Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 08:32:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win)  (Read 1963 times)
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2012, 05:15:58 pm »
Ignore

Boys, it's just Politico. He is just as annoying now as he was before his apology for being such a jerk a couple of weeks ago.

Ignore him, maybe he will leave when nobody reacts to his remarks anymore.

Even if nobody reads my posts, I still read theirs, and enjoy responding to some of them even if nobody cares to read my responses. Of course, this place is not nearly as informative as it was six or seven years ago. Alas, nothing lasts forever. People are free to choose not to read my posts just as I am free to choose not to read theirs. I'll never understand why anybody takes the tone of my posts as being disparaging. I can assure you I am respectful of different viewpoints, even if they may be completely wrong IMHO. This place is not Democratic Underground, so one should not be surprised when they encounter opposition to their Democratic sensibilities.

For a political forum, you would expect most everybody to have thicker skin...
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 05:21:02 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2012, 05:20:14 pm »
Ignore

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2012, 05:22:13 pm »
Ignore

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2012, 05:27:56 pm »
Ignore

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.

So, you are really serious when you blame Obama for the behaviour of the Secret Service agents in Colombia?
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14671
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2012, 05:29:06 pm »
Ignore

The EU is a confederation; the United States is a federation. North Dakota and West Virginia may have different conditions and policies, but they have much less leeway than Germany and Greece do.

The point is moot. You can check out the unemployment rate in Scandinavia (excluding Norway, which gets a boon from natural resources just like North Dakota, for example), and you will see that my comment about you generally preferring European-style growth/unemployment, which traditionally lags behind America, as being valid. Scandinavia is not paradise on earth. No nation our size is even able to compare to our quality of life and traditional levels of economic growth.

It can be bloody cold there I know that much
Logged

Moderate Liberal Populist Smiley [Personal 45%/Economic 42%] / Defense 'Hawk'

Registered in Georgia for Fantasy Politics
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14671
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2012, 05:30:09 pm »
Ignore

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.

You've got that already Wink
Logged

Moderate Liberal Populist Smiley [Personal 45%/Economic 42%] / Defense 'Hawk'

Registered in Georgia for Fantasy Politics
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2012, 05:30:24 pm »
Ignore

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.

So, you are really serious when you blame Obama for the behaviour of the Secret Service agents in Colombia?

What? I was talking about how the Obama Administration is responsible for the misspending on Gingrich's protection. It's a good example of the type of waste that is characteristic of this Administration. Obviously the Administration is not responsible for the actions of off-duty Secret Service agents. The situation there is completely different from continuing to waste resources on Gingrich's protection. Is somebody pretending to be me on the IRC chat again, and claiming that I have blamed Obama for the behavior of SS agents in South America? I've never been in the IRC room, and never will be (I barely have enough time for this place), so do not believe anything you see in the IRC chat room if it is coming from somebody claiming to be me. It's not me.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 05:33:58 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2012, 05:36:45 pm »
Ignore

Right, sorry, that was Winfield.

But every candidate has the right to ask for Secret Service protection. And there was a moment in the campaign that Gingrich was leading so it's not totally weird for him to get that protection.

Using that as a sample of the waste within the Obama government is just nonsense.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #58 on: April 21, 2012, 05:45:44 pm »
Ignore

Right, sorry, that was Winfield.

But every candidate has the right to ask for Secret Service protection. And there was a moment in the campaign that Gingrich was leading so it's not totally weird for him to get that protection.

Using that as a sample of the waste within the Obama government is just nonsense.

That time was many months ago. We should not give Secret Service protection to people who clearly cannot win the presidency. For example, John McCain stopped receiving Secret Service protection immediately after the 2008 election results.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 21, 2012, 05:49:39 pm »
Ignore

As for as I know it's law. After the murder of RFK every candidate has the right to have Secret Service protection when it's needed.

You might have dismissed Gingrich, but he was leading in the polls for a while. So he was a serious contender at the time.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #60 on: April 21, 2012, 05:52:24 pm »
Ignore

As for as I know it's law. After the murder of RFK every candidate has the right to have Secret Service protection when it's needed.

