# The Donald announces he's unrunning for President



## Vaneyes

Wise choice. He got KO'd here...


----------



## Krummhorn

No loss in my book, either. 

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no incumbents for any public office ... serve one term and yer out - rids us of the 'good ol boy networks' and might help to get the country back in order again.


----------



## Serge

A sigh of relief, really: I don’t need to be reminded every day that money can’t buy you… hair. (Not that I’ve been shopping around – don’t get me wrong.)


----------



## Almaviva

Well, one idiotic jerk less in our political process. Unfortunately there are many left.


----------



## Vaneyes

But maybe it was Seth Meyers who supplied the coup de gras.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Damn, I was almost looking forward to the apocalypse.


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> But maybe it was Seth Meyers who supplied the coup de gras.


I had listened to a tape of Seth Meyers roast of The Donald but I actually think the president did a lot better (it's the first time I listen to Obama's part), and was more incisive and direct in exposing the big phony. That part about the Omaha steaks and Meatloaf was incredible.

With the kind of assertiveness that the president has been displaying lately (including Gates' comment about his "gutsy" call), his opponents need to realize that they have a formidable adversary waiting for them in 2012. Any Republican dreams of an easy victory in 2012 should be readjusted. Obama should not be underestimated. He'll go to bat, and the accumulated anger for all the attacks he's been suffering will make of him a pugnacious fighter.

This, not to forget that just like Clinton, after the Democrats mid-term electoral defeat, Obama has been shifting to the right and pre-emptying the juiciest attacks he would otherwise have suffered.

Not born in American? Nope, he was born right here.
Soft on terrorism? Not.
Won't allow domestic drilling? He just did.

Meanwhile, the Republican budget was strongly rejected by the American people. They have lost the Hispanics, and now they're losing older Americans (a huge chunk of the field of voters).

At this time, I'm starting to believe that Obama will be re-elected.

Of course, it all depends on the economy... but he surely has reversed the predictions of one-term presidency, and did it in a matter of 10 days.


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> I had listened to a tape of Seth Meyers roast of The Donald but I actually think the president did a lot better (it's the first time I listen to Obama's part), and was more incisive and direct in exposing the big phony. That part about the Omaha steaks and Meatloaf was incredible.
> 
> With the kind of assertiveness that the president has been displaying lately (including Gates' comment about his "gutsy" call), his opponents need to realize that they have a formidable adversary waiting for them in 2012. Any Republican dreams of an easy victory in 2012 should be readjusted. Obama should not be underestimated. He'll go to bat, and the accumulated anger for all the attacks he's been suffering will make of him a pugnacious fighter.
> 
> This, not to forget that just like Clinton, after the Democrats mid-term electoral defeat, Obama has been shifting to the right and pre-emptying the juiciest attacks he would otherwise have suffered.
> 
> Soft on terrorism? Not.
> Won't allow domestic drilling? He just did.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Republican budget was strongly rejected by the American people. They have lost the Hispanics, and now they're losing older Americans (a huge chunk of the field of voters).
> 
> At this time, I'm starting to believe that Obama will be re-elected.
> 
> Of course, it all depends on the economy... but he surely has reversed the predictions of one-term presidency, and did it in a matter of 10 days.


The President's, though necessarily more presidential, was a cool calculated surgical payback. The timing was exquisite.

In the dissing of a jerk, Meyers' was brutal. I can't remember a setting with so many people laughing at someone, instead of with them. Well, maybe W. Methinks it was a very good political barometer.

You can take Obama's reelection to the bank. I think the tide had turned a couple of months earlier, when the Repugnants were acting particularly lame in opposition. I thought at the time, He's out of dangerous waters.

Middle East pullback must start for the economy to demonstrate life signs. Either way, Obama's *in it* for the second term.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Pity though. The Hair could have run for VP. It's probably got a higher IQ than Palin.


----------



## science

I'm genuinely disappointed by Huckabee's decision. Now that McCain is done, he might be my favorite GOP politician. I'm not a GOP guy by any means - though I would be if the GOP of the 1950s could be brought back: the Southern Strategy was nothing less than a deal with the devil, and if an omnipotent and just God exists (if only) then some people are going to suffer for it - but I really believe Huck would be a good president and good for the country. 

Felt the same way about McCain - and if not for Rove's push-polling on the phantom black babies in South Carolina, he probably would've been the President in 2001, and I believe the country if not the world would've been much, much better off for it. We can blame Rove, but we can also blame the voters who let themselves fall for that crap. Ultimately of course we (US citizens able to participate in politics in 2000) have to blame ourselves. 

Romney might be ok, maybe Newt would even be ok (the backlash against him would definitely be good for us). I'm not familiar enough with any other candidates to judge.


----------



## Krummhorn

Imho, McCain is an idiot ... I live in the state he represents (Arizona). He has nearly voted down everything that would improve our state, and ... well, he's such a perfect example of walking fertilizer, it's hard for me to care anymore.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

mamascarlatti said:


> Pity though. The Hair could have run for VP. It's probably got a higher IQ than Palin.


It's thinking of running as an independent.


----------



## Serge

But did he really stand a chance? (Not to make a hair-standing joke.) What would it tell us about America? Personally, I find this idea just hair-blowing!


----------



## Ravellian

"Hair-blowing"? _Really?_

-_-


----------



## Serge

Ravellian said:


> "Hair-blowing"? _Really?_
> 
> -_-


Oh, yeah, it has got to blow something, I figure: it's that unsettling!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Krummhorn said:


> Imho, McCain is an idiot ... I live in the state he represents (Arizona). He has nearly voted down everything that would improve our state, and ... well, he's such a perfect example of walking fertilizer, it's hard for me to care anymore.


Can't disagree with THIS.

Of course, America's chief executive has taken litigated against Arizona over an initiative that figured to improve the state (AND I'm very confident he's not through litigating YET)- but that's another matter...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

His campaign slogan was going to be "We Shall Overcomb."


----------



## Serge

Yes, and anybody signing up to his platform would be automatically joining a hair club.


----------



## Guest

Interesting comments on here. About standard fare. I'll play my part and offer the other side here, just to keep you guys honest, and stop you from patting yourselves too much on the back.

Concerning Trump: He was never a serious contender. He has money and name recognition - and nothing else. On certain key issues that resonate with Republicans, he was a flop. He is a huge enemy of private property, having on multiple occassions worked to get government seizure of private property so he could add ridiculous things to his properties, like a limo parking lot. Taxes - horrible. Abortion - born again convert (conveniently). People like confidence, not arrogance. Reagan had confidence. Trump - only arrogance.

Concerning Obama's roasting of Trump: Well deserved. I am no fan of Trump, and enjoyed seeing him get knocked down several pegs. It was a stupid issue for him to go after in the first place. But other than it being funny, that was handed up to Obama on a silver platter. Anybody could have hit that one out of the park (especially with a pre-written script). Obama wins that one, clearly, but it does nothing to help his electoral chances.

Concerning Obama's reversal of fortunes: When Bush 41 fought the first Iraq War, he enjoyed a boost in his ratings up into the 90's. The next year he lost to a relatively unknown candidate. Obama had, from what I have read, an 8-point bump. He is once again over the 50-percent mark in approval. The decision to get bin Laden was neither gutsy nor difficult. Had he not gone after him, it would have been the end of him. Someone would have leaked it. I applaud the way he did it with the Seals, but then he has fumbled it ever since. Sent the Seals in to keep the strike clean and get proof of death, then refuses to show the proof. Claims he doesn't need to spike the football, and then goes on tour, touting the action every chance he gets. And who could blame him? That is the only issue he has keeping his numbers above 50. Gas prices are reaching near record levels. Economic figures for the first part of the year were bad, and the outlook for the rest of the year was just revised downwards. How long ago did we have our Summer of Recovery? Unemployment just went back up? His stimulus package was supposed to keep us at 8%? His signature piece of legislation is on a collission course with the Supreme Court. He's back to pandering to Latinos after ignoring them his whole first term, and his approval among Latinos is slipping. 

Going into 2012, right now all he has is getting bin Laden. Ask George H. W. Bush and Winston Churchill how much a military victory will get you in your next elections. Military victories are like sports victories. In the immediate aftermath, everybody loves the winning coach and thinks he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And then Monday morning comes around and it's "what have you done for me lately?" 

I'm not sweating the GOP primaries yet. Let Obama blow his money now. The extra money, if you ask me, won't help him. He already has name recognition - he was well known before he was elected, and now he is the President. You don't get better name recognition than that. He'll get the African-American vote, but then you would have to be a pretty pathetic Democratic presidential candidate to not. That voting bloc doesn't win elections. The critical demographic - independents - are not as excited about this guy as they were last time around. And then he had the advantage of running against a poor GOP candidate in a poorer cycle for the GOP. He won't have that this time. Democratic Senators are jumping ship left and right. Democrats can potentially lose the Senate this time around. It isn't that far of a leap this time. Democrats have no serious plan to cut the deficit. Their major strategy is to extend our debt limit and make fun of the GOP's plan, while not offering up their own that is realistic. Obama ignored the advice of his own deficit commission. They could get away with stuff like this when they were in the minority, but when you control at least one house of Congress and the White House, that doesn't fly. And the fact that they punted on passing a budget last year when they controlled both Houses also doesn't bode well.

No, I still like the GOP's odds next year. We'll get a candidate - probably somebody as unlikely as Clinton was in '92. And a year and a half from now, Democrats will be looking at who to blame for their sudden reversal of fortune.


----------



## emiellucifuge

What about the Progressive Caucus budget? That seems like a pretty serious plan to reduce the deficit to me.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> What about the Progressive Caucus budget? That seems like a pretty serious plan to reduce the deficit to me.


I'll grant that it at least seems more serious than Obama's. But it has two main problems. Number one, it only hopes to increase entitlements, which are at the root cause of our current fiscal problems. Number two, it thinks that tax hikes are the cure all measure to our fiscal woes. Study after study has shown that you could jack up taxes on the "rich" to 100% and not come close to the kind of revenues that are needed to balance our budget and meet our long-term goals.

Serious? Yes. Effective? Not by a long shot.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I dont know about that. From what Ive read it is far more effective at reducing the deficit than the House GOP budget. The President's budget was the least effective.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> I'll grant that it at least seems more serious than Obama's. But it has two main problems. Number one, it only hopes to increase entitlements, which are at the root cause of our current fiscal problems. Number two, it thinks that tax hikes are the cure all measure to our fiscal woes. Study after study has shown that you could jack up taxes on the "rich" to 100% and not come close to the kind of revenues that are needed to balance our budget and meet our long-term goals.
> 
> Serious? Yes. Effective? Not by a long shot.


