Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:42:13 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
  Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win)  (Read 4845 times)
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2012, 11:02:04 PM »

Nobody likes Romney

except Republicans, and believe me Republicans will rally to him

except independents, moderates, who Romney has great appeal to

except conservatives, who will certainly not be voting for Obama and will be voting for Romney by default

except those who hate Obama's socialized medical scheme

 



   

Moderates do not vote for Republicans like Romney and skew Democratic overall. Most people voting for Romney will not be those doing it because they like him, it will all be about issues and ideology.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2012, 11:30:27 PM »

For that matter, in 2004 the Republican ground game was much stronger than the Democratic ground game, which was probably critical. I don't see anyone claiming that the Romney ground game is better than the Obama ground game.

If the election ends up turning on the ground game, then Romney will lose and likely lose badly.  His performance in the primaries indicates that he places little importance in a ground game, tho when the rules such as those in Virginia with its complicated ballot requirements required he build at least some ground game, he was able to.  So it's not a lack of ability to engage in the ground game, but rather a feeling that he is better off focusing on other campaign aspects.

I think the ground game matters in any close election. And it's worth remembering that the Obama campaign is really, really, good at it.

Are you sure that the Obama Ground Game will be just as good this time around?

I'm seeing an Obama enthusiasm gap. 

In 2008, there was a lot of talk about voting for "Change" and that excited a lot of people. 

What do you think the rally cry will be for Obama in 2012?  We want free health care?

The volunteers were young people, but now the young people are unemployed and trying to pay off their college loans, they won't have time to canvas for Obama. 

Mitt has the Mormon volunteers, which love to canvas neighborhoods to convert voters. 
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2012, 10:56:55 AM »

For that matter, in 2004 the Republican ground game was much stronger than the Democratic ground game, which was probably critical. I don't see anyone claiming that the Romney ground game is better than the Obama ground game.

If the election ends up turning on the ground game, then Romney will lose and likely lose badly.  His performance in the primaries indicates that he places little importance in a ground game, tho when the rules such as those in Virginia with its complicated ballot requirements required he build at least some ground game, he was able to.  So it's not a lack of ability to engage in the ground game, but rather a feeling that he is better off focusing on other campaign aspects.

I think the ground game matters in any close election. And it's worth remembering that the Obama campaign is really, really, good at it.

Are you sure that the Obama Ground Game will be just as good this time around?

I'm seeing an Obama enthusiasm gap. 

In 2008, there was a lot of talk about voting for "Change" and that excited a lot of people. 

What do you think the rally cry will be for Obama in 2012?  We want free health care?

The volunteers were young people, but now the young people are unemployed and trying to pay off their college loans, they won't have time to canvas for Obama. 

Mitt has the Mormon volunteers, which love to canvas neighborhoods to convert voters. 

Granted, some Democratic supporters will be disappointed in Obama, and particularly for his having implemented a Republican health care plan. The Republican primary has helped there, in terms of sharpening the choices for people, and polls now show Democrats united behind Obama, and African Americans as the demographic most excited about voting in the fall. So I'm not convinced there's an enthusiasm gap, or at least not one favoring Romney.
But look, also, at how much money the Obama campaign has already invested in campaign offices and staff across the country -- remember that Obama had more offices in Iowa before the primary there than the entire Republican field put together.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2012, 12:51:06 PM »

For that matter, in 2004 the Republican ground game was much stronger than the Democratic ground game, which was probably critical. I don't see anyone claiming that the Romney ground game is better than the Obama ground game.

If the election ends up turning on the ground game, then Romney will lose and likely lose badly.  His performance in the primaries indicates that he places little importance in a ground game, tho when the rules such as those in Virginia with its complicated ballot requirements required he build at least some ground game, he was able to.  So it's not a lack of ability to engage in the ground game, but rather a feeling that he is better off focusing on other campaign aspects.

I think the ground game matters in any close election. And it's worth remembering that the Obama campaign is really, really, good at it.

Are you sure that the Obama Ground Game will be just as good this time around?

I'm seeing an Obama enthusiasm gap. 

In 2008, there was a lot of talk about voting for "Change" and that excited a lot of people. 

What do you think the rally cry will be for Obama in 2012?  We want free health care?

The volunteers were young people, but now the young people are unemployed and trying to pay off their college loans, they won't have time to canvas for Obama. 

Mitt has the Mormon volunteers, which love to canvas neighborhoods to convert voters. 

Granted, some Democratic supporters will be disappointed in Obama, and particularly for his having implemented a Republican health care plan. The Republican primary has helped there, in terms of sharpening the choices for people, and polls now show Democrats united behind Obama, and African Americans as the demographic most excited about voting in the fall. So I'm not convinced there's an enthusiasm gap, or at least not one favoring Romney.
But look, also, at how much money the Obama campaign has already invested in campaign offices and staff across the country -- remember that Obama had more offices in Iowa before the primary there than the entire Republican field put together.
there will still be a high african american turnout, but the hispanic and youth vote won't be as high for Obama this time around.  As mentioned, young people are concerned about the economy and getting jobs and paying off college loans.  In 2008, young people were concerned about getting drafted into a long war, and changing foreign policy.  I suppose you can say that 2012 will be about changing economic policy, but this mantra would favor Romney. 

