13 keys to the white house: Obama got re-election in the bag

[hater]

as you see, for those obsessed with economy, economy is only 2 of 13 keys to the white house in an election. I agree with this analysis

DISCLAIMER:
only thing that would change the outcome now is a major terrorist attack, major white house scandal, major economic crash(like another real estate crash) or Chuck Norris running for the GOP

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.

2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.

4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.

5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

[101A]

Obama has had, by any measure, a horrible presidency to this point. His unpopularity is at an all time high, unemployment is headed even higher with news today...and the "national" policies he has pushed through a unpopular. Hell, look at what just happened to the NY seat yesterday that Dems have held since the twenties!

Analyze all you want, if the Republicans put up a decent candidate, Obama will get thumped. He IS Carter v. 2.0 WITHOUT the peace accords!

That said, the Republicans do not have a decent candidate in the mix to this point. I'm almost beginning to think they don't WANT the WH - it's the Dems turn to have the figurehead.

[MannyIsGod]

A horrible presidency? I don't know about that. I do know the economy is fucked which is the biggest factor in how the public perceives the political process. I think George Bush's first term was FAR worse than this one.

I think Obama has had an average presidency so far but to call it horrible is completely out of line.

I also disagree with the OP. Anyone saying this election is in the bag has not been paying attention. Its a complete toss up at this point which when you take in how bad the economy is actually proof, IMO, that Obama's presidency has not been perceived at horrible at all.

[101A]

I do know the economy is fucked which is the biggest factor in how the public perceives the political process.


Which is exactly what makes this presidency "horrible". What other kind of measure is there other than the public perception of the political process?

Historians have there own judgements and scales, but those measurements are for later. For now, facing reelection with this scoreboard? Bad presidency.

[MannyIsGod]

Except that the economy being fucked is not a result of his presidency. You can say the perception of his presidency is horrible if you want (although even that would be a stretch - the poll numbers show what I said before - average) but perception of his presidency and the actual presidency are two completely different things.

[Creepn]

So if we had a republican candidate instead of Obama, the economy outlook would've been better?

Also why wouldn't America vote for the president that made the decisive decision to attack on allied soil to get OSAMA BIN LADEEEEEEEEEEN. The man responsible for 9/11? The man who wrecked up our economy? OSAMA. BIN. LADEN!

[101A]

So if we had a republican candidate instead of Obama, the economy outlook would've been better?

Also why wouldn't America vote for the president that made the decisive decision to attack on allied soil to get OSAMA BIN LADEEEEEEEEEEN. The man responsible for 9/11? The man who wrecked up our economy? OSAMA. BIN. LADEN!

Because the Americans who decide the elections (about 20% of the electorate) don't vote by thinking and reasoning, they vote by feeling. As in, how do I feel right now: "Am I better off now than I was before Obama, or do I feel I would have been without Obama"? Hell, Bush I was only, what 18 months removed from winning one of the most decisive, lopsided, hugely popular military victories in history before he got thumped by Bill Clinton.

[101A]

So if we had a republican candidate instead of Obama, the economy outlook would've been better?

Also why wouldn't America vote for the president that made the decisive decision to attack on allied soil to get OSAMA BIN LADEEEEEEEEEEN. The man responsible for 9/11? The man who wrecked up our economy? OSAMA. BIN. LADEN!

Our (the World's) economy was wrecked by a bunch of dishonest, greedy, reckless bankers/investors and their willing accomplices/friends in government (from all sides). You know, all the people who are still in power both in, and out, of government.

[hater]

to the doubters:
the 13 keys predictor has NEVER BEEN WRONG. It has predicted correctly since Reagan.

[ManuBalboa]

lol. If you think Obama will be the favorite in this election you are a delusional fanboy. He is a weak leader and the economy is still shit.

He ran an absolutely amazing fking campaign in 08, it was impressive. But it was entirely built on fairy dust. He won't be able to use any of that nonsense now that he actually has something people can judge him on.

His 08 election was historical because of race. Now that the wave of white guilt has passed people will be left with a lackluster incumbent and nothing more.

[nkdlunch]

so the predictor is 7-0 that's impressive. but who knows

this election is 2004 all over again. The current president sucks but the opponents suck even more so. it will go down to the wire.