The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget does more than raise taxes to cure our fiscal woes. It greatly reduces defense spending. According to the analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/files/The%20People%27s%20Budget%20-%20A%20Technical%20Analysis.pdf), this budget will save $1.6 trillion from 2013 - 2021 relative to the CBO estimate by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. it will save an additional $594 in the same period by reducing base defense spending.

The budget would produce a surplus by 2021 with the assumptions in the study (GOP's would not be close, and Obama's is even worse).

Social Security rises slightly out to 2030 and afterward is relatively flat (as a percentage of GDP). I think there are relatively simple changes which can deal with social security spending. Health spending is an entirely different issue. You are correct that this budget does not adequately take care of the expected rise in Medicare and Medicaid spending in the distant future.

I think the Progressive Budget does a very nice job in the near to mid term in getting our finances in order. No other budget that I have seen comes close to the effectiveness of the Progressive Budget.

Over the next 5 -10 years we must undertake a very serious effort to understand and deal with the health spending issue.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And a year and a half from now, Democrats will be looking at who to blame for their sudden reversal of fortune.


Or not. A year and a half is a long time; many things can happen, including some economic recovery. All that I said is that he'll be a formidable candidate. It will be the Republicans' mistake to underestimate him, at their own peril.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> I'm genuinely disappointed by Huckabee's decision.


Jon Stewart was, too. See The Daily Show, 5/16/2011.


----------



## Aksel

You Americans amuse me. That is all.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget does more than raise taxes to cure our fiscal woes. It greatly reduces defense spending. According to the analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/files/The%20People%27s%20Budget%20-%20A%20Technical%20Analysis.pdf), this budget will save $1.6 trillion from 2013 - 2021 relative to the CBO estimate by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. it will save an additional $594 in the same period by reducing base defense spending.
> 
> The budget would produce a surplus by 2021 with the assumptions in the study (GOP's would not be close, and Obama's is even worse).
> 
> Social Security rises slightly out to 2030 and afterward is relatively flat (as a percentage of GDP). I think there are relatively simple changes which can deal with social security spending. Health spending is an entirely different issue. You are correct that this budget does not adequately take care of the expected rise in Medicare and Medicaid spending in the distant future.
> 
> I think the Progressive Budget does a very nice job in the near to mid term in getting our finances in order. No other budget that I have seen comes close to the effectiveness of the Progressive Budget.
> 
> Over the next 5 -10 years we must undertake a very serious effort to understand and deal with the health spending issue.


There are any number of European countries right now that are living proof that higher taxes, decreased defense spending, and increases in entitlement programs are not exactly a recipe for financial solvency. Why should this suddenly work in our country? The only untried option is reforms in entitlement programs - and yet nobody wants to try that.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I'm genuinely disappointed by Huckabee's decision. Now that McCain is done, he might be my favorite GOP politician. I'm not a GOP guy by any means - though I would be if the GOP of the 1950s could be brought back: the Southern Strategy was nothing less than a deal with the devil, and if an omnipotent and just God exists (if only) then some people are going to suffer for it - but I really believe Huck would be a good president and good for the country.
> 
> Felt the same way about McCain - and if not for Rove's push-polling on the phantom black babies in South Carolina, he probably would've been the President in 2001, and I believe the country if not the world would've been much, much better off for it. We can blame Rove, but we can also blame the voters who let themselves fall for that crap. Ultimately of course we (US citizens able to participate in politics in 2000) have to blame ourselves.
> 
> Romney might be ok, maybe Newt would even be ok (the backlash against him would definitely be good for us). I'm not familiar enough with any other candidates to judge.


Huckabee wouldn't have gotten as far as he did before without pandering to his evangelical Christian base. I am a devoutly religious person, and it even creeped me out. The man has proven in the past, with his pushing for the pardon of a murderer who then went out and killed again, that he lets his religious beliefs outweigh other considerations. He is a big-spending Republican. Why not just vote for the Democrat?

McCain was a non-entity. For all the reviling of Palin, she actually BOOSTED his rankings. I have heard so much of this story about what did or did not happen in South Carolina. I think that is a cop-out. Rumors don't sink candidacies. McCain has always been a week national candidate. On top of that, voters tend to prefer people with executive experience - governors over senators. The odds were not in his favor. And the man had made his reputation by turning against his own party on key issues to strike bargains with Democrats - not something that wins you base voters in primaries.

Romney has issues - both he and Newt now are in favor of the individual mandate, which is a huge non-starter with the GOP base. And Romney has this big weight around his neck, with his Massachusetts health care plan looking eerily similar to Obama's. Newt may be smart in many things, but has proven incredibly stupid in others. The absolute gall of having an affair with a staffer while the Clinton impeachment was underway is simply beyond comprehension. Then taking on his own party in the upcoming budget battle, railing against a budget bill that gained unanimous support of House Republicans.

I don't know who the GOP candidate will be yet, but I don't think it will be Newt or Romney.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> McCain was a non-entity. For all the reviling of Palin, she actually BOOSTED his rankings. I have heard so much of this story about what did or did not happen in South Carolina. I think that is a cop-out. Rumors don't sink candidacies. McCain has always been a week national candidate. On top of that, voters tend to prefer people with executive experience - governors over senators. The odds were not in his favor. And the man had made his reputation by turning against his own party on key issues to strike bargains with Democrats - not something that wins you base voters in primaries.
> 
> Romney has issues - both he and Newt now are in favor of the individual mandate, which is a huge non-starter with the GOP base. And Romney has this big weight around his neck, with his Massachusetts health care plan looking eerily similar to Obama's.


Good perspective on McCain. Too, the war hero mystique has less mileage these days, especially from Vietnam. The campaign miscalculation of Joe the Plumber and the tempestuous "That one" were disasters.

Apart from a brain transplant, someone needs to work with Palin on voice modulation and body language. Tall orders that are too late. Still amazing how far she got in politics with that quirky little personality.

Romney looks the part, but he's always toe-dipping. "Say it with conviction, man!" Don't know what deal-breaker skeletons he has.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Good perspective on McCain. Too, the war hero mystique has less mileage these days, especially from Vietnam. The campaign miscalculation of Joe the Plumber and the tempestuous "That one" were disasters.
> 
> Apart from a brain transplant, someone needs to work with Palin on voice modulation and body language. Tall orders that are too late. Still amazing how far she got in politics with that quirky little personality.
> 
> Romney looks the part, but he's always toe-dipping. "Say it with conviction, man!" Don't know what deal-breaker skeletons he has.


Romney has the advantage that he has already been out there. I don't think there are skeletons in his closet. There was the issue of him becoming pro-life just in time to run for president, which didn't square with his previous donations to Planned Parenthood. Huckabee backhandedly tried to make an issue out of his religion. The Massachusetts health care law was a thorn in his side then, but now that Obama has his own plan in place, this will be an even bigger thorn for Romney. His credentials and strengths are that he is well-spoken, looks good, has a good record of being someone who can get things done, and has a working knowledge of economics, as well as private sector experience.

The Mormon thing will be a problem for many (disclaimer - I am also). I saw a poll back during the 2008 elections that said up to 1/3 of people wouldn't vote for a person if all they knew was that they were a Mormon. So that is an obstacle that is pretty difficult to overcome. Huckabee made sure that issue was fresh in peoples' minds.

I don't think Romney gets the nomination. He just doesn't have the charisma to fire people up. And with the other problems he has, he really needs something special to overcome them. I don't see anything that would do it.

The war hero thing for McCain does not have the weight it once did. When draft-dodger Clinton beat WWII veteran and hero George H. W. Bush, I think that effectively ended any trump card that honorable military service brings to the table.


----------



## Almaviva

Dr. Mike, what do you think of Pawlenty, Jindal, and Bachmann?
At this rate, maybe the Clintons will join the Republican party and run... LOL


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> There are any number of European countries right now that are living proof that higher taxes, decreased defense spending, and increases in entitlement programs are not exactly a recipe for financial solvency. Why should this suddenly work in our country? The only untried option is reforms in entitlement programs - and yet nobody wants to try that.


As I have said, I think increasing taxes and reducing defense spending is a very good start and _could_ get our finances in order in the mid-term. In order to deal with the coming increases in health spending, we *need* to change Medicaid and Medicare. I have yet to hear a good solution to this problem. One solution could be to place a cap on spending. The problem is that we don't know how to do that in a sensible way (what do you cut?, who do you cover?, how do you decrease doctor and hospital costs, etc.). We need to get sensible solutions to this serious problem.


----------



## mmsbls

For awhile now, I've thought that Pawlenty is the only good GOP candidate. Romney can't get past his liberalism and Massachusetts being the model for Obamacare. Palin won't run, but she can't win having quit the only major political office she ever held apparently with evidence that she quit because it was too hard. Gingrich has a host of problems - too academic, shifting positions, being an incredible *******/hypocrite (having an affair and divorcing his sick wife while she was in the hospital). I don't think Bachmann can get the support of enough conventional Republicans. Mich Daniels might run, but his family is strongly against it. 

I think Pawlenty, though lacking in charisma, will make it to the nomination.


----------



## Vaneyes

Don't diss Michele yet. She's stoked by the donations pouring in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/michele-bachmann-president-2012_n_863319.html?utm_source=twitterfeed


----------



## science

Probably the best thing going for Pawlenty and Daniels is that we don't know much about them. 

Sorry, that's the second best thing; the best is that they're white Republicans. As long as the Republicans run a white guy in 2012, they'll win.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Probably the best thing going for Pawlenty and Daniels is that we don't know much about them.
> 
> Sorry, that's the second best thing; the best is that they're white Republicans. As long as the Republicans run a white guy in 2012, they'll win.


Yeah, because it has made all the difference in the world that Democrats elected a black guy. Other than painting every attack on his policies as inherently racist, what has been the difference between having a black guy in as opposed to a white guy?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Dr. Mike, what do you think of Pawlenty, Jindal, and Bachmann?
> At this rate, maybe the Clintons will join the Republican party and run... LOL


Bachmann - I like her in the House. She is uniquely talented for that. She represents here narrower group of constituents. But she is too much of a niche candidate. I probably share many of the same ideas as her, but I tend to also be a pragmatist in my presidential candidates, and don't feel she has national appeal.