Actually, RFK had SS protection, I believe. If memory serves, RFK did not follow the SS's proposed route for leaving the hotel. Or perhaps I am confusing the SS with his private security and/or local law enforcement.

I believe you can only get SS protection if there are credible death threats and/or you are a serious candidate who can win the presidency, either as an independent or one of the prospects for the nomination of a major party. Gingrich has not met this criteria in months. Any other administration would no longer be wasting resources like this.

Quote
You might have dismissed Gingrich, but he was leading in the polls for a while. So he was a serious contender at the time.

And Romney is the presumptive nominee, but nobody in the Obama Administration knows how to properly handle resources, so nobody realizes it's probably prudent to pull the plug on Gingrich's SS protection. I am not arguing Gingrich should have never received SS protection. Obviously he was a serious candidate at one time who deserved the protection. I am arguing the SS protection should have been dropped quite a few weeks ago.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 05:59:09 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4740
United States


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 21, 2012, 06:01:44 pm »
Ignore

Politico- I think there are far bigger issues then the what- 10K per day that is spent on Newt's protection? Lord knows some whackjob could wake up and want to be in the news...God forbid.
Logged
Earthling
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 746
Netherlands


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2012, 06:05:31 pm »
Ignore

As for as I know it's law. After the murder of RFK every candidate has the right to have Secret Service protection when it's needed.

Actually, RFK had SS protection, I believe. If memory serves, RFK did not follow the SS's proposed route for leaving the hotel. Or perhaps I am confusing the SS with his private security and/or local law enforcement.

I believe you can only get SS protection if there are credible death threats and/or you are a serious candidate who can win the presidency, either as an independent or one of the prospects for the nomination of a major party. Gingrich has not met this criteria in months. Any other administration would no longer be wasting resources like this.

Quote
You might have dismissed Gingrich, but he was leading in the polls for a while. So he was a serious contender at the time.

And Romney is the presumptive nominee, but nobody in the Obama Administration knows how to properly handle resources, so nobody realizes it's probably prudent to pull the plug on Gingrich's SS protection. I am not arguing Gingrich should have never received SS protection. Obviously he was a serious candidate at one time who deserved the protection. I am arguing the SS protection should have been dropped quite a few weeks ago.

As far as I know, RFK didn't have SS protection because he didn't qualify for it. He had local law enforcement protection but that is not the same off course.

As for Gingrich, it's not like Obama decides who gets protection or not. There are probably guidelines to follow and I presume those guidelines where followed. So it's nonsense to blame Obama for this.
Logged

Quote
There's no I in team, but there is a ME

Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4886
View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 21, 2012, 06:06:14 pm »
Ignore

Politico- I think there are far bigger issues then the what- 10K per day that is spent on Newt's protection? Lord knows some whackjob could wake up and want to be in the news...God forbid.

We're talking about $40K/day, so over $1 million/month.

There are bigger problems, but this is symbolic of the type of mismanagement of resources in Washington under the Obama Administration.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 06:08:10 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29043
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2012, 07:41:29 pm »
Ignore

As I just pointed out in another thread, when Newt stops getting protection is not up to Janet Napolitano alone, just as it was not up to her alone to decide when he started getting it.  She need to get an advisory committee consisting of Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and a fifth person the four Congressional leaders named to decide that Newt is no longer a major Presidential candidate.

Besides, Newt's protection detail is a good holding place / training exercise for Ann Romney's detail, since she (and the running mate's spouse) can't get one until July 9 (120 days before the general election).
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5772
United States


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2012, 09:06:55 pm »
Ignore

Politico can be annoying sometimes, but in this thread he's dead right.
Logged

Illegally selling arms to North Korea, providing most of the money to anti-Morales rebels in Bolivia, and using the remainder as hush money for his three ex-mistrisses. 
m4567
Full Member
***
Posts: 112
View Profile
« Reply #66 on: April 22, 2012, 12:17:28 am »
Ignore

A romney win isn't out of the question, but it's going to be hard. He's has to flip a lot of swing states. I don't know if someone as standard/average as him can do it. Plus, Obama is a great campaigner. If the economy dips again, Romney has a bigger chance.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 01:40:47 am by m4567 »Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10493
United States


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: April 22, 2012, 09:19:43 am »
Ignore

There has been a strong case to use 2004 as a case study for this November. I understand the argument: A divisive, but personable incumbent with marginally respectable approval ratings against an unlikeable, flip flopping, prone to silly gaffes, challenger who the base is even relecutant to rally around. That being said, I think you need to look much deeper; and when you do, I think it's impossible to conclude that even with these similarities, the differences are too detailed to prove the same result as 8 years ago.

