Is this map plausible?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:42:36 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 this map plausible?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: See post
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: Is this map plausible?  (Read 4525 times)
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
« on: June 11, 2012, 12:57:33 PM »

Given that Mondale and Reagan were quite close over the summer, I find it quite possible.

Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2012, 01:08:28 PM »

It is not inconceivable, but I'm awfully nervous.  I'm not hopeful about your map's prospects.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2012, 01:58:38 PM »

Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? No

Logged
adrac
adracman42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 722


Political Matrix
E: -9.99, S: -9.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2012, 02:03:54 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2012, 03:47:47 PM by adracman42 »

I think this, plus or minus Missouri, Indiana, and a district in Nebraska is the best-case scenario for Obama.
Is it likely?
No.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2012, 02:21:45 PM »

This is basically the best Obama can do (well, the best he can do includes Democratic MT, SC, GA, IN, and NE-02) under current conditions. So it's possible, albeit not plausible.
Logged
Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,831


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2012, 04:07:00 PM »

Given that Mondale and Reagan were quite close over the summer, I find it quite possible.




You stole my map bro! jk lol this is how my map looks except i gave TN to Obama.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2012, 04:46:49 PM »

Not impossible, but unlikely.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2012, 04:55:17 PM »

If the economy were booming like it was beginning in 1983, most definitely that would be what the election would have ultimately looked like between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  

Logged
NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,687
Mexico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2012, 05:10:51 PM »

Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2012, 05:15:24 PM »

Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? No


Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2012, 05:28:16 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2012, 05:38:25 PM by WhyteRain »

If the economy were booming like it was beginning in 1983, most definitely that would be what the election would have ultimately looked like between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  



Yup.  I heard the other day that we had something like five (or seven?) consecutive quarters of 7%-or-better GNP growth under Reagan.  If Obama had that economy -- instead of spending twice (in terms of deficit/GDP) for less than half as much economic performance -- then that map would work.


[modify:]  Here we go, I looked up Reagan quarterly GNP growth (annualized) numbers.  

2Q 1983:  9.3%
3Q 1983:  8.2
4Q 1983:  8.5
1Q 1984:  8.0
2Q 1984:  7.1

Now that's a frickin' recovery.

And just think how fast unemployment would have dropped then if there weren't still late-wave Baby Boomers (born 1946-64) entering the job market.  As opposed to now, when first-wave Boomers are retiring and -- you would think -- making jobs more accessible to younger workers.
Logged
Chaddyr23
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 479
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.19, S: -5.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2012, 06:11:20 PM »

If the economy were booming like it was beginning in 1983, most definitely that would be what the election would have ultimately looked like between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  



Yup.  I heard the other day that we had something like five (or seven?) consecutive quarters of 7%-or-better GNP growth under Reagan.  If Obama had that economy -- instead of spending twice (in terms of deficit/GDP) for less than half as much economic performance -- then that map would work.


[modify:]  Here we go, I looked up Reagan quarterly GNP growth (annualized) numbers.  

2Q 1983:  9.3%
3Q 1983:  8.2
4Q 1983:  8.5
1Q 1984:  8.0
2Q 1984:  7.1

Now that's a frickin' recovery.

And just think how fast unemployment would have dropped then if there weren't still late-wave Baby Boomers (born 1946-64) entering the job market.  As opposed to now, when first-wave Boomers are retiring and -- you would think -- making jobs more accessible to younger workers.

Funny thing that was the last economic recovery to have a V shape. 1992, 2000 and of course this recovery's basically been L shaped when it comes to unemployment and GDP growth.

Anyways this map is implausible.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2012, 06:20:58 PM »

Plausible, but highly unlikely.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2012, 07:26:58 PM »

It is not inconceivable, but I'm awfully nervous.  I'm not hopeful about your map's prospects.

The prospect of a Romney Presidency makes you nervous?

I can't imagine why.  Smiley
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2012, 07:48:13 PM »

If the economy were booming like it was beginning in 1983, most definitely that would be what the election would have ultimately looked like between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  



Yup.  I heard the other day that we had something like five (or seven?) consecutive quarters of 7%-or-better GNP growth under Reagan.  If Obama had that economy -- instead of spending twice (in terms of deficit/GDP) for less than half as much economic performance -- then that map would work.


[modify:]  Here we go, I looked up Reagan quarterly GNP growth (annualized) numbers.  

2Q 1983:  9.3%
3Q 1983:  8.2
4Q 1983:  8.5
1Q 1984:  8.0
2Q 1984:  7.1

Now that's a frickin' recovery.

And just think how fast unemployment would have dropped then if there weren't still late-wave Baby Boomers (born 1946-64) entering the job market.  As opposed to now, when first-wave Boomers are retiring and -- you would think -- making jobs more accessible to younger workers.