Jindal - I thought he acquitted himself well during the Gulf Oil Spill. Haven't heard much since then, so I don't know. And I think that might be his problem. Who remembers back that far? Not the average voter. He strikes me as smart, and a potential candidate in the future, but let him build up a good track record. And I prefer governors to senators and congressmen for presidential candidates.

Pawlenty - he seems to be able to check off most of the important boxes to win a nomination. But you have to have charisma, and I haven't seen that yet. And I don't think that is a superficial thing to demand in a presidential candidate.

I think we still have time to see who else is going to get in. I hear rumblings about Daniels and Christie. I think they both have strengths, but I think I'd rather see them stay governors until at least the next presidential cycle. I think it is wrong to focus only on the top spot. Having control at the state level shouldn't be overlooked. That has been the critical front in the fight against Obamacare - they have done more than all the promising Republicans in D.C. So I don't like to see too many good governors chewed up in the presidential nomination process.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Yeah, because it has made all the difference in the world that Democrats elected a black guy. Other than painting every attack on his policies as inherently racist, what has been the difference between having a black guy in as opposed to a white guy?


I didn't say or imply that it made a difference, so I don't know why you're attacking me as if I did.

"[P]ainting every attack on his policies as inherently racist" is a wild exaggeration, at best. Most opposition to Obama has been politically rather than racially motivated. But I disagree with most conservatives on thsi point: racism still exists. Although it embarrasses your side, it does exist, and if you deny it then you are either naive or dishonest. That racism does motivate _some_ of the opposition to Obama - not necessarily to his policies, but to the man himself. It is no coincidence that birthers are concentrated in the south.






(My favorite part is, "And we wonder why the government doesn't work.")

We can debate about how many of them there are, but we can't deny they're there.

And they're going to turn out in force in 2012, rendering _any_ GOP candidate the winner. Unless of course the GOP picks a person of color, and then there'll be a 3rd party, the conservative votes would split, and Obama would win. But the GOP leadership is surely far too smart to let that happen.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I didn't say or imply that it made a difference, so I don't know why you're attacking me as if I did.
> 
> "[P]ainting every attack on his policies as inherently racist" is a wild exaggeration, at best. Most opposition to Obama has been politically rather than racially motivated. But I disagree with most conservatives on thsi point: racism still exists. Although it embarrasses your side, it does exist, and if you deny it then you are either naive or dishonest. That racism does motivate _some_ of the opposition to Obama - not necessarily to his policies, but to the man himself. It is no coincidence that birthers are concentrated in the south.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My favorite part is, "And we wonder why the government doesn't work.")
> 
> We can debate about how many of them there are, but we can't deny they're there.
> 
> And they're going to turn out in force in 2012, rendering _any_ GOP candidate the winner. Unless of course the GOP picks a person of color, and then there'll be a 3rd party, the conservative votes would split, and Obama would win. But the GOP leadership is surely far too smart to let that happen.


Do you actually have any facts to back up those pretty bold assertions? Racists are going to win this election for the Republicans? Really?

Yes, racism exists, and Democrats love to fan the flames. They have so many race-baiters in their midst that have no reason for being without drumming up racial tension. But Democrats have been claiming racism for just about every opposition to any Obama plan - don't like Obamacare? You must be racist. Don't like the stimulus plan? Well, that is because you are racist and want the first black president to fail. The question over his birth certificate may legitimately have some racists excited, but there were enough factors at play that it is not incomprehensible to question his birthplace without being racist. His father was African. He spent a portion of his childhood outside the country.

My wife's family is all Democrats, and her aunt didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Guess what, there are Democrat racists! So how on earth did he win? Because the proportion of people that are so overtly racist is dwindling. You can't prove that a loss for Obama would be due to racism. Republicans probably won't vote for him. So if Republicans don't vote for him, you can't just infer racism. People who take the time to register Republican typically vote Republican. And ditto for Democrats. So the important factor is independents. And they swing back and forth anyways. Sometimes they vote Republican, sometimes Democrat. So how would you prove that an Obama victory is based on racism? Will it simply be a knee-jerk inference? Never mind the fact that he has enacted some of the most liberal policies since Carter and Johnson. Need I remind you how their re-election campaigns turned out? Johnson even declined to run. And they were white Southerners! Obama's health care bill has had abysmal approval since before it was enacted. People don't like it - and that is his signature piece of legislation. Add to that the fact that we have yet to see the recovery we were promised, and now we have record gas prices to boot, a debt around $14 trillion, trillion dollar deficits for the next several years. There are plenty of legitimate reasons that people have to not vote for the man. And I am fairly confident that a white person in the oval office with a similar record would receive the same amount of votes.

Could you please show me the data that says that birthers are concentrated in the South? I believe the most prominent one was from New York. You stated it as fact - I'd like to know the data to back it up. I'd also like to see the data that suggests that racism will play anything more than a statistically insignificant role in the next election. I hear so much about how prevalent racism still is - I think people should have to back up some assertions, rather than just throw them out there as if it was conventional wisdom.

BTW - I live in the South. My wife is Southern, as is her family. I interact with Southerners all the time. I lived here from 2000-2005, and just moved back this year. Do you actually have knowledge of racism continuing in the South, or do you just parrot stereotypes? Do you still believe that Germany is populated by Nazis? I notice you list your location as Seoul. Are you a permanent resident there? Do you come to the U.S. frequently? Is your knowledge of the U.S. and the racism you claim is still an influential factor based on knowledge and data, or stereotypes and politics?


----------



## science

I had written a long and very (appropriately) sarcastic response, but it occurs to me that instead, I should just ask - 

How much of that post do you think was relevant and fair to what I wrote?


----------



## Vaneyes

The Repugnants seem to be eating their own in categorizing and defining all their wingnut factions.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I had written a long and very (appropriately) sarcastic response, but it occurs to me that instead, I should just ask -
> 
> How much of that post do you think was relevant and fair to what I wrote?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you at one point make the assertion that racism does motivate some of the opposition to Obama, but do say that most of the criticism has been political, not racial. However, you then state that, if the GOP nominates a white candidate, the racists will turn out in force and guarantee the win over Obama. Implying that racists in the GOP are a significant voting bloc. But we had nominated a white man in 2008, and we lost. So where does your logic come from? I was being dead serious. Do you have personal knowledge of this deep-seated racism that represents a powerful political force? Can you provide some data to back up your insinuations that the South continues to be a deeply racist region? Might I remind you it was Southern Democrats that were the primary opponents of civil rights legislation?

Unless people overtly express racist views, you can't infer racism from a vote. For every vote that Obama does not receive, can you say whether he would have received it were he white? Like I said, Republicans would likely vote against him even if he were white. His skin color matters not one bit, as his ideology trumps any other consideration. And even if racists did vote against Obama, you are already insinuating they are a force on the right, so they would have probably voted against the Democrat anyway, so how does that influence the vote totals? Maybe they vote in higher numbers this time, but they aren't a demographic that you can readily identify. We can tell how many men and women, blacks, whites, hispanics, elderly, youth vote. But you can't measure ideology unless they volunteer that information. The only significant measurement would be how many DEMOCRATS don't vote for him. They would naturally be expected to vote for a member of their party, especially the incumbent president. So if a significant number don't vote for him, then you might make a case for racism - but against Democrats. But then again, who is to say that they aren't moderate Democrats that don't like his policies? After all, that isn't unheard of. Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. And ever heard of Reagan Democrats?

You insinuate that racism is a significant force among conservative groups, and that racism will be the cause of Obama's loss so long as the GOP runs a white guy. So I am simply asking you to back up such a controversial statement. Explain how it is you came to that conclusion. Or don't. You are under no obligation to respond. But I am not picking on you. You made a pretty outrageous statement that I feel reflects on people of my political ideology - a statement I don't believe to be true. So I am challenging it. I don't think you can substantiate your claim.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> *The Repugnants *seem to be eating their own in categorizing and defining all their wingnut factions.


Well, at least we aren't reverting to name-calling.

Wingnut factions? Pray tell, which party has the larger proportion of 9-11 truthers? Or Code Pinkers?

And I believe it was Republican "wingnut factions" that produced one of the biggest landslides in House elections in almost a century, dramatically restoring control of the House to the GOP after only 4 years.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> We can debate about how many of them there are, but we can't deny they're there.
> 
> And they're going to turn out in force in 2012, rendering _any_ GOP candidate the winner. Unless of course the GOP picks a person of color,


Sorry, science, but I'll have to agree with Dr. Mike on this. You did start your post saying that it didn't make a difference, then with the above quote you pretty much said that racism *will* be the decisive factor: since racists will turn out in force, they'll deliver the victory to *any* GOP candidate, you said.

I'd rather say that if racism were that decisive, Obama wouldn't have been elected for his first term. The fact that we did vote into our highest office a black person (something other developed nations with majority of caucasians such as France, UK, Italy, Germany etc *never* did) shows clearly that racism here actually plays a smaller role than expected.

I consider that those among the birthers and similar extremists that attack Obama *exclusively for his race* are nothing more than a fringe, maybe a vocal fringe, but a fringe nevertheless even within their own movements. I know reasonable people who are tea party sympathisers and are not racist, and I know a couple of nuts who are (were?) birthers but don't particularly strike me as racists (and I also do live in the South). While certainly there are birthers who are racists, there are also birthers who got to be birthers because they tend to believe in conspiracy theories rather than because of race.

Sure, racism exists; sure, it plays a role in the political process - what I dispute is the notion that it plays the *decisive* role like your statements that I've quoted above seem to imply.

Sure, they exist, but they aren't the decisive force in our political spectrum, otherwise Obama wouldn't have been elected in the first place; this much seems quite obvious to me, since true racists haven't suddenly started being racists in the last two years. They were probably just as racist at the time of the 2008 election, and they didn't prevail, did they? So how come they're the decisive factor???


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you at one point make the assertion that racism does motivate some of the opposition to Obama, but do say that most of the criticism has been political, not racial. However, you then state that, if the GOP nominates a white candidate, the racists will turn out in force and guarantee the win over Obama. Implying that racists in the GOP are a significant voting bloc.


Nope, leap of logic there.



DrMike said:


> But we had nominated a white man in 2008, and we lost. So where does your logic come from?


The main factor will be liberal disillusionment with Obama, so that they won't turn out. The economy still being bad hurts him (so the cynical obstructionism has worked).

The right is obviously far more politically motivated right now, and _one reason_ is race.