2004 is a flawed analogy. First, the 2012 election follows an election on the brink of a landslide; the 2000 election was a squeaker. President Obama would have to lose more  to lose in 2012.  I can't see any constituency of 2008 that he could lose except for the nabobs of Wall Street who wanted someone to save the economy and now are more concerned with tax breaks. That is a few tens of thousands of voters heavily located in states that are going to vote for President Obama by 15% or more anyway. President Obama can lose those and win much as he did in 2012.  The other constituencies that voted for him -- minorities, women, organized labor, highly-educated people, government employees -- show no signs of going some other way.  


Second, Barack Obama is a far better President than George W. Bush. Of course, Dubya left much delayed damage in his wake before 2004 that few recognized as such.


Quote
Essentially, if you want to use the 2004 election as an analogy, you have to adjust for a few things:

1. Obama is running 5%-8% or so worse off than George W. Bush was at this time. It may seem slight, but in a close election it could prove critical.

Possible -- but Americans had yet to sour on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a prisoner, but things were not going to get better. Support for Dubya went from astronomical to abysmal; this time eight years ago his support was still strong.

It is more significant that the President is doing none of the things that can cause trouble. He is a cautious leader, and I can't see him risking re-election.

Quote
2. While Romney's favorables are bad now, they only are so low due to the Primary. They will rise, especially with Republicans (see point 3 below). I think, ultimately, Romney is stronger than Kerry when it comes to appeal - he's much more enthusiastic and energized, and less prone to major gaffes.

One way of looking at that is to say that we see his floor and he has plenty of room for improvement. But can he improve enough?

Quote
3. The GOP base will rally around Romney. They are down on him now because it was a pick of Romney over several other Republican candidates. In November, it will be Romney against Obama. So while Romney may not have been the #1 pick of the deep conservatives out there, when it's a choice between Romney, Obama, or not voting (which would essentially be a choice for Obama), they'll turn out in order to dethrone the incumbent they so badly despise.

Partisan bases are never enough for winning a Presidential election.  Goldwater and McGovern both won the partisan bases of their Parties, but little else even if those bases were wildly supportive of their candidates.

You are right that many Republicans revile President Obama -- but unless they convince enough of those who voted for him in 2008 to vote for Mitt Romney the President wins re-election.

Quote
4. The number one issue of the electorate in 2012 is the economy. The number one issue of the electorate in 2004 was national security (was still the 9/11 aftermath). George Bush had a commanding lead with national security - the rally effect was still going strong, albeit starting to peter out, the anti-Iraq War brigade didn't even emerge yet, and hurricane Katrina was still a year away. Whereas now, Romney is seen trusted with the economy, while Obama's approvals on the issue are somewhere around the 30% mark. Sure, the economy is slightly improving, and if it does continue, and, more so, picks up pace, the better the chances are for Obama.


But this (4) is a huge hole in the 2004 analogy. GWB had a commanding lead over the major issue of the electorate, whereas Obama has been seen flailing, failing, and coming up short.

Conceded here -- it is the big issue. It was also the big issue in 1936, too. Expectations are down from where they were before the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 because people see a great fraud of a speculative boom as the cause of the meltdown.

Of course President Obama has failed to inspire a fresh speculative boom. Nobody would trust any politician who promises a new one. To his credit Mitt Romney has scrupulously avoided  any promise of a speculative boom. He has instead offered an intensification of old-fashioned trickle-down economics that promises pain for multitudes for quick gain by the few with promises of an acceleration of investment due to cheap labor and low taxes upon the super-rich.

