Is Obama finished?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:44:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Is Obama finished?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Poll
Question: ....
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 229

Author Topic: Is Obama finished?  (Read 314757 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: December 25, 2009, 06:10:30 PM »

It is too early, but Obama looks like he is running below the first term numbers of every president since Nixon.

That isn't a good sign.

The better news is that Reagan was the second lowest.

He faces a well-funded, strident, organized opposition that protests everything that he is and does. It's 1960s' street theater all over, except that it is "Obama=Hitler" and "Obama=Stalin" instead of

"Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many boys did you kill today!"



Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2009, 08:46:45 PM »

Not even close to the 60's and Nixon probably benefited from it.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2009, 01:35:08 PM »

Not even close to the 60's and Nixon probably benefited from it.

... and who would benefit from disgust at the teabag rhetoric and symbols?



Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2009, 01:39:31 PM »

Do I think he'll win?  No.  Do I think he's finished (as in certainly won't win)? No.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: December 28, 2009, 05:18:15 PM »

Not even close to the 60's and Nixon probably benefited from it.

... and who would benefit from disgust at the teabag rhetoric and symbols?



This little, the Republicans.  This is more of the "construction workers riot" situation.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 03, 2010, 05:23:56 AM »

Behold, the typical conservative: quite fond of Big Government, as long as the spending is on things he agrees with.

Was this supposed to be a burn?

Are you saying I'm in favor of national defense?  Guilty as charged.

Or are you saying I am in favor of Medicare and Social Security?  Well, I am guilty of that as well.

My point, however, was that the graph he put up excludes some of the largest budget items to make it appear that national defense is a larger share of the federal budget than it actually is.

Which was a lie of yours that was already addressed.

Where is the lie?  I said, and these are my exact words, that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt are budget items that are not included in the graph.

You can reply that your graph only represents discretioanry items, but it doesn't change the point.  You like those non-discretinary items, so you didn't include them in the graph so as to make the things you don't like seem to be more significant than they are.  Defense is the bulk of discretionary spending, so if you limit your graph to discretionary spending, you are able to create a false impression.

Saying that a budget item is non-discretionary is no defense at all.  Mandatory spending is 62% of the Federal budget.  You have excluded nearly 2/3rds of all spending and your response is effectively that this spending doesn't count!

On your graph, defense is a majority of spending, but when you include all spending, we see that it is only about 1/5th of the budget.



And remember, no one on your side of this acknowledged that your graph only represents discretionary spending until my post forced you to admit you were fudging the facts.  Your post did not say anything about discretionary spending.  Your graph was not labeled as such.  You tried to pull a fast one and you got caught.

I'm sorry but the idea that Libertas likes Medicare and Social Security spending just makes me ROTFLMAO.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 23, 2010, 01:13:34 PM »

I can't see America re-electing a black President.

Obama is half-black if you want to get technical
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2010, 06:59:12 PM »

This is a pretty classic thread.

And my answer is no to the question.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2010, 07:47:15 PM »

I don't know how many times I've posted this, but I'll say it again: Approvals more than two years out have no bearing on the likelihood a president gets re-elected. Will a math-inclined person please run the regression and post the graph? I'd really appreciate it.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2010, 11:08:07 AM »

I hope so.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2010, 01:52:27 PM »

I don't know how many times I've posted this, but I'll say it again: Approvals more than two years out have no bearing on the likelihood a president gets re-elected. Will a math-inclined person please run the regression and post the graph? I'd really appreciate it.

I can't post the list of incumbent Senators and Governors, but I can post the article and the link:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/incumbents

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This applies to Senate and gubernatorial elections, and not to the President directly, but the Presidential race consists of fifty statewide elections, one DC-wide election, and five races in Congressional seats. It's possible to lose a Senatorial or Gubernatorial race if one starts with a 50%+ approval rating (George Allen, 2006), but such is exceedingly rare. It takes an incredible "macaca" moment or outrages by staffers to lose from such a position.

I would expect the effect to be muted in several aspects in a Presidential race: if the President has a 70% approval rating in California in March 2012, then he's not likely to campaign heavily in California and pile on the percentage.  Likewise, if his approval rating is 35% in Oklahoma in March 2012 he's going to go for places more likely to give him a chance to win if it isn't a sure thing (Florida, Indiana, Missouri).  States elect the President; people don't.   

13 of the last 18 incumbent Presidents who ran for continuation of their Presidencies won election; five went down to defeat.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2010, 01:59:05 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,837
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2010, 02:00:49 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

Unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip and Obama will own it

It is no longer Dubya's economy. Of course President Obama gets the blame for any huge failures from here on; he also gets credit for any success. There will be no corrupt boom like that of the Double Zero decade, but any economic growth is more likely to be sustainable. Independent voters vote heavily on economic issues.   
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2010, 02:07:00 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

Unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip and Obama will own it

It is no longer Dubya's economy. Of course President Obama gets the blame for any huge failures from here on; he also gets credit for any success. There will be no corrupt boom like that of the Double Zero decade, but any economic growth is more likely to be sustainable. Independent voters vote heavily on economic issues.   