DrMike said:


> I was being dead serious. Do you have personal knowledge of this deep-seated racism that represents a powerful political force? Can you provide some data to back up your insinuations that the South continues to be a deeply racist region? Might I remind you it was Southern Democrats that were the primary opponents of civil rights legislation?


You can't stop being condescending, can you?

Anyway, most of those Southerners turned Republican in the late 60s and early 70s, and it's no coincidence.

Yes, I have personal knowledge of racism. I grew up in West Virginia, where there are racists. But then I went to college in Connecticut, where there are also racists. I have heard Mexicans blamed for the housing crisis.

I cannot believe that anyone in this country could be genuinely unaware of racism.



DrMike said:


> Unless people overtly express racist views, you can't infer racism from a vote.


Can I infer racism from statements like, "You don't have to wash your hands after you touch [McCain]?"



DrMike said:


> For every vote that Obama does not receive, can you say whether he would have received it were he white? Like I said, Republicans would likely vote against him even if he were white. His skin color matters not one bit, as his ideology trumps any other consideration. And even if racists did vote against Obama, you are already insinuating they are a force on the right, so they would have probably voted against the Democrat anyway, so how does that influence the vote totals? Maybe they vote in higher numbers this time, but they aren't a demographic that you can readily identify. We can tell how many men and women, blacks, whites, hispanics, elderly, youth vote. But you can't measure ideology unless they volunteer that information. The only significant measurement would be how many DEMOCRATS don't vote for him. They would naturally be expected to vote for a member of their party, especially the incumbent president. So if a significant number don't vote for him, then you might make a case for racism - but against Democrats. But then again, who is to say that they aren't moderate Democrats that don't like his policies? After all, that isn't unheard of. Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. And ever heard of Reagan Democrats?
> 
> You insinuate that racism is a significant force among conservative groups, and that racism will be the cause of Obama's loss so long as the GOP runs a white guy. So I am simply asking you to back up such a controversial statement. Explain how it is you came to that conclusion. Or don't. You are under no obligation to respond. But I am not picking on you. You made a pretty outrageous statement that I feel reflects on people of my political ideology - a statement I don't believe to be true. So I am challenging it. I don't think you can substantiate your claim.


I came to that conclusion by hearing the "Kill him!" cries during McCain rallies, seeing the Birther movement, hearing Fox News' and talk radio's most popular "journalists" talk about his grudge against white people - I guess there's not a tinge of racism there to you?

And I can see their anger. Maybe it was spent in the 2010 midterms, because it has been lower-key since then.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> Sorry, science, but I'll have to agree with Dr. Mike on this. You did start your post saying that it didn't make a difference, then with the above quote you pretty much said that racism *will* be the decisive factor: since racists will turn out in force, they'll deliver the victory to *any* GOP candidate, you said.
> 
> I'd rather say that if racism were that decisive, Obama wouldn't have been elected for his first term. The fact that we did vote into our highest office a black person (something other developed nations with majority of caucasians such as France, UK, Italy, Germany etc *never* did) shows clearly that racism here actually plays a smaller role than expected.
> 
> I consider that those among the birthers and similar extremists that attack Obama *exclusively for his race* are nothing more than a fringe, maybe a vocal fringe, but a fringe nevertheless even within their own movements. I know reasonable people who are tea party sympathisers and are not racist, and I know a couple of nuts who are (were?) birthers but don't particularly strike me as racists (and I also do live in the South). While certainly there are birthers who are racists, there are also birthers who got to be birthers because they tend to believe in conspiracy theories rather than because of race.
> 
> Sure, racism exists; sure, it plays a role in the political process - what I dispute is the notion that it plays the *decisive* role like your statements that I've quoted above seem to imply.
> 
> Sure, they exist, but they aren't the decisive force in our political spectrum, otherwise Obama wouldn't have been elected in the first place; this much seems quite obvious to me, since true racists haven't suddenly started being racists in the last two years. They were probably just as racist at the time of the 2008 election, and they didn't prevail, did they? So how come they're the decisive factor???


There won't be a single decisive factor; probably the biggest factor will be liberals not turning out for Obama. All those "Yes we can" young'uns have been disappointed by his centrism, and they're not going to get fooled again.

Then the economy will probably still be bad - at least for the working class, the majority of voters, only this time it hurts Obama. (If the economy hadn't been so bad in 2008, McCain would've won. Or if McCain hadn't said the economy was ok just before it really crashed, McCain would probably have won.)

Finally, a certain segment of the population will turn out in force for anyone the GOP nominates. One reason will be hate for Obama's supposedly socialist policies - they weren't socialist in the 1990s, but something about those policies changed in 2008, perhaps the nature of the policies themselves became socialist - but another reason will be racism.

It's exactly the same as the Birthers themselves. Maybe they're not all racists. Probably a lot of them, like the racist Huckleberry in the video I posted, think they're not racists. But on the whole, it's a racist phenomenon. That's why it's focused in the South; that's why it's focused in people over 65 (who grew up before racism was more shameful than homosexuality). Maybe a few Birthers would be Birthers even if Obama was white and had been born, say, in Panama. I doubt it, because McCain was born on a military base in Panama, and there was absolutely nothing heard about it.

Elections turn on very small % of voters. There are really only a few purple states, and in those states the failure to inspire a base or the failure to nudge a very small number of independent voters changes an election. It's almost true to say that Florida and Ohio elect our presidents, and most of the voters in those states are predictable. The issue is which side's voters are motivated, and who can get the swing voters. It's possible to win without swing voters with a very motivated base, and that was in general Rove's strategy, and it worked. The right has been extremely motivated since Obama has been in office, and unless their energy is spent, they will be in 2012. There are several factors in that, not just race. But race is one. And the surest way for the right to alienate that support would be to nominate a non-white candidate in 2012. As long as they don't do that, they can count on a huge turnout from their base, and they will win.

It took a lot of things going wrong for the GOP in 2008 to get Obama elected. Those things aren't going wrong now.

That is my opinion, it is based on my intuition and observations, and whether someone finds it infuriating or insulting or whatever doesn't change it. I think I'm within the rules here as well, as I haven't personally insulted anyone.


----------



## Sid James

I think that if the likes of Donald Trump would become President, then the rest of the world would definitely become more anti-American. The criticism that the USA was a political oligarchy run by those who are in political dynasties and with the old money would be even more valid. Does "conflict of interest" also ring a bell? The mind simply boggles at what goes on in America...


----------



## science

The good news is that it's pretty much always been this way, and it's worked out well enough so far. Sixty years ago, what was good for GM was good for the country. A hundred twenty years ago, McKinley (the big business candidate) could outspend his opponent by a factor of 16 (if memory serves). A hundred eighty years ago our politics amounted to big plantation owners vs. industrialists. 

The bad news is that I think the elite culture is changing. There used to be a sense of noblesse oblige, which seems to me to be on the wane. (This is another intuitive opinion; I don't intend to try to produce a statistical defense of it.) Perhaps some segments of our ruling class has realized that since they no longer need a militia or an army capable of waging total war, they can reduce the bottom half of society to powerlessness. That would be a very small segment, but I think it is happening.

Edit: I want to take this back. I thought about it on my way to work and changed my mind. I guess there might've been a golden age of noblesse oblige, from about the 1930s to the 1960s, but it wasn't so rosy before that.


----------



## Guest

Andre said:


> I think that if the likes of Donald Trump would become President, then the rest of the world would definitely become more anti-American. The criticism that the USA was a political oligarchy run by those who are in political dynasties and with the old money would be even more valid. Does "conflict of interest" also ring a bell? The mind simply boggles at what goes on in America...


Why? Trump isn't even running? It seems like we corrected this problem. So what is so wrong? Is the political situation in America so different than the rest of the world? So much worse? We are hearing in the last few days how France very nearly may have elected a man to replace Sarkozy that is now sitting in prison for sexual assault. Greece, Ireland, and Portugal are going bankrupt. Russia may have a new president, but their former KGB chief is still pulling the strings.  And Italy's president seems to be putting more care into which woman he beds than how he runs his country. Why is it the U.S. that is so worrying?


----------



## Almaviva

@ Science:

You said:

"There won't be a single decisive factor; probably the biggest factor will be liberals not turning out for Obama. All those "Yes we can" young'uns have been disappointed by his centrism, and they're not going to get fooled again. 

Then the economy will probably still be bad - at least for the working class, the majority of voters, only this time it hurts Obama. (If the economy hadn't been so bad in 2008, McCain would've won. Or if McCain hadn't said the economy was ok just before it really crashed, McCain would probably have won.)"

With that, I agree. Voter disappointment and the economy will be the decisive factors if Obama doesn't win. Racism won't be the decisive factor. Your position now is much more comprehensive and makes much more sense than what you said before that racists will turn out in droves and deliver the victory to any white Republican candidate, as if nothing else mattered and all that the Republicans need to do to win, is to run a white candidate. It's not as simple.

And I don't think Obama is doomed, far from that.

1. Many independents actually like the fact that he is becoming centrist.
2. Don't count the economy out yet. If he gets signs of recovery right before the election people may start to feel that the economy is going in the right direction.
3. Obama is a charismatic politician. We haven't heard the last of him yet. The campaign is at the very begining. Like I said, if the Republicans underestimate him, it will be a big, big mistake.


----------



## Sid James

DrMike said:


> ...Why is it the U.S. that is so worrying?


Basically, it's the USA's "militairy-industrial complex." I was mainly looking at things from an Australian perspective. At least in the past, there was a culture of egalitarianism, of the "fair go" & "she'll be right, mate" in this country, which even encompassed politics. Or at least some aspiration towards this. Now we're going the American way, things are less bipartisan, it's becoming dog eat dog, even within the same political party. When basically the only political party with an ounce of integrity are the Greens (even though they do, I admit, have some oddballs & wierd ideas, but so do the major parties), then "Houston, we have a problem!"...