[nkdlunch]

lol. If you think Obama will be the favorite in this election you are a delusional fanboy. He is a weak leader and the economy is still shit.

He ran an absolutely amazing fking campaign in 08, it was impressive. But it was entirely built on fairy dust. He won't be able to use any of that nonsense now that he actually has something people can judge him on.

EVERY political campaign is run on fairy dust

[Creepn]

Because the Americans who decide the elections (about 20% of the electorate) don't vote by thinking and reasoning, they vote by feeling. As in, how do I feel right now: "Am I better off now than I was before Obama, or do I feel I would have been without Obama"? Hell, Bush I was only, what 18 months removed from winning one of the most decisive, lopsided, hugely popular military victories in history before he got thumped by Bill Clinton.

Clinton just had that kind of Charisma to pull it off. As the OP stated as a keypoint, none of those opponents have that charisma to do that so I dont think Obama should worry too much about that.

Since feeling is the case, you don't think the American people should feel safer than before? Before the decisive Osama attack, he also ordered the rescue of that dude from the Somali pirates and there has been a couple of attacks foiled as well. The man has clearly shown he would make tough military decisions to protect Americans. I also don't sense the worldwide hate of Americans that I felt in the Bush admin, although I'm sure it's still there.

I just don't think he's that horrible of a president people make him out to be and like you said, his presidency is not the cause of this economic turmoil we're going through.

[101A]

How do you score "Third Party" as a win for Obama?

Is it strictly a win for the incumbent if there is not third party? Because such a party could come from the left, or, more likely it would seem this time, from the right. A third party (A Tea Party Candidate, for instance) would be a significant win for Obama, while a third party Green, or Socialist Candidate would most definitely be a loss).

[coyotes_geek]

5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]

???

This whole thing looks pretty arbitrary. It's basically just a glorified superbowl prediction via a position by position "analysis".

[101A]

Also, rating short term economic outlook as tossup is mighty optomistic.

[101A]

Scandals are raising there heads....Solar, tampering with congressional witnesses....just give the GOP congress some time, there will be something.

[boutons_deux]

solyndra is very probably a Repug-fabricated slander, wasting the police/FBI time, with which they will drag it out for months to slime both Barry and global warming.

What’s Happening With That Solar Company Scandal?



http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/whats-happening-with-solyndra-heres-our-guide

=========

Repugs will do anything, All Politics All The Time, except govern,

[Vici]

Love how Obama is responsible for the economy of the last 10 years. It's like people blaming Bill Bellicheck on the Browns sucking ass.

[Jacob1983]

How much money could America save if the two wars ended? Why doesn't Barry do that? Wouldn't that help the economy?

Barry is a loser because he still gives a shit about being liked and popular.

[Wild Cobra]

to the doubters:
the 13 keys predictor has NEVER BEEN WRONG. It has predicted correctly since Reagan.
There is another indicator that was never wrong.

No incumbent ever won reelection with an economy/unemployment like we currently have.

[Wild Cobra]

to the doubters:
the 13 keys predictor has NEVER BEEN WRONG. It has predicted correctly since Reagan.
LOL...

Great track record. Only 6 elections, 4 presidents..

Excuse me if you hear me laughing too hard.

It completely ignores the one that has never been wrong, that I previously mentioned.

[hater]

There is another indicator that was never wrong.

No incumbent ever won reelection with an economy/unemployment like we currently have.

Reagan had similar job/economy numbers.

Bush had similar disaproval ratings.

[hater]

LOL...

Great track record. Only 6 elections, 4 presidents..

Excuse me if you hear me laughing too hard.

It completely ignores the one that has never been wrong, that I previously mentioned.

please post another methodology that even came close. thanks.

[hater]

There is another indicator that was never wrong.

No incumbent ever won reelection with an economy/unemployment like we currently have.

some more education:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2008/5791624507_4b2b2eae23.jpg

[hater]

On the Maddeningly Inexact Relationship Between Unemployment and Re-Election
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/on-the-maddeningly-inexact-relationship-between-unemployment-and-re-election/
By NATE SILVER

Make no mistake: the higher the unemployment rate in November 2012, the less likely President Obama is to win a second term.