If romney picks a hispanic-loving candidate like Rubio or Jeb Bush, then there will be a huge Hispanic turnout for Romney in Florida and the Southwest.  This Hispanic turnout may be higher than the african american turnout.  Remember, Dubya Bush had a huge Hispanic turnout in his favor, and that probably helped him win his 2 close elections. 

I just don't think Obama has a catchy slogan for 2012.  What do you think Obama's slogan will be?  "Hope for more change"?
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2012, 11:59:40 PM »
« Edited: April 20, 2012, 12:02:46 AM by m4567 »

I don't think hispanics are really going to go for republicans, even if with Rubio/Martinez on the ticket.

Also, Obama doesn't really need a new slogan. He just needs to be better than Romney.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2012, 03:52:12 PM »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale. It doesn't even usually work well at getting the Democratic nomination (see: Gephardt, Edwards, et al.)
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2012, 03:53:07 PM »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2012, 03:53:40 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2012, 03:59:56 PM by Politico »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2012, 04:02:31 PM »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2012, 04:02:50 PM »

For that matter, in 2004 the Republican ground game was much stronger than the Democratic ground game, which was probably critical. I don't see anyone claiming that the Romney ground game is better than the Obama ground game.

If the election ends up turning on the ground game, then Romney will lose and likely lose badly.  His performance in the primaries indicates that he places little importance in a ground game, tho when the rules such as those in Virginia with its complicated ballot requirements required he build at least some ground game, he was able to.  So it's not a lack of ability to engage in the ground game, but rather a feeling that he is better off focusing on other campaign aspects.

I think the ground game matters in any close election. And it's worth remembering that the Obama campaign is really, really, good at it.

Are you sure that the Obama Ground Game will be just as good this time around?

I'm seeing an Obama enthusiasm gap. 

In 2008, there was a lot of talk about voting for "Change" and that excited a lot of people. 

What do you think the rally cry will be for Obama in 2012?  We want free health care?

The volunteers were young people, but now the young people are unemployed and trying to pay off their college loans, they won't have time to canvas for Obama. 

Mitt has the Mormon volunteers, which love to canvas neighborhoods to convert voters. 

Granted, some Democratic supporters will be disappointed in Obama, and particularly for his having implemented a Republican health care plan. The Republican primary has helped there, in terms of sharpening the choices for people, and polls now show Democrats united behind Obama, and African Americans as the demographic most excited about voting in the fall. So I'm not convinced there's an enthusiasm gap, or at least not one favoring Romney.
But look, also, at how much money the Obama campaign has already invested in campaign offices and staff across the country -- remember that Obama had more offices in Iowa before the primary there than the entire Republican field put together.
there will still be a high african american turnout, but the hispanic and youth vote won't be as high for Obama this time around.  As mentioned, young people are concerned about the economy and getting jobs and paying off college loans.  In 2008, young people were concerned about getting drafted into a long war, and changing foreign policy.  I suppose you can say that 2012 will be about changing economic policy, but this mantra would favor Romney. 

If romney picks a hispanic-loving candidate like Rubio or Jeb Bush, then there will be a huge Hispanic turnout for Romney in Florida and the Southwest.  This Hispanic turnout may be higher than the african american turnout.  Remember, Dubya Bush had a huge Hispanic turnout in his favor, and that probably helped him win his 2 close elections. 

I just don't think Obama has a catchy slogan for 2012.  What do you think Obama's slogan will be?  "Hope for more change"?

Obama's slogan might as well be "don't worry, be happy."
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2012, 04:07:08 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2012, 04:13:23 PM by Politico »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Government policy (i.e., Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.) created incentives that caused the 2008 financial crisis, so you'll have to excuse me for not having faith in more government. Government policy does not create results. Government policy creates incentives, which cause results. The old-style "more government is always better" policy is a recipe for further disaster down the road.

Free people and free markets power America. Government has a role, but too much government distorts progress.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2012, 04:12:56 PM »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Government policy (i.e., Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.) created incentives that caused the 2008 financial crisis, so you'll have to excuse me for not having faith in more government. Government policy does not create results. Government policy creates incentives, which create results. More of the old-style "more government is better" policy is a recipe for further disaster down the road.

1. I oppose the government encouraging people to take on loans they can't pay. It's a recipe for predatory loaning.
2. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton & Bush's policy towards Wall Street.
3. Repealing Glass-Steagall was a deregulatory action. Does that mean you support increased financial regulations? If so, good for you.