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Nope, leap of logic there.
> 
> The main factor will be liberal disillusionment with Obama, so that they won't turn out. The economy still being bad hurts him (so the cynical obstructionism has worked).
> 
> The right is obviously far more politically motivated right now, and _one reason_ is race.
> 
> You can't stop being condescending, can you?
> 
> Anyway, most of those Southerners turned Republican in the late 60s and early 70s, and it's no coincidence.
> 
> Yes, I have personal knowledge of racism. I grew up in West Virginia, where there are racists. But then I went to college in Connecticut, where there are also racists. I have heard Mexicans blamed for the housing crisis.
> 
> I cannot believe that anyone in this country could be genuinely unaware of racism.
> 
> Can I infer racism from statements like, "You don't have to wash your hands after you touch [McCain]?"
> 
> I came to that conclusion by hearing the "Kill him!" cries during McCain rallies, seeing the Birther movement, hearing Fox News' and talk radio's most popular "journalists" talk about his grudge against white people - I guess there's not a tinge of racism there to you?
> 
> And I can see their anger. Maybe it was spent in the 2010 midterms, because it has been lower-key since then.


I'm sorry, but I'm not being condescending here. You dismiss a whole bloc of voters based on nothing more than your "intuition." Then you cherry pick a few videos here and there, and cite examples that have since been proven false (the alleged "kill him" comment at a McCain rally). Are you in fact in Seoul? How exactly are you seeing this racism, other than in news reports?

Sorry, I call BS. Making such a statement you have made purely on intuition and some cherry-picked videos off of YouTube is fair game for criticism. Nobody said you were over-stepping any rules on here - not me or Alma. I'm just saying that I think you conclusion is utterly wrong. I'm sure you think the same of mine, but I at least gave some really credible evidence to suggest that your prediction is wrong. Alma as well. And against that you provide your intuition. You have formed your hypothesis without any data, and now are seeking data to fit your hypothesis, disregarding evidence to the contrary. If you want to see racism, you will find it. That doesn't mean that it is any significant factor. Look hard enough and you can find any ideology you want.


----------



## Meaghan

DrMike said:


> Why is it the U.S. that is so worrying?


At least for me, the answer is mostly "because I live here." All countries have their problems, but the problems of my country are the ones that affect me and my family and friends most directly.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not being condescending here. You dismiss a whole bloc of voters based on nothing more than your "intuition." Then you cherry pick a few videos here and there, and cite examples that have since been proven false (the alleged "kill him" comment at a McCain rally). Are you in fact in Seoul? How exactly are you seeing this racism, other than in news reports?
> 
> Sorry, I call BS. Making such a statement you have made purely on intuition and some cherry-picked videos off of YouTube is fair game for criticism. Nobody said you were over-stepping any rules on here - not me or Alma. I'm just saying that I think you conclusion is utterly wrong. I'm sure you think the same of mine, but I at least gave some really credible evidence to suggest that your prediction is wrong. Alma as well. And against that you provide your intuition. You have formed your hypothesis without any data, and now are seeking data to fit your hypothesis, disregarding evidence to the contrary. If you want to see racism, you will find it. That doesn't mean that it is any significant factor. Look hard enough and you can find any ideology you want.


I didn't grow up in Seoul; I've seen what I've seen. Essentially you're saying there's no racism in the US, but I know it's there and very common in some parts of the country. Maybe you're genuinely unaware of it, but at the very least there's some "motivated reasoning" on your part as well.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> @ Science:
> 
> You said:
> 
> "There won't be a single decisive factor; probably the biggest factor will be liberals not turning out for Obama. All those "Yes we can" young'uns have been disappointed by his centrism, and they're not going to get fooled again.
> 
> Then the economy will probably still be bad - at least for the working class, the majority of voters, only this time it hurts Obama. (If the economy hadn't been so bad in 2008, McCain would've won. Or if McCain hadn't said the economy was ok just before it really crashed, McCain would probably have won.)"
> 
> With that, I agree. Voter disappointment and the economy will be the decisive factors if Obama doesn't win. Racism won't be the decisive factor. Your position now is much more comprehensive and makes much more sense than what you said before that racists will turn out in droves and deliver the victory to any white Republican candidate, as if nothing else mattered and all that the Republicans need to do to win, is to run a white candidate. It's not as simple.
> 
> And I don't think Obama is doomed, far from that.
> 
> 1. Many independents actually like the fact that he is becoming centrist.
> 2. Don't count the economy out yet. If he gets signs of recovery right before the election people may start to feel that the economy is going in the right direction.
> 3. Obama is a charismatic politician. We haven't heard the last of him yet. The campaign is at the very begining. Like I said, if the Republicans underestimate him, it will be a big, big mistake.


We'll see. I was wrong in 2008 - but in 2008 so many things went wrong for the GOP. Bush was unpopular with the base and with independents; the economy crashed; McCain was unpopular with the base; Palin was unpopular with independents; Obama had a huge wave of youthful enthusiasm. It was the perfect storm - and yet the election was close. I don't think that confluence of factors is going to happen again for a while.

On the other hand, the demographics are shifting away from the GOP, and the GOP isn't shifting with them, so eventually this will catch up with them. Maybe even in 2012, but that would surprise me. But by 2016 or 2020 the GOP will have to change to bring in some youth, and probably more Hispanics. It can't keep relying on people who were born prior to 1975, or on 55% of the white vote (the % that Reagan won with in 1980, and that McCain lost with in 2008).

I suspect the GOP will shift things around by changing its stance on a few social policies - perhaps drug legalization, gay marriage and immigration. Essentially using immigration policy to seize Hispanic loyalty was Bush's strategy, and it was a good one, but his party wasn't ready for it and they abandoned himin droves over it. Losing a few elections will change their perspective, and maybe that's what they'll do. As for drug legalization, that shouldn't be too uncontroversial in ten more years - unless the youth culture changes, the demographics on that issue should be overwhelming soon. Gay marriage would be a bigger move, but it seems to me that the Alex P. Keaton generation of conservatives really wouldn't mind surrendering on that front, and the James Dobson generation will be losing influence.

Well, that's looking ahead. In 2012 I think it'll probably work out for them anyway, and we'll see where it goes from there. Let's keep in mind that since 1968, Democrats have only won 4 elections for president - one after Watergate, and then Clinton and Obama. Clinton is really the only Democrat that got himself elected; the GOP's unpopularity elected Carter and Obama. Though things are shifting, and unless the GOP changes a turning point will come, I'm not persuaded that 2008 was the turning point. Things will be back to normal in 2012.

Unless something goes wrong for the GOP.

On the other hand, I hope you're right, because if Obama wins again it would infuriate a lot of people whose pain gives me joy.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> We'll see. I was wrong in 2008 - but in 2008 so many things went wrong for the GOP. Bush was unpopular with the base and with independents; the economy crashed; McCain was unpopular with the base; Palin was unpopular with independents; Obama had a huge wave of youthful enthusiasm. It was the perfect storm - and yet the election was close. I don't think that confluence of factors is going to happen again for a while.
> 
> On the other hand, the demographics are shifting away from the GOP, and the GOP isn't shifting with them, so eventually this will catch up with them. Maybe even in 2012, but that would surprise me. But by 2016 or 2020 the GOP will have to change to bring in some youth, and probably more Hispanics. It can't keep relying on people who were born prior to 1975, or on 55% of the white vote (the % that Reagan won with in 1980, and that McCain lost with in 2008).
> 
> I suspect the GOP will shift things around by changing its stance on a few social policies - perhaps drug legalization, gay marriage and immigration. Essentially using immigration policy to seize Hispanic loyalty was Bush's strategy, and it was a good one, but his party wasn't ready for it and they abandoned himin droves over it. Losing a few elections will change their perspective, and maybe that's what they'll do. As for drug legalization, that shouldn't be too uncontroversial in ten more years - unless the youth culture changes, the demographics on that issue should be overwhelming soon. Gay marriage would be a bigger move, but it seems to me that the Alex P. Keaton generation of conservatives really wouldn't mind surrendering on that front, and the James Dobson generation will be losing influence.
> 
> Well, that's looking ahead. In 2012 I think it'll probably work out for them anyway, and we'll see where it goes from there. Let's keep in mind that since 1968, Democrats have only won 4 elections for president - one after Watergate, and then Clinton and Obama. Clinton is really the only Democrat that got himself elected; the GOP's unpopularity elected Carter and Obama. Though things are shifting, and unless the GOP changes a turning point will come, I'm not persuaded that 2008 was the turning point. Things will be back to normal in 2012.
> 
> Unless something goes wrong for the GOP.
> 
> On the other hand, I hope you're right, because if Obama wins again it would infuriate a lot of people whose pain gives me joy.


I'm not saying that Obama will win. All that I'm saying is that he can't be underestimated, and can't be counted out yet. The Republicans may win, but it won't be easy. Obama *is* a political force, and remember, Clinton also had a big loss in the first mid-term election and then got re-elected when he turned centrist, which is exactly what Obama has been doing. Our elections have always been close, and while he lost some independents, he won (or is in the process of winning) some Latinos. The way the Republicans have been treating the Latinos went way overboard, politically speaking, and may cost them. After Arizona, I bet that many Latinos who are U.S. citizens will be voting Democrat.

Regarding moderation: nothing bad yet, it is a hot topic like always, but science, please don't comment on Dr. Mike's style of posting (condescending, etc - ti's against the rules), and Dr. Mike, please don't say that what science is saying is BS.

Darn, you guys are both intelligent, educated, grown men. You guys really need to make a habit of discussing these hot topics with the TOS in mind. It may be a little artificial because even among friends in real life people *will* use expressions such as BS and will comment on the other guy's style, but here we have stricter rules and higher standards - exactly because in real life, people will moderate their speech for the sake of politeness, or will discount some heated words for the sake of friendships and non-threatening body language. Over here, however, we are anonymous and we are practically strangers (we do share an interest in classical music) so it's easier for things to get out of control, thus the higher standards and stricter rules.

I've been finding that with good people like you guys, just asking for calm works, and you've noticed that my approach has been hands-off and friendly; I hope it continues to pay off.


----------



## science

I'd forgotten that commenting on another poster's style violated the TOS, and even there I'd say I was within the gray area. But I will retreat from that.

I've removed the most recent potential offense, and I'd guess Dr. Mike hadn't seen it yet, so hopefully it's no harm no foul.


----------



## science

Some things besides classical music (in general - I find that we disagree on the details fairly often) that we can agree on: the elections of 2012 are going to be interesting, and almost nothing in politics is static from one election to the next.


----------



## Guest

Back on topic.
For comparison, I went and found a graph that plots Bush 43's approval ratings over the 8 years of his presidency. I found a good one that plots individual polls, as well as the 14-day averages, and indicates significant events.








Now, here is a graph of the average of Obama's approval ratings thus far.
Some interesting comparisons:
1. In May, the year before Bush won re-election, his approval rating was above 60%. Right now, Obama is barely cracking 50%.
2. It took about 4 months for the bump Bush received when Saddam was caught to be erased.
3. Unless the bin Laden bump turns out to be bigger than what we have seen thus far (right now it looks like a 5-point bump, from 47% on May 2 - the day bin Laden was killed - to 52% as of yesterday), it looks like Bush got a bigger bump capturing Saddam - nearly 10%.
4. The current unemployment rate is 9% (as of April). In 2003, the year before Bush's re-election, the unemployment rate was 6%.
5. If you go to this link, you will see comparative charts of presidential approval ratings from Truman through Obama. What is striking is how closely Obama's ratings parallel those of Carter and Johnson - and we know how many terms they were elected to.

I'm not underestimating Obama - but so far it seems the only thing he is good at is giving speeches.


----------



## mmsbls

@DrMike: Great plot. I love data.

What has truly surprised me over time is how Americans (presumably people in general) respond to specific events in determining their approval of presidents. A president sets a legislative and policy agenda that affects so much of the country day in and day out. This includes budgets, environmental issues, immigration, social issues, etc. Yet polls have repeatedly shown that voters react strongly to single events rather than assessing the overall performance. 

That plot reminds me of how stunned I was to see Bush's performance rating jump almost 40 percentage points because of an event that he had no control over. I still have trouble believing that's how people truly react.

It's also interesting to see how going to war can strongly affect ratings in a positive way. America's recent war experience (after the Korean war) has often not had good outcomes (Gulf War was an exception). We seem to enjoy going to war. They say "war is hell". I wish more people would actually believe that.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> @DrMike: Great plot. I love data.
> 
> What has truly surprised me over time is how Americans (presumably people in general) respond to specific events in determining their approval of presidents. A president sets a legislative and policy agenda that affects so much of the country day in and day out. This includes budgets, environmental issues, immigration, social issues, etc. Yet polls have repeatedly shown that voters react strongly to single events rather than assessing the overall performance.
> 
> That plot reminds me of how stunned I was to see Bush's performance rating jump almost 40 percentage points because of an event that he had no control over. I still have trouble believing that's how people truly react.
> 
> It's also interesting to see how going to war can strongly affect ratings in a positive way. America's recent war experience (after the Korean war) has often not had good outcomes (Gulf War was an exception). We seem to enjoy going to war. They say "war is hell". I wish more people would actually believe that.


I think the key is how small our forces were (as a % of our population). We'd be less excited about it if more of us were facing the fire.

That's why we're turning to mercenaries.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> @DrMike: Great plot. I love data.
> 
> What has truly surprised me over time is how Americans (presumably people in general) respond to specific events in determining their approval of presidents. A president sets a legislative and policy agenda that affects so much of the country day in and day out. This includes budgets, environmental issues, immigration, social issues, etc. Yet polls have repeatedly shown that voters react strongly to single events rather than assessing the overall performance.
> 
> That plot reminds me of how stunned I was to see Bush's performance rating jump almost 40 percentage points because of an event that he had no control over. I still have trouble believing that's how people truly react.
> 
> It's also interesting to see how going to war can strongly affect ratings in a positive way. America's recent war experience (after the Korean war) has often not had good outcomes (Gulf War was an exception). We seem to enjoy going to war. They say "war is hell". I wish more people would actually believe that.


My take was a bit different. Blips are just that. They do nothing long-term (unless, potentially, you happen to hit the blip right around an election). They come and go - because the cause of them is transient. I think that is actually a good thing. Some may say that it is because Americans have a short memory - whatever. I think they (rightly) think that any president should have to continually prove he/she is the person for the job. "One-hit wonders" aren't what we are looking for. 4 years is a long time in politics. Economies can crash in less time. New conflicts can spring up. You can have plenty of time to rest on your laurels when you are out of office. I think these blips are anomalies that fall into people's laps through no extraordinary actions of their own, and that is why their benefit politically is so transient. Truman may have led the country to victory during WWII, but I think most people will view it more as the actions of FDR that Truman inherited - and so while FDR is practically deified in this country, Truman left office with one of the lowest approval ratings ever. Bush '41 and Bush '43 saw huge boosts from the first Iraq war and 9/11 - events precipitated by others. And they didn't last. Reagan is more fondly remembered than Bush '41 or Bush '43, and he didn't have any of these things to boost him. He brought about a reversal of the economic situation that led to a huge boom in the economy, and that was more effective than any military response. Wars and military actions, even when having broad popular support, still produce a lot of problems that impact everybody. But economic success has few opponents. Who really dislikes declining unemployment numbers and increased income? Those are what produce more sustained approval increases.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> My take was a bit different. Blips are just that. They do nothing long-term (unless, potentially, you happen to hit the blip right around an election). They come and go - because the cause of them is transient. I think that is actually a good thing. Some may say that it is because Americans have a short memory - whatever. I think they (rightly) think that any president should have to continually prove he/she is the person for the job. "One-hit wonders" aren't what we are looking for. 4 years is a long time in politics. Economies can crash in less time. New conflicts can spring up. You can have plenty of time to rest on your laurels when you are out of office. I think these blips are anomalies that fall into people's laps through no extraordinary actions of their own, and that is why their benefit politically is so transient. Truman may have led the country to victory during WWII, but I think most people will view it more as the actions of FDR that Truman inherited - and so while FDR is practically deified in this country, Truman left office with one of the lowest approval ratings ever. Bush '41 and Bush '43 saw huge boosts from the first Iraq war and 9/11 - events precipitated by others. And they didn't last. Reagan is more fondly remembered than Bush '41 or Bush '43, and he didn't have any of these things to boost him. He brought about a reversal of the economic situation that led to a huge boom in the economy, and that was more effective than any military response. Wars and military actions, even when having broad popular support, still produce a lot of problems that impact everybody. But economic success has few opponents. Who really dislikes declining unemployment numbers and increased income? Those are what produce more sustained approval increases.


You are right about that, Dr. Mike, and your way to show the data is very helpful.
I'd still introduce a different way to see Obama's particular situation.
Let's assume that the country remains divided along the 50% line, and just a few independents or new voters (e.g. Latinos who grew into voting age or became naturalized citizens) will make a difference, since all registered Democrats and most blacks shall vote for Obama anyway and all registered Republicans and Tea Party sympathizers will vote against him anyway.

Then, as small as these bumps may be, they may still be significant not because of the bump itself, but because some of his actions lately and events that have resulted in frontal denials of some of the most striking objections against him, might start to make undecided voters less rejecting of the idea of voting for him.

So, the opposition has tried to demonize him to sway public opinion, basically insisting in some perceived negative traits, being them true or far-fetched (my statements after the dash would reflect new views on him from these undecided voters):

1. He is not American - huh, nope, he is.
2. He is soft on terror therefore a liability for national security - huh, nope, he's the one who got bin Laden (remember, people react with fear and support Republicans in times of war or terrorism, he may have just changed that)
3. He is Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer - huh, nope, he's the guy who got the big evil chief of the Muslim extremists killed
4. Gas prices are his fault because he won't let us drill - huh, nope, he's just allowed all drilling included Alaska, can't peg this on him
5. Bailouts wasted our money - huh, nope, most of it has been paid back, at times with profits for the Treasury, and he didn't even start this
6. He is a socialist - huh, nope, he's turning more and more into a centrist
7. He lacks experience and can't take that 2 AM call - huh, nope, he just did

Much of the negative perception that is left after these seven items got out of the way are:

1. The stimulus and the deficit
2. The jobs
3. The Health Care law

This is where his problems will be. But it's not that he can't fight back, especially because the way the Republicans want to tackle the deficit is to curb entitlements, never a popular move. Do expect Grandma and Grandpa to be very protective of their Medicare once they realize the full scope of what the Republicans want to do. People vote a lot with their own interests in mind. Even anti-Obama very conservative seniors may think - "oops, if I vote Republican I'll get a lousy voucher to purchase private insurance that will be several thousand dollars short of what I need, but if I vote for this guy even though I hate him, I'll keep my Medicare." Don't underestimate the power of that.

Jobs may still improve (making it feel that the stimulus wasn't so bad after all - I mean, "making it feel," I'm not expressing my own views on the stimulus, I'm talking about public perception).

Then there's the Health Care law. And here's what I have to say about it: I'm prepared to literally bet my life savings that the overwhelming majority of people who oppose the Affordable Care Act have *no* idea about what is and what is not in the law and react by misinformation. They call it socialized medicine, it is not. They call it ObamaCare, it is not (there is no real entitlement program being created, it's rather a reorganization of the insurance market, still fundamentally private). There are no death panels. There are some really popular measures there (coverage for kids and young adult children; coverage for pre-existing conditions).

So, you said Obama is good at speeches. Precisely. Don't expect him to go down without a fight. He can be very eloquent and can change public perception of these remaining problems. He can also migrate further to the center or even to the right. He can entice Latinos and recover many center/right-leaning independents (even thouth he may lose left-leaning independents, but these won't warm up very easily to the Republican candidate either).

I repeat, he is not to be underestimated, and even against serious odds, may still win re-election.

I do grant you that he's got an uphill battle if the economy doesn't improve. But if it does, even if a little, then beware, he may very well win re-election.

And then, there is the other factor: his opponent. Like we've said before in this thread, the Republicans don't seem to have any sure-fire rising star. All potential candidates we've talked about face serious difficulties of their own and either have baggage or are not charismatic (Obama has neither of these problems - a faithful family man, very charismatic).

So, I'd say that the election is still up in the air, and as usual, will be decided by the economy.


----------



## Guest

Here are what I see as Obama's major weaknesses:
1. The economy. Yes, the economy may very well recover before the next election - but that line is getting tired. How long have Democrats been claiming it is just around the corner? How much longer are people expected to hold their breaths? Bush '41 lost with unemployment at 7.8%. Obama just went back above the 9% mark. His stimulus was supposed to have kept us under 8%.
2. The economy. We are not growing at anywhere near the rate we need to get back on track. We had a miserable first quarter, and projections for the rest of the year were just revised downwards. The housing market is still in the toilet. Foreclosures are still occurring. 
3. Health care. When this was passed, it did not have popular approval. Since then, its popularity has only further declined. Many opponents may very well not know all of the details of it. The problem is that neither did many of the proponents. It was rammed through with sketchy tactics, and too big for anybody to have read it in any detail. They passed a behemoth bill that probably better than 90% of Congress hadn't read. Now the individual mandate is facing constitutional challenges. During the debate over the bill, and in the immediate aftermath, we were told over and over that the mandate was not a new tax. Now that this might be the lynchpin to keep it from being thrown out by the judicial system, we are told it is a tax. They still don't know what this bill is. And they are handing out so many waivers for it you have to wonder why we needed it in the first place.
4. Obama came in supposedly as some post-partisan new kind of politician. Since then, he has proven to not be that. His typical strategy is to demonize the opposition. Opponents of his health care plan want to take health care from seniors. Anybody who wants to reform entitlement programs wants to throw grandma under the bus. Opponents of illegal immigration want to build a moat along our southern border. You get the picture.
5. The deficit and debt. Bush was lambasted for his hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits. Now Obama defines deficits in the trillions. And so far he has no good economy to at least justify it.
6. Wars. Obama has not fulfilled a single promise he made regarding our overseas wars. We are still in Iraq. We are still in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open. Obama continues to use all of the Bush administration tactics for fighting the terrorists. He has increased the number of drone attacks. He acted unilaterally to take out bin Laden. For all the criticism of Bush as a cowboy, that assassination of bin Laden is even more of a cowboy action. And now he has us involved in Libya. Despite it being a NATO action, it is still primarily our boys over there. And he is about to be in violation of the War Powers Act, as we are hitting the 60-day windown that he has to seek congressional approval. At first we were told that there was no time to get the approval needed, that the situation was critical. It seems like we have had plenty of time, now, for him to push for some kind of approval. Why won't he? 
7. The bloom is off the rose. There was something new and refreshing about Obama in 2008. He spoke well. He seemed to not get down into the same political attacks. He represented the opportunity to show that we really could break one of those last racial boundaries - electing a black man to the highest position in the land. And somewhere along the road, that ended. Maybe it was going to too many foreign countries and apologizing for the U.S. Maybe it was his partisan snipes. Maybe it was the bad taste the health care fight left in everybodies' mouths. Maybe it was the "beer summit" incident. But just like Rudyard Kipling's main character in his story "The Man Who Would Be King," people started to realize that, after all, he was just a mere mortal - and one without very much experience, to boot, when our country was facing precarious times.

All Obama has shown he can provide is these small transient bumps in his approval - and even those haven't been that impressive in the long run. There is no longer any excitement about him. They call it a great victory that they have finally jumped back over the 50% mark.


----------



## Almaviva

Your number 6 can actually earn him points with the right-leaning independents.

You keep talking about the economy - even used 3 items for it (1,2, and 5). Yes, I agree that the economy is - and will almost always be - the decisive factor. But economies are dynamic beasts, and we don't know how it will be right before the elections.

You are counting on the success of constitutional challenges to the health law. This is not a given. The SCOTUS may very well uphold it. Obama may still earn a major victory on this, and people may still see many positive sides of the health care act, and realize that much of the demonization of it contains distortions and lies. 

And yes, I'm afraid you'll call me a demagogue, but the Republican proposal for Medicare will indeed throw Grandma under the bus. And Obama is not the one that is doing this, the Republicans did it to themselves; they put the plan out there, and then acted surprised when the public responded very negatively. I saw a letter to the editor one of these days in my local newspaper, by an elderly gentleman who described himself as a conservative and a Republican voter, saying that he figures that with all his chronic illnesses and health expenses and his wife's, he'd be facing a bill of $28,000 per year if he went to the free market to purchase a health plan for him and his wife. He was saying - "what are the Republicans offering, some lousy voucher of $2,000 or $4,000 and they're sugarcoating the bitter pill with wording such as "choice" and "free market"? I won't have any choice! I'll be priced out of the market! I want to keep my Medicare!" As people progressively understand the personal consequences they'll suffer if they support the Republicans this time, public opinion may dramatically shift.

Your 4 and 7 are also similar and could be grouped into one item: it's a question of image. The problem is, who is that much better in the Republican side? Like you said yourself, all potential Republican candidates have plenty of problems of their own, and they'll have to tear each others' throats during the primaries and expose each others' shortcomings, while Obama will be sitting pretty with a big headstart in his campaign.

You guys seem to be pretty certain of a Republican victory. I'm not, and actually I kind of like the fact that you guys are so certain. The more the Republicans underestimate Obama, the better are his chances of being re-elected, which is the outcome that I want.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Well, if Obama is reelected, I'll be fine with it. As long as he doesn't fund abortion with Federal taxpayers' money. I'm so disillusioned with politics today. Life isn't all about it. As long as he makes good decisions, even decisions that are contrary to his party, that's all the better because he's actually doing something for each side.


----------



## World Violist

Just poking my head back in the forums and I stumble upon this! Oh yes.

Obama's speech at the correspondence dinner is one of the most wonderful things I've ever seen. It's more than a roast; it's a gutting, quartering, roasting, and then eating. And the side-swipe at Fox News (after the "birth video": "I'd like to make it clear to the Fox News table that this was a joke.") was absolute brilliance. Seriously, I had no idea Obama had it in him!

Oh, and he's in for the second term. There aren't any Republicans who stand a chance. Huckabee was the only one, and he's gone now, and Obama's riding the high from bin Laden's death. If he isn't re-elected, there's something seriously wrong going on.

I think he needs to be re-elected anyway.


----------



## Guest

@Alma (because I hate quoting long posts and taking up so much space, I won't quote you here, but I am responding mainly to you):
You talk about how Republicans are assuming Obama is a dead man walking (my paraphrasing of you comments), and I agree that we shouldn't underestimate him, but I don't think we are. We know who we are up against. But let me remind you that as recently as 2006 and 2008, we were hearing all kinds of talk about how the Republican party and conservatism were in their death throes. How many people were talking about the death of conservatism? And then we won governorships in Virginia and New Jersey. We won Ted Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts, for crying out loud. And then we took back the House of Representatives just 4 years after losing it (it took Democrats 12 years to regain it, and only 4 to lose it), in a landslide defeat unprecedented in nearly 100 years. We forced Arlen Specter out of office after he turned back to being a Democrat (remember, he was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat) and then elected a conservative Republican. We took away Democrats' filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And all the while Democrats discredited the GOP - in 2010 we heard how torn apart the GOP was by the Tea Party, fighting for the heart and sould of the party, and then stunned silence when that grass-roots movement upset the Democrat monopoly in Washington.

Obama had a huge advantage in 2008 - actually, several. Number 1 - the GOP was hugely unpopular, some of it well earned, some of it not. Number 2 - the economy was going down the crapper, and his was not the party in power, so he could very credibly charge the blame to the other party. Number 3 - he was the outsider, and could paint himself as untainted by Washington and politics as usual. Number 4 - he was young, charismatic, a gifted speaker and campaigner, and, lets face it, a very attractive black man that represented the chance to prove we could overcome our history and elect a black man to the highest office in the land.

Now, 4 years later, many of those advantages are gone. His party is now the one in power. They still hold the White House and the Senate, and for the first two years they also held the House. Like it or not, they now own the current situation. He can no longer run against Bush (which is really what he did, painting McCain as nothing but a continuation of the Bush presidency). The economy is still in the crapper. He sold us a stimulus package that was supposed to get us out, and keep unemployment no higher than 8%. He failed there. He might blame Bush for it all, but America won't buy it anymore. Carter inherited a bad economy as well, but he, like Obama, promised that by electing him, he would lead the country out. Carter couldn't carry through with that promise, and things got worse. And the country, rightly, held him accountable - not for starting the problem, but for failing to follow through on his promise to end it. The same fate awaits Obama, unless some miracle happens. And so far, there are no indications it will. He is also no longer the outsider. He is the incumbent. He is the face of Washington. And he has so deeply enmeshed himself in the usual politics that he can no longer look above it all. The dirty tactics used to pass the health care bill tainted him deeply. His hope and change mantra is now only a punch line in every joke about him. He has brought neither. The ironic thing is that one of the major ways he has changed is by embracing some of the most reviled aspects of the BUSH administration that he railed against. Close Gitmo? Nope. Try some terrorists before military commissions? Yep. Get us completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Nope. And now he has even taken up the Bush doctrine of promoting democracy around the world.

Republicans may not have hit a home run with their budget proposal, but they definitely came off looking at least more serious about tackling the deficit than did Obama's first run. He even had to reject his first budget proposal. His own deficit reduction commission had more good things to say about the Ryan budget than about his, which completely ignored their suggestions. I don't think that is going to be quite the winning issue as you might think. As they say, better to shoot for the stars and miss than to aim for the mud and hit it. And I think many people will see it that way - at least the Republicans are seriously talking about fiscal restraint, while the president is looking to spend at least a trillion more than we take in for the next several years, if he is given a second term.

With the health care bill, the president proved that he was willing to sacrifice many in his party to achieve his goals. I don't see him making that many more fakes to the center. You all see him as moving to the center. I see him as shifting slightly away from the left. So he got bin Laden. That doesn't suddenly make him a centrist.


----------



## Guest

Oh, and one more point. There is a lot of talk about how disorganized the GOP pool of candidates is, and how they are tearing each other apart. But is our memory so short? What about the 2008 Democratic party primaries? Threatening to go to court over the delegate votes in Michigan? The crazy battle between Hillary and Obama? Hillary crying in New Hampshire? Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton being labeled as racist over comments they made about Obama? Jesse Jackson's comments (while he thought he was off camera) about what he wanted to do to a certain part of Obama's anatomy? Hillary's middle of the night phone call ad? Her complaining in a debate about the softball questions Obama gets? And yet Obama still managed to win the White House with a larger percentage of the vote than any Democrat had won since, I believe, LBJ.

I wouldn't worry too much about the GOP candidates during the primary. We always hear about how tough it will be, but in reality, I think the only nomination process in recent history that really damaged the eventual nominee was the bitter fight between Carter and Ted Kennedy, but in all reality, Reagan probably would have won regardless.


----------



## Almaviva

You make some very good points, Dr. Mike, and I never said it would be easy for Obama to be re-elected, I just said that he's not a dead horse and won't be defeated without a fight.

The problem with your arguments is that we've heard similar in 2008. People were saying - "do you think a guy with the middle name Hussein can be elected president in America? People will say they'll vote for a black guy to look cool and nice but in the secret of the electoral booth, they won't." At various points the Republicans seemed absolutely certain that they would win, maybe using different arguments from the ones you're making now. Well, they didn't. These sort of arguments amount to little more than speculation. Much of what you said applied to an election in which there was no incumbent. This one is a different animal. It is harder to unseat a president than to win against an opponent who is in equal grounds with you.

So, we'll see. Let's wait for all those eggs to hatch. Me, I think the 2012 election is completely up in the air, and we'll only have a clearer view when we see the state of the economy in the second half of 2012.

Image, racism, broken promises (what politician doesn't break promises?), etc., are fringe factors. The election - as usual - will be about the economy. If it shows strong signs of recovery, Obama has enormous chances. If it continues to falter or gets even worse, he's got an uphill battle. You put forward good points and arguments, you look into the data, and I respect your opinion. I just think that it is too early to tell. We don't even know who his opponent will be. We have no idea if the job market will improve, if gas prices will remain the same, go up, or go down, etc.

Your optimism is touching, but in my humble opinion, it is premature.


----------



## Vaneyes

I think we've settled in nicely with four more years. Only "H.W." has broken the string since Raygunomics.


----------



## science

Not too many incumbents have lost in the past century. That's why the GOP is so eager to portray Obama as Carter. 

If the raid in Pakistan to kill Obama had gone badly, you bet we'd have heard a lot about it.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Not too many incumbents have lost in the past century. That's why the GOP is so eager to portray Obama as Carter.
> 
> If the raid in Pakistan to kill Obama had gone badly, you bet we'd have heard a lot about it.


You are right, not too many have lost re-election. Bush 41. Carter. Ford (extraordinary circumstances, and he was never actually elected). Johnson (he finished off JFK's term, but then only was elected in his own right once). Hoover. What is the common theme of those who lost (Bush, Carter, Hoover)? The economy sucked. That is why there are parallels with Carter. His is the closest. Bush and Hoover were in office when the economic downturns happened. But Carter, like Obama, inherited the economic problems from his predecessor. Both were elected partly due to being fed up with the previous party in power (Carter benefited greatly from the Watergate scandal, Obama from the protracted wars and the perception that Republicans hadn't kept their promises), and partly from their promises to get the country out of the economic doldrums. Both enacted measures that were supposed to fix the economy, but actually did worse (the misery index that Carter beat Ford over the head with actually got worse with him, Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8%, and it got up to 10% and is now around 9%). Both dealt with widespread Mideast unrest. Obama seems to be taking cues from Carter regarding his Israel policy. Carter at least had executive experience (although it didn't really do him much good).

There are a lot of good comparisons between the two.


----------



## World Violist

I think the thing about the Republicans being disorganized is true but maybe a bit mis-worded. There simply aren't any Republicans who have taken charge. Huckabee might have done it, but now he's gone. Ron Paul would, certainly, but nobody would ever vote for him, and the rest of the possibilities are virtually hopeless at the moment. Add to that Gingrich's miserable failure and you have a party that isn't going anywhere.

Obama, on the other hand, still has a solid vision that he _is_ working on, he killed the guy that eluded the last 3-4 presidents, and that's not even mentioning his race. He's a galvanizing figure again, and the mistakes he has made (extending the Bush tax cuts, for one) are merely attributable to human error.

There is no reason not to re-elect him, and there plenty of reasons against the GOP.


----------



## Guest

World Violist said:


> I think the thing about the Republicans being disorganized is true but maybe a bit mis-worded. There simply aren't any Republicans who have taken charge. Huckabee might have done it, but now he's gone. Ron Paul would, certainly, but nobody would ever vote for him, and the rest of the possibilities are virtually hopeless at the moment. Add to that Gingrich's miserable failure and you have a party that isn't going anywhere.
> 
> Obama, on the other hand, still has a solid vision that he _is_ working on, he killed the guy that eluded the last 3-4 presidents, and that's not even mentioning his race. He's a galvanizing figure again, and the mistakes he has made (extending the Bush tax cuts, for one) are merely attributable to human error.
> 
> There is no reason not to re-elect him, and there plenty of reasons against the GOP.


Sorry, but how is extending the Bush tax cuts attributable to human error? That was a conscious decision on his part. His waiting so long to address the Gulf Oil spill? His failure to address the slaughter when the Iranian regime was gunning its own people down in the streets, but now jumping in and bombing Qaddafi? And then again giving Syria a pass (I'm sorry, but if he is bombing Libya, then mere sanctions is giving Syria a pass). He is continuing to use Gitmo. He is allowing terrorists to be tried before military tribunals. He is continuing to use Bush administration surveillance tools. He hasn't gotten us out of Afghanistan or Iraq yet, like he promised. He even increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. He has increased the number of drone attacks. He assassinated bin Laden inside the borders of a sovereign country we are not at war with. By all appearances, it looks like he has also tried it with another in Yemen. He pushed through his health care bill, and now is giving all of his political supporters waivers for it. AARP just got a waiver, and they were ardent supporters of it. If it was such a necessary bill, why are so many political allies of Obama begging for waivers so they don't have to participate? He swore Congress needed to pass his stimulus bill, or else we would go into depression, and if it was passed, unemployment would not go above 8%. It is currently at 9%, down from up around 10%. What happened to all those jobs that would be "saved or created?" Since his election, Democrats lost the House in a landslide. They lost governors races in New Jersey and Virginia (remember how Obama won Virginia, and we heard how it was now a purple state?). They lost Ted Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts, for crying out loud. I don't think you could have picked a more predictably safe Democratic seat in the country if you tried. They lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats passed cap-and-trade in the House, and that is one of the things that sunk them. The Senate wouldn't even touch it. They failed to pass a budget last year, when they still held the House and Senate. Obama's approval ratings have just recently slightly crept up over 50%, and the huge "bump" he got from killing bin Laden by all appearances is even less than Bush got for only capturing Saddam Hussein.

We aren't even halfway through the year before the election. It is a bit soon to be saying that the GOP is in disarray. We were supposedly in disarray in 2010 when we had the best pickup of House seats in about a century.


----------



## Vaneyes

Obama campaigned on Iraq reduction and Afghanistan increase. No surprise there.

Promise for unemployment? How about projection instead?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/george-will/will-obama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/


----------



## Almaviva

@ Dr. Mike - whaaaat???? " He assassinated bin Laden inside the borders of a sovereign country we are not at war with. "
What are you saying here, mate? You have just negated all the posts you wrote about this topic, when you extensively agreed with Obama's action, and now you're blaming him for it? I surely don't understand this sudden change of mind. Could it be, by any chance, a bit of partisan thinking? Would you be saying the same if a Republican president had "assassinated" (in your words) bin Laden?
Oh wow, now you have really surprised me. Tsk, tsk.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.


When?

Are you sure "promised" is the right word?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> @ Dr. Mike - whaaaat???? " He assassinated bin Laden inside the borders of a sovereign country we are not at war with. "
> What are you saying here, mate? You have just negated all the posts you wrote about this topic, when you extensively agreed with Obama's action, and now you're blaming him for it? I surely don't understand this sudden change of mind. Could it be, by any chance, a bit of partisan thinking? Would you be saying the same if a Republican president had "assassinated" (in your words) bin Laden?
> Oh wow, now you have really surprised me. Tsk, tsk.


I didn't say what I felt about all the individual points that I listed - but those are all the points I felt either broke with his stated policies or his campaign pledges. I do support the assassination of bin Laden, but don't you think it has more of a feel of the cowboy attitude for which Bush was so vilified? And this from the man who couldn't give a straight answer whether he thought bin Laden should be read his rights if we were to capture him?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> When?
> 
> Are you sure "promised" is the right word?


You got me - no, it was just the prediction of one of his top economic advisors at the time - Christine Romer - and I'm sure that they didn't use here status as a recognized financial expert to further sell the package (sarcasm intended). They spoke quite confidently of how important this stimulus package was. And they sure didn't mind people hearing what Christine Romer thought about it - and she WAS one of Obama's top financial advisors. She would not have gone and spoken out of turn and released a prediction like that if they weren't okay with it. Making stupid comments without checking ahead is Joe Biden's job.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re Politicians (campaign promises) and economists (forecasts), there are plenty of jokes and sobering truths to go around. To refresh the memory, or find fuel for debate, all one has to do is Google.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> You got me - no, it was just the prediction of one of his top economic advisors at the time - Christine Romer - and I'm sure that they didn't use here status as a recognized financial expert to further sell the package (sarcasm intended). They spoke quite confidently of how important this stimulus package was. And they sure didn't mind people hearing what Christine Romer thought about it - and she WAS one of Obama's top financial advisors. She would not have gone and spoken out of turn and released a prediction like that if they weren't okay with it. Making stupid comments without checking ahead is Joe Biden's job.


Ok, thanks.


----------



## Vaneyes

President O'Bama says he plans to visit Joplin, Missouri on Sunday.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> President O'Bama says he plans to visit Joplin, Missouri on Sunday.


Hey, give him a break! He's exploring his Irish roots!!!!


----------



## Vaneyes

President & First Lady O'Bama doing London, while remembering the less fortunate in Joplin and "Red" Missouri.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2011/05/24/2011-05-24_michelle_obama_meets_kate_middleton_in_london_first_lady_in_barbara_tfank_kate_i.html


----------



## Vaneyes

Newt, a Tiffany guy.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ngrich-tiffanys-debt-presidential-election-/1

Michele brain trust?

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_128/michele-bachmann-2012-campaign-staff-205928-1.html


----------



## science

Anyone remember, what, two years ago was it? Ireland was held up to us as exactly the kind of deregulated, low-tax economy we ought to emulate.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Anyone remember, what, two years ago was it? Ireland was held up to us as exactly the kind of deregulated, low-tax economy we ought to emulate.


Remind me - was that back around the time Obama was explaining why he would not vote to raise the debt ceiling?

And I believe what was admired was their low corporate income tax rate which was luring businesses there, in contrast to what we were seeing here. But it doesn't matter what kind of revenues you take in - nobody has yet devised the tax code that can generate enough revenues to fund the massive entitlement programs that are crushing economies left and right.


----------



## science

So it is remembered. That's good to know.


----------



## Vaneyes

Middle East envoy Tony Blair banging his own drum, master of the obvious, leak vessel, or all of the above.

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/extremists-could-step-into-mideast-peace-vacuum-blair

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55744.html

Weapons of mass destruction continue to nag...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8532830/Blairs-want-to-cut-down-100-trees-on-5m-estate.html


----------



## Krummhorn

This thread has strayed completely off topic ... it was about Donald Trump, but now has been derailed to other non relevant things. 

Since it is no longer relevant to the OT, this thread is now closed.


----------