But we should be careful about asserting that there is any particular threshold at which Mr. Obama would go from favorite to underdog, or any magic number at which his re-election would either become impossible or a fait accompli. Historically, the relationship between the unemployment rate and a president’s performance on Election Day is complicated and tenuous.

An article in today’s Times notes, for example, that “no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.” That was the unemployment rate in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan resoundingly won a second term.

This type of data may be of limited use for predictive purposes, however. Reagan won re-election by 18 points, suggesting that he had quite a bit of slack. An unemployment rate of 7.5 percent or even higher would presumably have been good enough to win him another term.

It’s also not obvious that Roosevelt should be excluded from the calculus, particularly given that the economic crisis the country is working its way out of now is the most severe since his administration. He won re-election in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16.6 percent, and again in 1940 with a rate of 14.6 percent.

For Roosevelt, at least, the unemployment rate was headed in the right direction: down from 19.8 percent in 1933, the year he took office. This was also true for Reagan, although only barely so: he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent from Jimmy Carter, seeing it drop to 7.2 percent in time for his re-election.

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama took office was 7.8 percent — and he may not follow in his predecessors’ footsteps by leaving it in a better place than he found it. As of last month, private forecasters like Wells Fargo and The Wall Street Journal’s forecasting panel were anticipating an unemployment rate close to 7.8 percent by late 2012. But those forecasts preceded a bevy of poor economic reports, which may lead some economists to lower their estimates.

Looking at unemployment in this way — as the rate of change over a president’s term — is probably the more worthwhile approach. But it, too, is not always reliable. Unemployment increased by 1.9 percentage points over the course of Richard M. Nixon’s first term, but he won re-election easily. It also increased in George W. Bush’s and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first terms, and their re-election bids were also successful. The unemployment rate fell to 3.9 percent from 5.3 percent, meanwhile, in Bill Clinton’s second term — but his vice president, Al Gore, could not beat Mr. Bush in the Electoral College.

There are also cases in which the data behaved more intuitively: Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush all faced high unemployment rates when they lost their re-election bids, as did Gerald R. Ford in 1976, and that was surely a factor in their defeats. But historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a president’s electoral performance has been essentially zero.

[cheguevara]

Analyze all you want, if the Republicans put up a decent candidate, Obama will get thumped. He IS Carter v. 2.0 WITHOUT the peace accords!


:lol who would that be?

[cheguevara]

On the Maddeningly Inexact Relationship Between Unemployment and Re-Election
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/on-the-maddeningly-inexact-relationship-between-unemployment-and-re-election/
By NATE SILVER

Make no mistake: the higher the unemployment rate in November 2012, the less likely President Obama is to win a second term.

But we should be careful about asserting that there is any particular threshold at which Mr. Obama would go from favorite to underdog, or any magic number at which his re-election would either become impossible or a fait accompli. Historically, the relationship between the unemployment rate and a president’s performance on Election Day is complicated and tenuous.

An article in today’s Times notes, for example, that “no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.” That was the unemployment rate in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan resoundingly won a second term.

This type of data may be of limited use for predictive purposes, however. Reagan won re-election by 18 points, suggesting that he had quite a bit of slack. An unemployment rate of 7.5 percent or even higher would presumably have been good enough to win him another term.

It’s also not obvious that Roosevelt should be excluded from the calculus, particularly given that the economic crisis the country is working its way out of now is the most severe since his administration. He won re-election in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16.6 percent, and again in 1940 with a rate of 14.6 percent.

For Roosevelt, at least, the unemployment rate was headed in the right direction: down from 19.8 percent in 1933, the year he took office. This was also true for Reagan, although only barely so: he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent from Jimmy Carter, seeing it drop to 7.2 percent in time for his re-election.

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama took office was 7.8 percent — and he may not follow in his predecessors’ footsteps by leaving it in a better place than he found it. As of last month, private forecasters like Wells Fargo and The Wall Street Journal’s forecasting panel were anticipating an unemployment rate close to 7.8 percent by late 2012. But those forecasts preceded a bevy of poor economic reports, which may lead some economists to lower their estimates.