If out of desperation he promises a fresh economic boom based upon speculative activity he    
dooms his campaign. Nobody will trust that. But "no speculative boom" also means nearly no chance of an economic meltdown.  
 

Quote
5. Now that I think about it, 2004 wasn't really a surprise - it took us right back to an almost 50-50 split, which was, essentially, the result of the prior 2000 election. My point? While Bush fell from 90% down to around 54% from September 12, 2001 to circa April 2004, that had more to do with the rally effect petering out rather than any perceived (at that time) faults during his first term. Compare that to Obama who fell from ~70% (these are rough estimates based on memory, too lazy to look every one of them up) to as low as 39% (now back to the mid to up 40s) over the course of his 4 years, but his story was one of his own making (unpopular health care, failed/unproductive stimulus, poor economy, Libya, etc).

But the 2008 election was nearly a 53-46 split. Dubya was the definitive empty suit of a President, a stooge of interests that he did not understand. He was never a good speaker, and he frequently used language intended to obscure the ultimate agenda. His biggest legislative achievements were drains on the treasury without mitigation. He rode the early results of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to an electoral victory.

If you think that the Affordable Care Act is unpopular, then wait till you see how unpopular the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is. Basically the elderly rich will get first-rate medical care, the elderly of the middle class will get second-rate care until their money dries up, and the elderly poor will just have to die. Separate the Affordable care Act into its components and those components are popular. The Stimulus began when Dubya was President when the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the head of the Federal Reserve Bank so dictated.

The stimulus worked. The economy is in better shape now than it was in 2009. A boom is impossible and about everyone knows that.

...Does anyone wax nostalgic for the tyrannical, murderous, terrorist-enabling, war-mongering regime of Moammar Qaddafi?  

Quote
Basically, my point here is that Bush was always divisive, hence the 2000 split, but people weren't intent on making a referendum against him on his first four years, but they are doing so on Obama's. Pretty important difference, if you ask me.

The referendum works both ways.  President Obama has done well in achieving the promises that he made to core constituencies without offending a large group of potential voters. He doesn't need to make fresh promises to a part of the electorate that did not vote for him in 2008 to get re-elected (that's really the Carter analogue).  

Quote
Overall. Overall, I do see why people think the 2004 election is an analogy. But remember, no election is like any other. While Obama may win a close election resembling how Bush won his in 2004, and while some reasons may be the same, it won't tell the whole story.

Barack Obama became President of a deeply-divided nation with plenty of questions remaining about his stability, competence, core values, and experience. He has been a fine President from the standpoint of getting legislation passed when he had a cooperative Congress. He has proved an above-average diplomat and a fine Commander-in-Chief. He has not proved 'soft-on-crime'. Maybe he learned something from his experience as a Community Organizer -- that street crooks aren't 'misunderstood people who just happened to have been dealt a bad set of cards'. One would never learn that as a corporate lawyer who deals all the time with high-functioning sociopaths instead of the low-functioning sociopaths who deal drugs and pimp girls.  President Obama has wisely left what he knows least about -- military and intelligence operations -- to those who know what they are doing.

Maybe he isn't the starry-eyed, bleeding-heart, guilt-laden liberal as the Right wished to depict him.  I can assure you -- most liberals are patriots who have no illusions about criminals being 'poor little lambs who have lost their way'.
  

That being said, I think the differences outlined above also show that it could very easily go the other way.

Quote
I just think it's too simplistic to look at obvious similarities and think that it will follow the 2004 election - there's too many key differences that could easily dictate otherwise.

The ideologues who want America to be a country of severe inequality between gross need and opulent indulgence will find more of a purist... and Mitt Romney has been pandering to them well. The people who would never under any circumstances vote for anyone not white have seen no change in circumstances. People who still think that he is a foreign usurper are not going to vote for him.

But people who had their fears and find those fears unfounded might to some extent vote differently in 2012.  Fewer Obama voters of 2008 are going to believe their 2008 votes mistakes and vote differently. He hasn't kissed up to crooks and he hasn't used the federal government as a patronage system to his core constituencies. If he has apologized for Dubya's blunders he has also given America much less for which to apologize.

    
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines