Axelrod won't rule out Biden being dropped from the ticket
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:57:49 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Axelrod won't rule out Biden being dropped from the ticket
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Axelrod won't rule out Biden being dropped from the ticket  (Read 5589 times)
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 18, 2012, 05:49:46 PM »

Ed Klein was pulling crap out of his butt, as he is known to do.


This is all a fevered dream of the right wing media

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 18, 2012, 06:01:50 PM »

Obama dealt with the worst recession since the Great Depression. The '91 Recession was nowhere near as bad.
You do realize that African-Americans age differently than Caucasians right? Our hair gets peppered.

You do realize that the 1979-80 Recession was much worse than 1991 (and today) and the saying is "Black don't crack," don't you?  Roll Eyes
Forgot about that. And the 79-80 Recession was based almost entirely around interest rates and inflation. It was actually quite simple. The 2008 Crisis was more of 2 or 3 Recession in one.
1. The Housing Bubble Popped
2. Lehman Brothers Collapsed
3. International Financial Crisis
Those three things made it 26 x worse than 79-80. Beet could explain it better than me.
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 18, 2012, 06:07:59 PM »


You're right. I'd take Biden over Reagan any day.

Seriously though, few voters know how old Biden is. He certainly acts alive and vigorous. Yes, four years ago he brought experience and wisdom (particularly foreign policy) to a ticket with a young man who had been criticized on experience, and today that plus is no longer as relevant. But it'd still be a bad idea to drop him from the ticket for the reasons Cobbler said.

Speaking of which, how much foreign policy experience does the Romney-Ryan ticket have? Is Ryan really seasoned enough to step into the shoes of the President? Or is that not even being discussed in this election?

I guess you can say Biden's economy is better than Reagan's economy, not gonna argue with you there, lol. 

People thought John McCain was old, and they'll think Biden is old.  You're not going to stop people from seeing it with their own eyes.  Biden was unusually on message in 2008, but he's gonna say more crazy things, which he is known for, after all he's a clean, articulate guy; and the republicans are going to make a bigger issue out of his senility compared to Romney/Ryan. 

Paul Ryan has 14 years of govt experience.  He's about as experienced as Bill Clinton was in 1992. 
Also, Democrats can't say anything about Ryan's young age and experience, when Obama was nominated with just 3 years of Senate experience.  Obama lowered the bar for everyone else. 

You don't get it.

Republicans may chomp at the bit when Biden says off the cuff things on the stump, but it actually endears him to democrats and independents. There's such a thing as being too slick. Romney has gotten a lot of s**t for it, so has Obama, so did Clinton, etc etc. People like it when Biden shows himself to be a normal human being who speaks off the cuff- it adds a relatability to the ticket that Obama sometimes lacks. Democrats LOVED it when Biden said that healthcare reform was a "big f****** deal" because we were all thinking it.

He reminds people of their drunk uncle, who is often the most fun person at family gatherings.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 18, 2012, 06:35:07 PM »


Forgot about that. And the 79-80 Recession was based almost entirely around interest rates and inflation. It was actually quite simple. The 2008 Crisis was more of 2 or 3 Recession in one.
1. The Housing Bubble Popped
2. Lehman Brothers Collapsed
3. International Financial Crisis
Those three things made it 26 x worse than 79-80. Beet could explain it better than me.

Actually, no.  Unemployment was about a point lower, but inflation and lack of real growth were the problems.  In terms of the misery index, it was substantially worse.  In 1979-80, you had an oil shock, one brokerage house collapse, gigantic inflation and a the metals market going insane.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 18, 2012, 06:56:28 PM »


Forgot about that. And the 79-80 Recession was based almost entirely around interest rates and inflation. It was actually quite simple. The 2008 Crisis was more of 2 or 3 Recession in one.
1. The Housing Bubble Popped
2. Lehman Brothers Collapsed
3. International Financial Crisis
Those three things made it 26 x worse than 79-80. Beet could explain it better than me.

Actually, no.  Unemployment was about a point lower, but inflation and lack of real growth were the problems.  In terms of the misery index, it was substantially worse.  In 1979-80, you had an oil shock, one brokerage house collapse, gigantic inflation and a the metals market going insane.

Don't forget the gas lines.

Not sure if the late '70s/early '80s recessions were worse than now, but this time we've yet to see a real recovery.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 18, 2012, 07:04:54 PM »

When asked, and when he had the chance to deny it, Axelrod did not rule out, at any time in the discussion, the possibility that Biden could be dropped from the ticket.

You show me anywhere Axelrod denied this possibility.

Joke my left foot.

The fact of the matter is, it would just be too embarassing to Obama and his campaign to dump Biden at this point in time.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 18, 2012, 07:15:42 PM »

The fact of the matter is, it would just be too embarassing to Obama and his campaign to dump Biden at this point in time.

Unless they could talk Hillary into replacing him. It would be hilarious hearing Biden's revenge, though. It would match the comedic genius of last fall (i.e., Cain, Perry, Gingrich).
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 18, 2012, 07:24:28 PM »

If Barack puts Hillary on the ticket, and if they win, Barack had better watch his back and his knees.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 18, 2012, 07:27:15 PM »

This thread is plumbing new depths of idiocy.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 18, 2012, 08:23:05 PM »

This thread is plumbing new depths of idiocy.

No, we have Biden for that.  Smiley

It won't happen, largely because it would make Obama look weak, and desperate.

It does change the story.  This was suppose to be the week that Ryan would be torn apart and it the week of how bad Biden is.  And now, Biden has a time out in Delaware. 
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 18, 2012, 09:40:30 PM »

Biden isn't any kind of drag on the ticket. It's basically the veep's role to be the guy who takes incoming for the president, by being a joke (Quayle), a lackey (Humphrey, Bush, Gore), an uber-Dick (Nixon, Cheney) or some combination (Agnew). Biden's performance is well within expected bounds, kind of an older Quayle-with-gravitas who makes a lot of harmless gaffes. Nobody who isn't partisan really holds any of it against him, or Obama.  And Obama campaign ethos is grounded so much in real or pretend super-confidence (ala-Bush 2000) that they'd never make such a transparently desperate move as dropping him.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 18, 2012, 09:46:42 PM »

Perhaps taking incoming for the Presidential candidate, but not saying outlandish things that make himself look like an idiot.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 18, 2012, 10:20:02 PM »

Perhaps taking incoming for the Presidential candidate, but not saying outlandish things that make himself look like an idiot.

Makes Obama look better by contrast I guess. If he'd gone with Bayh in 2008, Bayh would've out-clever-guy'd him.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2012, 07:13:09 AM »

Perhaps taking incoming for the Presidential candidate, but not saying outlandish things that make himself look like an idiot.

Makes Obama look better by contrast I guess. If he'd gone with Bayh in 2008, Bayh would've out-clever-guy'd him.

Byah seems like a pretty spineless guy.  Plus, we'd have lost his Senate seat before Obamacare was passed.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 19, 2012, 01:08:57 PM »

Romney's looks are the result of a healthy lifestyle his entire life and good genetics.

That's not what I heard:

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2012, 08:26:07 PM »


Forgot about that. And the 79-80 Recession was based almost entirely around interest rates and inflation. It was actually quite simple. The 2008 Crisis was more of 2 or 3 Recession in one.
1. The Housing Bubble Popped
2. Lehman Brothers Collapsed
3. International Financial Crisis
Those three things made it 26 x worse than 79-80. Beet could explain it better than me.

Actually, no.  Unemployment was about a point lower, but inflation and lack of real growth were the problems.  In terms of the misery index, it was substantially worse.  In 1979-80, you had an oil shock, one brokerage house collapse, gigantic inflation and a the metals market going insane.

The 1980 recession was one of choice. The Federal Reserve deliberately tipped the economy into recession. In light of the inflation rate at the time, I believe it was the correct decision, even though, as I have said, Volcker tried to manipulate the timing for political purposes. Meanwhile, the 'recovery' was an illusion-- it was built on unprecedented and rapidly growing debts-- consumer, banking, and government-- as well as a rise in trade deficits, all of which continued each cycle until 2008.

If things feel better today than they did in 1980, it's because we are 3 years into a steady recovery, whether Republicans want to admit it or not. It'd also have a lot to do with the massive amounts of federal intervention and unprecedented actions the government had to take to stave off full-blown depression. And no, as a Democrat I am not happy about that. Contrary to the accusations of us being all big-government enthusiasts, I would have preferred the government didn't have to intervene in the economy or spend so much money stimulating it. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear. The interventions were inevitable and staved off a complete collapse of the free enterprise system in the US (nothing even remotely close to that was at stake in 1980). Even Paul Ryan knew as much when he begged Congress to pass TARP in 2008. Businesses should be thanking Obama for saving their asses, but that would be too much justice.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2012, 08:39:50 PM »


Forgot about that. And the 79-80 Recession was based almost entirely around interest rates and inflation. It was actually quite simple. The 2008 Crisis was more of 2 or 3 Recession in one.
1. The Housing Bubble Popped
2. Lehman Brothers Collapsed
3. International Financial Crisis
Those three things made it 26 x worse than 79-80. Beet could explain it better than me.

Actually, no.  Unemployment was about a point lower, but inflation and lack of real growth were the problems.  In terms of the misery index, it was substantially worse.  In 1979-80, you had an oil shock, one brokerage house collapse, gigantic inflation and a the metals market going insane.

The 1980 recession was one of choice. The Federal Reserve deliberately tipped the economy into recession. In light of the inflation rate at the time, I believe it was the correct decision, even though, as I have said, Volcker tried to manipulate the timing for political purposes. Meanwhile, the 'recovery' was an illusion-- it was built on unprecedented and rapidly growing debts-- consumer, banking, and government-- as well as a rise in trade deficits, all of which continued each cycle until 2008.

If things feel better today than they did in 1980, it's because we are 3 years into a steady recovery, whether Republicans want to admit it or not. It'd also have a lot to do with the massive amounts of federal intervention and unprecedented actions the government had to take to stave off full-blown depression. And no, as a Democrat I am not happy about that. Contrary to the accusations of us being all big-government enthusiasts, I would have preferred the government didn't have to intervene in the economy or spend so much money stimulating it. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear. The interventions were inevitable and staved off a complete collapse of the free enterprise system in the US (nothing even remotely close to that was at stake in 1980). Even Paul Ryan knew as much when he begged Congress to pass TARP in 2008. Businesses should be thanking Obama for saving their asses, but that would be too much justice.
Thanks Beet. You truly are an economic powerhouse.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2012, 09:08:39 PM »


Forgot about that. And the 79-80 Recession was based almost entirely around interest rates and inflation. It was actually quite simple. The 2008 Crisis was more of 2 or 3 Recession in one.
1. The Housing Bubble Popped
2. Lehman Brothers Collapsed
3. International Financial Crisis
Those three things made it 26 x worse than 79-80. Beet could explain it better than me.

Actually, no.  Unemployment was about a point lower, but inflation and lack of real growth were the problems.  In terms of the misery index, it was substantially worse.  In 1979-80, you had an oil shock, one brokerage house collapse, gigantic inflation and a the metals market going insane.

The 1980 recession was one of choice. The Federal Reserve deliberately tipped the economy into recession. In light of the inflation rate at the time, I believe it was the correct decision, even though, as I have said, Volcker tried to manipulate the timing for political purposes. Meanwhile, the 'recovery' was an illusion-- it was built on unprecedented and rapidly growing debts-- consumer, banking, and government-- as well as a rise in trade deficits, all of which continued each cycle until 2008.