And finally, do you really think Romney would be a debt-slashing deficit hawk? Not only does he openly state he won't cut any defense spending, but he wants a 20% income tax cut and hasn't said a word on corporate subsidies. He'd effectively be a status quo president; deficits would increase thanks to the handouts he'd give to his buddies.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2012, 04:17:13 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2012, 04:19:01 PM by Politico »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Government policy (i.e., Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.) created incentives that caused the 2008 financial crisis, so you'll have to excuse me for not having faith in more government. Government policy does not create results. Government policy creates incentives, which create results. More of the old-style "more government is better" policy is a recipe for further disaster down the road.

1. I oppose the government encouraging people to take on loans they can't pay. It's a recipe for predatory loaning.
2. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton & Bush's policy towards Wall Street.

Your support of Obama indicates otherwise.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reintroducing Glass-Steagall to separate commercial and investment banking is necessary sooner or later. Doing more than that, or doing something differently like Frank-Dodd (which is bound to be a pandora's box of perverse incentives and unintended consequences), is not necessary.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is not doing anything for any "buddies." Unlike Chicago politicians, Romney is not going to give preferential treatment to his buddies. Unlike a certain president, Romney is going to care about one thing and one thing alone: Economic growth.

No, Obama can't. Yes, Romney will.
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 #38 on: April 21, 2012, 04:21:22 PM »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Really? The recession of 2001 saw an economic contraction of 0.3%. Seems to me that the 'Great Recession' followed a period that saw wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top as opposed to prosperity being more broad-based; while the recession of early 1980s was caused by some rigid dogmatic adherence to a contractionary monetary policy
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2012, 04:25:19 PM »

Oh, I forgot to mention: "High prosperity" is rarely so when you look below the surface. You're right. I prefer growth that is steadier and more even.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2012, 04:26:33 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2012, 04:34:49 PM by Politico »

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Really? The recession of 2001 saw an economic contraction of 0.3%. Seems to me that the 'Great Recession' followed a period that saw wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top as opposed to prosperity being more broad-based; while the recession of early 1980s was caused by some rigid dogmatic adherence to a contractionary monetary policy

When you have double-digit inflation along with double-digit unemployment, you have to crush inflation or else you'll eventually get runaway inflation that completely distorts your entire economy. Volcker's "shock therapy" was the lesser of two evils (i.e., runaway inflation versus higher unemployment with disinflation).

The 1992 recession was also mild, but I love how you ignore it and talk up how mild the 2001 recession was. This, despite the fact that Clinton did little differently from George H.W. Bush, not to mention George W. Bush doing little differently from Ronald Reagan, with regards to economic policy.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2012, 04:26:57 PM »

And Politico: I don't support Obama so much as I oppose the Republican Party.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2012, 04:28:15 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2012, 04:31:32 PM by Politico »

Oh, I forgot to mention: "High prosperity" is rarely so when you look below the surface. You're right. I prefer growth that is steadier and more even.

Your support of Obama indicates that you prefer growth/unemployment more in line with Europe than America. Apparently you're fine with young Americans having difficulty finding quality jobs. Is the new Obama youth mantra the following: Yes, we can (live in our parents' basement forever)?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2012, 04:29:20 PM »

"Europe" is a broad term. I much prefer Scandinavian economics, for instance, to Italian economics.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2012, 04:33:22 PM »

"Europe" is a broad term. I much prefer Scandinavian economics, for instance, to Italian economics.

"Europe" is a broad term, but so is "America" in the sense that we have 50 separate states that differ in many ways (e.g., I much prefer economic conditions in North Dakota to economic conditions in West Virginia).
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2012, 04:37:59 PM »

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2012, 04:53:10 PM »

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.
Logged
Earthling
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,129
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2012, 05:05:00 PM »

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.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,806
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2012, 05:12:22 PM »

2008 was Romney's yr and they instead nominated Sarah Palin as VP or John McCain as the prez. Mitt Romney should have been the VP nominee or the prez nominee because the Great Recession had a more profound effect in 2008 than now and the economy is his strong suit. Now, that the economy is recovering it is recovering fast enough for Obama to be reelected.
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 #49 on: April 21, 2012, 05:15:06 PM »

Oh, I forgot to mention: "High prosperity" is rarely so when you look below the surface. You're right. I prefer growth that is steadier and more even.

Your support of Obama indicates that you prefer growth/unemployment more in line with Europe than America. Apparently you're fine with young Americans having difficulty finding quality jobs. Is the new Obama youth mantra the following: Yes, we can (live in our parents' basement forever)?

Northern Europe headed into the 'Crash of 2008' in, fiscally, stronger shape than either the US or UK, which enabled them to ride out the Great Recession more effectively

Quality of life in the Nordic and social market economies are nothing to be sniffed at. Austria, meanwhile, has managed to reduce their deficit to 2.6% of GDP, while maintaining the lowest rate of unemployment at 4.2% in the EU. The UK's is currently 8.3% (atrocious given the lack of an 'adequate' let alone 'generous' welfare safety net)

Southern Europe ... well they've got problems, while the 'Celtic Tiger', spectacularly, came down with a bang! It seems to link in with the extent to which European economies rode the 'housing bubble' or not
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« 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 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.