Well, when it comes to jobs, as a rule, Democrats own it. Surely, policy preferences yield different outcomes. I've never bought that supply-side nonsense and haven't since the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 that were supposed to see the economy grow by 5% in 1982 fell, how shall I put it, spectacularly short. The recovery, if you can call it that and many were on the sh**tty end of Reaganomics, did, of course, come thanks to deficit spending and lower rates of interest
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2010, 05:35:12 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2010, 05:49:11 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

You're seriously using his orating skills against him?
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2010, 05:49:50 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

I play a low expectations game Wink. Been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nowt that came between comes close
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2010, 05:51:29 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

I play a low expectations game Wink. Been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nowt that came between comes close

FDR blaming Hoover, how responsible. Just shrug off the responsibility and hope the voters buy it.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2010, 06:33:14 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

I play a low expectations game Wink. Been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nowt that came between comes close

FDR blaming Hoover, how responsible. Just shrug off the responsibility and hope the voters buy it.

Well, it's accurate Smiley. Look man you're talking to a left-leaning pro-positive rights Christian Democrat not some right-winger totally in thrall to that wretched God of the ideological Right that is the "cult of neoliberalism" - and its deregulatory and non-regulatory excesses - wherein lies all the causation for the 'Crash of 2008' and the 'Great Recession'

I don't even think when it comes to Western capitalism in terms of socialism vs conservatism because liberalism is its hegemonic ideology. European social democracy is a model of capitalism, but more of a 'New Liberal', rather than a neoliberal, essence
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 17, 2010, 07:24:52 PM »

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

I play a low expectations game Wink. Been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nowt that came between comes close

FDR blaming Hoover, how responsible. Just shrug off the responsibility and hope the voters buy it.

Well, it's accurate Smiley. Look man you're talking to a left-leaning pro-positive rights Christian Democrat not some right-winger totally in thrall to that wretched God of the ideological Right that is the "cult of neoliberalism" - and its deregulatory and non-regulatory excesses - wherein lies all the causation for the 'Crash of 2008' and the 'Great Recession'

I don't even think when it comes to Western capitalism in terms of socialism vs conservatism because liberalism is its hegemonic ideology. European social democracy is a model of capitalism, but more of a 'New Liberal', rather than a neoliberal, essence

You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 17, 2010, 08:16:31 PM »


You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

I've some left-libertarian convictions such as support for co-operatives and credit unions - that kind of thing. As for neoliberalism, the 'Crash of 2008' has rendered that as outdated as revolutionary socialism, the failed ideological God of the Left

What comes next?
Logged
Tuck!
tuckerbanks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 392
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: -6.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: May 17, 2010, 08:18:47 PM »


You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

I've some left-libertarian convictions such as support for co-operatives and credit unions - that kind of thing. As for neoliberalism, the 'Crash of 2008' has rendered that as outdated as revolutionary socialism, the failed ideological God of the Left

What comes next?

Dave,

I do not think you understand the underlying causes of the economic collapse. The crash had nothing to do with any particular ideology.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: May 17, 2010, 08:22:45 PM »


You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

I've some left-libertarian convictions such as support for co-operatives and credit unions - that kind of thing. As for neoliberalism, the 'Crash of 2008' has rendered that as outdated as revolutionary socialism, the failed ideological God of the Left

What comes next?

I think the crash of 2008 was waiting to happen for over 30 years.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: May 17, 2010, 08:24:12 PM »


You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

I've some left-libertarian convictions such as support for co-operatives and credit unions - that kind of thing. As for neoliberalism, the 'Crash of 2008' has rendered that as outdated as revolutionary socialism, the failed ideological God of the Left

What comes next?

Dave,

I do not think you understand the underlying causes of the economic collapse. The crash had nothing to do with any particular ideology.

As far as I'm concerned the fault lies in the deregulatory and non-regulatory excesses inherent in the neoliberal model of capitalism. I just know 'New Liberalism' characterised what historians and economists consider the Golden Age of Capitalism. Classical and neoliberalism seem too weighted in favor of elites for my liking
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: May 17, 2010, 08:25:54 PM »


You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

I've some left-libertarian convictions such as support for co-operatives and credit unions - that kind of thing. As for neoliberalism, the 'Crash of 2008' has rendered that as outdated as revolutionary socialism, the failed ideological God of the Left

What comes next?

I think the crash of 2008 was waiting to happen for over 30 years.

I'm minded to agree that it was a long-time in the making and I hope never to see anything of this magnitude again in my lifetime
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 15 queries.