If things feel better today than they did in 1980, it's because we are 3 years into a steady recovery, whether Republicans want to admit it or not. It'd also have a lot to do with the massive amounts of federal intervention and unprecedented actions the government had to take to stave off full-blown depression. And no, as a Democrat I am not happy about that. Contrary to the accusations of us being all big-government enthusiasts, I would have preferred the government didn't have to intervene in the economy or spend so much money stimulating it. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear. The interventions were inevitable and staved off a complete collapse of the free enterprise system in the US (nothing even remotely close to that was at stake in 1980). Even Paul Ryan knew as much when he begged Congress to pass TARP in 2008. Businesses should be thanking Obama for saving their asses, but that would be too much justice.

Well, in that case, could Obama not be getting enough credit because things didn't get as bad as when Jimmy Carter was in office.  Perhaps Americans have become pampered, and expected Reagan's success compared to Carter's failures on the average person's life.  There are no gas lines but no one's exactly optimistic about the next 2-4 years even if Obama stays in office.  We're not drowning like during Carter's years, but the water level is still just above the neck.  I don't know what the misery index is right now, but it doesn't feel great, at least not to me.  It doesn't seem like "morning in america."  I think the unemployment rate is still too high, and people are feeling it, particularly young people.  There is a lot more employment angst and apprehension among the 30 and under that wasn't there in 2008.  We thought we could overcome the 2008 recession, turns out just barely, and the "new normal" is 8% unemployment.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 19, 2012, 09:51:31 PM »


The 1980 recession was one of choice. The Federal Reserve deliberately tipped the economy into recession. In light of the inflation rate at the time, I believe it was the correct decision, even though, as I have said, Volcker tried to manipulate the timing for political purposes. Meanwhile, the 'recovery' was an illusion-- it was built on unprecedented and rapidly growing debts-- consumer, banking, and government-- as well as a rise in trade deficits, all of which continued each cycle until 2008.

The inflation was not by choice.  Likewise, the recovery was quite strong, extending beyond the end of Reagan's second term.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

TARP, as you just pointed out, was not an Obama program.  It was the 2009 "stimulus" that failed miserably, that was an Obama program.  2008, was a crisis, that was handled in 2008, abet with some lasting effects.  The stimulus did not repair those lasting effects.  We are not better off than we were four years ago last November.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2012, 10:00:16 PM »


The 1980 recession was one of choice. The Federal Reserve deliberately tipped the economy into recession. In light of the inflation rate at the time, I believe it was the correct decision, even though, as I have said, Volcker tried to manipulate the timing for political purposes. Meanwhile, the 'recovery' was an illusion-- it was built on unprecedented and rapidly growing debts-- consumer, banking, and government-- as well as a rise in trade deficits, all of which continued each cycle until 2008.

The inflation was not by choice.  Likewise, the recovery was quite strong, extending beyond the end of Reagan's second term.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

TARP, as you just pointed out, was not an Obama program.  It was the 2009 "stimulus" that failed miserably, that was an Obama program.  2008, was a crisis, that was handled in 2008, abet with some lasting effects.  The stimulus did not repair those lasting effects.  We are not better off than we were four years ago last November.
The Stimulus was not big enough to put us fully in recovery.
1.Half of it went to tax cuts to middle class families so the could feed themselves and keep the local grocer open, so that he could keep on his employees.
2.Another quarter went to aid to state and local governments to slow and stop the fireings of teachers and first responders.
3. Only a quarter of it went to infrastructure projects and direct government spending. Republicans try and act like it was an utter failure of Government spending.

Economists say that the stimulus saved 1-2 million jobs.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 19, 2012, 10:19:27 PM »

Just to nitpick, I said businesses should be thanking Obama for managing the response to the 2008 crisis successfully for them. I know there are a lot of unemployed and other people out there who have good reason to be dissatisfied with Obama, and I don't think it's fair to ask them to thank him. But we'll be making the case that Romney would not make things any better, given that his economic ideas are mostly recycled failed Bush trickle down policies.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 20, 2012, 12:37:36 AM »

I'd be pretty surprised if Biden was dropped. The only time a President has switched running mates since FDR was 1976, and Ford and Rockefeller were never elected anyways.
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 0.237 seconds with 13 queries.