Funny thing that was the last economic recovery to have a V shape. 1992, 2000 and of course this recovery's basically been L shaped when it comes to unemployment and GDP growth.

Anyways this map is implausible.

The last two recessions -- in 1991 and 2001 -- were extraordinarily mild.  That's why we had no "V".  There wasn't a severe down to make the first leg of the V.  The 2007-09 recession was a lot like the 1980-82 double dip recession (but not as bad, I think, as the 1973-75 one).

Btw, here are Obama's best quarters, compared with Reagan's:

2Q 1983:  9.3%        4Q 2009:  3.8%
3Q 1983:  8.2           1Q 2010:  2.9
4Q 1983:  8.5           2Q 2010:  3.8
1Q 1984:  8.0           3Q 2010:  2.5
2Q 1984:  7.1           4Q 2010:  2.3

Supplyside economics on the left, demandside economics on the right.

Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2012, 09:16:54 PM »

You do realise the economic situations are markedly different... don't you?
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2012, 07:15:35 AM »
« Edited: June 12, 2012, 07:44:47 AM by WhyteRain »

You do realise the economic situations are markedly different... don't you?

Yes, I do.  For example, Reagan faced record high interest rates while Obama had record low ones.  And Reagan started with a stock market around 900 while Obama had one around 9,000.

Thanks for pointing this out.
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2012, 07:33:43 AM »

siggghhhhh....I really just can't with you
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2012, 07:52:28 AM »

You do realise the economic situations are markedly different... don't you?

Yes, I do.  For example, Reagan faced record high interest rates while Obama had record low ones.  And Reagan started with a stock market around 900 while Obama had one around 9,000.

Thanks for point this out.

1. Reagan's recession was caused by high-inflation, which had the fed hike interest rates... that had the effect of reducing inflation, which allowed the recovery to kick-in so strongly... The Obama recession was based on something fundamentally different the root causes were more than a year old before Obama took office, and with interest rates very low due to post-9/11 rate cuts. Those very low-interest rates were not a sign of economic strength, but weakness.

2. Reagan pushed through deep tax cuts, frankly, because he could afford to... the debt level Regan inherited was NOTHING compared to what Obama did. Reagan had more options than Obama did, because he could afford the options. Which is what will screw Romney if he wins... he won't be able to afford to anything.

The economic situations are in fact, VERY different, with different causes. Obama is dealing with both a much, much deeper recession, not the run of the mill recession Reagan managed... he also is dealing with the inheritance of a deep debt, which only increased due to finally putting the Bush liabilities on the tab.

You want to throw numbers around without any context? go nuts but if you want to be taken seriously, please get a clue.
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2012, 07:56:08 AM »

siggghhhhh....I really just can't with you

You could point out that Reagan faced far tougher problems than Obama and did far more with far less spending.  

Have we mentioned that a lot of Reagan's deficit spending was needed for his defense buildup that changed the USSR from the largest and most expansive empire on Earth to wobbling on its last legs by the time Reagan left office?  Obama hasn't had to spend much money on the military has he?

Here's an interesting stat:  The average GNP growth (annualized) of the last five quarters before their re-election bids:

Reagan:  7.1%
Bush 41:  3.3
Clinton:  3.9
Bush 43:  3.7
Obama:  1.7*

*Using the most recent five quarters for Obama since the last two of his five pre-election quarters are still to come.

Oh, and almost forgot:

Carter:  -0.7%
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2012, 08:48:51 AM »
« Edited: June 12, 2012, 10:18:14 AM by WhyteRain »

You do realise the economic situations are markedly different... don't you?

Yes, I do.  For example, Reagan faced record high interest rates while Obama had record low ones.  And Reagan started with a stock market around 900 while Obama had one around 9,000.

Thanks for point this out.

1. Reagan's recession was caused by high-inflation, which had the fed hike interest rates... that had the effect of reducing inflation, which allowed the recovery to kick-in so strongly... The Obama recession was based on something fundamentally different the root causes were more than a year old before Obama took office, and with interest rates very low due to post-9/11 rate cuts. Those very low-interest rates were not a sign of economic strength, but weakness.

Nice try.  

1.  I just saw a story this morning on one of the financial news programs showing that real interest rates (nominal interest minus inflation) are now negative.  That is, you can make money simply by borrowing it!  Under Reagan -- because of the bailout of the New York City banks for their disastrous Latin America loans in the 1970s -- real interest rates doubled from their normal 3% to a staggering 6%.  (I don't recall Reagan whining about this, btw.)

