentage won't go down as fast as anyone would like, but it also means the recovery is actually even better than it seems on the surface. I think there's been a lot of denial as to how severe the recession really was, and a lot of this denial has been on the right, since Democratic leaders and policies could hardly be blamed for causing the problem in the first place.

It's not about blame. It's about solving the problem. In 1980, inflation reached up to 13.5%! In 1980, the prime rate was 20% (it was 3.35% in 2009). Reagan inherited a recession that had unemployment already at like 9%-10% along with that. It was the trifecta of shitty economic indicators. The 30 year mortgage rate in 1980-81 was about 18% (unheard of in 2009, when it was still under 5%). Real gasoline prices in 1981 in 2008 dollars was $3.45 per gallon. In 2009, the price was like $1.90.

This bullshit about how bad the economy was that Obama "inherited" and so we have to strain and stretch to credit him for the least bit of favorable indicators is really just a lot of hogwash. Stop blaming the predecessor. The economy Reagan inherited in 1981 was in many ways worse than the 2009 economy, and he wasn't given the luxury to blame Carter. He got shit done, and this was the electoral map in 1984.

Anyway, your post to macdoc at the top of the page was terrible. Obama HAS reduced the deficit.

Look -- we've been through this before. First, I said he did not reduce the deficit AS PROMISED. Which he has not. And, the deficit first went UP during his presidency and then went down, but has remained at 1.1 trillion or higher. The amount it went down, from 1.3 to 1.1 trillion is not significant.

Not enough IMO, but raising taxes after compromsing on keeping the Bush tax cuts extended in 2010 ought to help a lot.

Show, or link to, the maths. I'd love to see how it works out.

Unemployment is in fact going down (a much larger stimulus would have helped; I cite this as one of Obama's key faults), blaming Obama for doing what you think McCain would have done anyway (despite his rhetoric) just sounds sad, keeping Guantanamo open is almost entirely the fault of congressional Republicans, increasing success in Afghanistan is measurable and I've proved it with numbers before, etc. Typical conservative whining - factually inacurrate in some places, out of context in others. I'm just aching to post a list of the President's achievements, but I think I'll refrain today.

Keeping Guantanamo open is not at all anything to do with Congressional Republicans, as in 2009 and 2010, Obama had a majority in both houses. To blame Republicans in that circumstance is nonsense. And, Obama could have closed it without Congressional approval anyway.

Unemployment went down this year only because of reductions in work force participation. That is a fact.

You did not prove anything about any success in Afghanistan, because there has not been. The insurgency there has not been reigned in at all, and is as active as it ever was and we have no more control over the country than we did in 2009.

Anyway - I'm tired...tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Rom-in-knee -- after today, one way or the other, it's done. Like I said above, if Obama wins, I'm pretty much done harping on him because I am left only with hope that the country and the economy will become better. You all will have what you want -- an Obama that has no accountability, and will not need to worry about reelection. He'll have "greater flexibility," and you'll see the real guy. As Valerie Jarrett said, it'll be payback time, and anyone who was against Obama is going to get it in the teeth, she says. I hope not, but apparently she said it.

If Romney gets elected, I pledge to be harder on him than I was on Obama. I have no doubt whatsoever that you folks will be harder on him than on Obama. I doubt you will grant Romney any "inheritance" pass, and you won't give him his first year or even 6 months. You won't likely suggest that Romney can't be held responsible for 2013, since that is basically Obama's last "budget" (even though we haven't had a budget...). But, alas, that's all well and good. At this point, I want all guns ablazin' at Romney -- he must be held to task. He must be held to his promises. Day 1, he needs to get this done.a

[Ian]

Denials, hyperbole, bullshit, excuses, and fear. You're the worst kind of partisan: the kind who won't admit that he simply cannot speak objectively.

[Red Celt]

The 2012 equivalent to "hanging chads". Nice one, America.

[Red Celt]

The 2012 equivalent to "hanging chads". Nice one, America.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course they're cheating. It's how they work.

[Gerald McGrew]

Denials, hyperbole, bullshit, excuses, and fear. You're the worst kind of partisan: the kind who won't admit that he simply cannot speak objectively.

Thus you see why I don't bother anymore. There's no point in trying to have a decent debate with someone who, if the GOP says the earth is flat, will argue that point to his last breath, no matter how stupid it makes him look.

[Coito ergo sum]

Denials, hyperbole, bullshit, excuses, and fear. You're the worst kind of partisan: the kind who won't admit that he simply cannot speak objectively.

Bullshit -- I backed up my assertions with data. You just put blinkers on.

You're no person to speak of objectivity, Ian. I mean -- for the love of noGod -- your criticisms of Obama amount to "he did all the right things, just not enough." Such fucking tripe.

And you're the one deny the data I pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc. It's not bullshit. It's not hyperbole at all. The deficit numbers are the deficit numbers. You said he did reduce the deficit. Yet the numbers went up under his presidency, and then they went down, a little -- but the latest annual deficit was about 1.1 trillion, down from 1.3 trillion. So, 0.2 trillion reduction. If you're going to call that a success, and that all we needed in order to make that an even bigger reduction would be a bigger stimulus, then you'll need to back that up.

I'm not even partisan -- I have disclosed which 'publicans I would not vote for and which Democrats I would vote for. That's much more than you've ever done.

[Coito ergo sum]

The 2012 equivalent to "hanging chads". Nice one, America.

Electronic voting machines are awful, horrible ideas. It's not so much that sort of error in the youtube video that is the problem. A person at a machine like that can point it out to the pollster and get it resolved. However, the problem is that such voting can be rigged far easier than paper ballots.

We must oppose such machines at all costs. A paper trail should always follow and the machines should only be used for counting.