2.  The "Obama recession" was indeed based on something different.  The root cause of the 1980-82 double-dip recession was the 1979 oil price shock.  While oil prices spiked in 2008, everyone agrees that the real cause of the meltdown was the collapse of the housing bubble, a bubble created and protected by politicians like Obama on the payroll of Fannie Mae to maintain easy credit policies to "reduce the racial gap in housing".  So Obama can blame Obama and other politicians like him for the 2008 collapse.  (Sen. Schumer (D-1%) started the ball rolling with a run on Indy Bank in June, 2008.)  http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2008/06/23/daily29.html

3.  Obama didn't "inherit" the rotten policies that led to the 2008 crash -- he voted for them.  

We are only accustomed to speaking of a new President "inheriting" because most of our recent presidents (four of five) were governors from the hinterlands, not D.C. insiders.  Unlike Carter-Reagan-Clinton-and-Bush-43, Obama didn't need a street map of D.C. when he became President; he was already there, making policies as one of the most powerful members of the Senate majority.  (Bush made a Devil's bargain that allowed Obama-Pelosi-and-Reid to do what they wanted with other federal spending so long as they funded "The Surge" that brought us our second victory in Iraq.)

Obama didn't "arrive to find a mess in 2009".  Instead, he literally just moved the contents of his desk from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.  Why anyone thought a member of the ruling Senate majority -- who had done zero to make any positive changes either there or in the Illinois legislature -- was going to "change Washington" is something for future social scientists to ponder.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reagan (like JFK before him and Clinton and Bush 43 later) did not cut taxes.  He cut tax rates which led to an increase in tax revenues.  Obama has stated outright that he will not cut tax rates even if he knew such action would lead to increased revenues.  That takes a special kind of ideological purity.  

But the real difference between Reagan and Obama is in the area of federal regulations.  Businesses need certainty and certainty is impossible when D.C. bureaucrats rule.  Reagan reduced regulations and told business to go spend and invest.  Obama created massive new regulatory schemes with Dodd-Frank and DemocratCare that give D.C. bureaucrats unprecedented powers institute massive changes in business policies with little or no notice.

Romney was about my last choice for the GOP nomination (Gary Johnson my first), but at least he doesn't think that welfare recipients will lead us out of the rotten economy that we're in.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "difference" is that in 2008-09 Americans were forced to fork over huge sums of cash to U.S. bankers (with the result, noted above, that the banks have so much cash that real interest rates are negative!)  In the early-80s, Americans were forced to fork over huge sums of cash to oil potentates of the Mideast.  Reagan's solution was counter-intuitive to any progressive:  He decontrolled oil prices!  Oil fell from about $40/bbl in 1980 to about $8 in the mid-1990s -- and that's not factoring inflation!  (Progressives would call insane anyone who said that taking prices away from D.C. bureaucrat control would result in lower prices.)

And by "Bush's liabilities on the tab" I assume you mean the costs of the wars that were "off-budget"?  I agree they should never have been counted "off-budget", but they were only about $100 billion a year -- or less than 4% of federal spending and less than 10% of Obama's deficits.  So even if the wars magically disappeared, Obama would still have 96% of his budget and 90% of his deficit!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How much more "context" can I supply?  I'll try to do it.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2012, 01:04:59 PM »

Given that Mondale and Reagan were quite close over the summer, I find it quite possible.


The president's opponents feel so strongly about him that there's no way any of the McCain states (namely Missouri and Arizona) will vote for him this time.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2012, 01:06:23 PM »

Given that Mondale and Reagan were quite close over the summer, I find it quite possible.


The president's opponents feel so strongly about him that there's no way any of the McCain states (namely Missouri and Arizona) will vote for him this time.
"Gov. Walker's opponents feel so strongly about him that there's no way any of the Barrett counties will vote for him this time."

...
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2012, 04:58:52 PM »

Given that Mondale and Reagan were quite close over the summer, I find it quite possible.


The president's opponents feel so strongly about him that there's no way any of the McCain states (namely Missouri and Arizona) will vote for him this time.
"Gov. Walker's opponents feel so strongly about him that there's no way any of the Barrett counties will vote for him this time."

...

In 2004, GWB's opponents felt VERY strongly about him, and he still managed to pull it out, and even to increase his PV percentage by about 3 points over 2000. I'm not saying that's likely to happen with Obama (it isn't), but just because Republicans are motivated, it doesn't mean it's enough to defeat an incumbent president.
Logged
Indy Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 290
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2012, 05:05:22 PM »

Senior citizens hate him for Obamacare (though are somewhat indifferent to Romney the architect), and within that group Jews'll go Romney's way if he picks Cantor for Veep, Cubans are spoken for so that leaves blacks and Puerto Ricans. Na, he can't win Florida.

North Carolina voted against samesex marriage at the polls just before Obama 'came out' for it. He can kiss babies with Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan as much as he wants -it's not gonna change anything. Missouri's forgotten the mormon war but has Mitt? Hmm... That qualifies as a tossup, as is AZ.

This election is in the hands of the unemployed, Hispanics and Mormons. The states of Ohio, Colorado and Nevada will likely be decided by each respective group.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.077 seconds with 14 queries.