Looking at unemployment in this way — as the rate of change over a president’s term — is probably the more worthwhile approach. But it, too, is not always reliable. Unemployment increased by 1.9 percentage points over the course of Richard M. Nixon’s first term, but he won re-election easily. It also increased in George W. Bush’s and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first terms, and their re-election bids were also successful. The unemployment rate fell to 3.9 percent from 5.3 percent, meanwhile, in Bill Clinton’s second term — but his vice president, Al Gore, could not beat Mr. Bush in the Electoral College.

There are also cases in which the data behaved more intuitively: Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush all faced high unemployment rates when they lost their re-election bids, as did Gerald R. Ford in 1976, and that was surely a factor in their defeats. But historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a president’s electoral performance has been essentially zero.

interesting stuff

[Yonivore]

interesting stuff
I hope he's the candidate because, his policies will probably not lower unemployment. If he has any hope of improving our economy, he's going to have to adopt some conservative economic policies. I don't see that happening, I believe he's fully invested in his losing strategy and too narcissistic to change.

That's where the "elder statesmen" come in. But, even there, they'll have to be black. Maxine "turn me loose" Waters perhaps?

[xrayzebra]

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.

[Yonivore]

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.
Whatever it is, remember, they lost in Wisconsin.

[hater]

Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.


he's George Bush Jr.?

[xrayzebra]

Whatever it is, remember, they lost in Wisconsin.

Exactly. And they learned a lesson. Never to let it happen again.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.

Are you going to vote for rick perry? Exchange Obama's name with Perry's in your ramblings and you have the right wing version of him...

[xrayzebra]

Are you going to vote for rick perry? Exchange Obama's name with Perry's in your ramblings and you have the right wing version of him...


You know George, I don't know who I am going to vote for, except it wont
be for Obama. As far as I know no right winger has said take the
SOB's out or have they said the Left Wing of the Democrat party can
go to hell.

You call my musing's ramblings. Okay, maybe they are. But son at my
age I don't much care. I was expressing myself, while I still can, and one
way or the other I will be proven right or wrong. As I said, I hope I am
wrong. I really do. But riots in the streets are not unheard of in this
country. And this next election could be coast to coast, border to
border with all kinds of racial implications brought on by some who are
in power and don't want to relinquish it.

You can like it or not. It matters little to me what you think of my
"ramblings".

I again say, I hope I am wrong.

Oh, I forgot to add. Perry's admission of faith might indicate a threat
to you, it does to many. But to some, like me, it shows courage on his
part to admit to a higher being than himself.

Obama would never make that mistake. God that he is to himself and
his lessor believers.

[101A]

:lol who would that be?

There is not one in the race right now; which actually brings up the MOST important factor is whether or not a president wins reelection:

WHO HIS OPPONENT IS.

[clambake]

i'd like to hear more about these riots.

[Vici]

You can like it or not. It Oh, I forgot to add. Perry's admission of faith might indicate a threat
to you, it does to many. But to some, like me, it shows courage on his
part to admit to a higher being than himself.


So in a country that has vastly more believers than non-believers, it's courageous to say you believe in god?

That's like saying it's courageous to come out heterosexual.

[Vici]

And blood in the streets? Are you out of your mind?

[Vici]

And by normal rules you mean we aren't going to have the Supreme Court throw out votes? No more misconduct? Sounds great to me!

[ElNono]

And this next election could be coast to coast, border to border with all kinds of racial implications brought on by some who are in power and don't want to relinquish it.

What "racial implications"?

[xrayzebra]

"What "racial implications"? "

Who always provokes class warfare?

Also, have you read this?

Mayor Bloomberg predicts riots in the streets if economy doesn't create more jobs

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/09/16/2011-09-16_mayor_bloomberg_predicts_riots_in_the_streets_i f_economy_doesnt_create_more_jobs.html#ixzz1Y8mBUT nr

[xrayzebra]

i'd like to hear more about these riots.

You never change, do you. Still never contribute much to a conversation.

[Yonivore]

And blood in the streets? Are you out of your mind?
I'm not ready to say there will be widespread violence during the next election cycle but, anyone who discounts the possibility didn't live through the 60's.

[hater]

can someone please tell me what will trigger these "racial riots"?

[clambake]

can someone please tell me what will trigger these "racial riots"?

i'm guessing ray gets it from rush. if his radio is as old as he is, it's probably stuck on one channel.

[Vici]

I'm not ready to say there will be widespread violence during the next election cycle but, anyone who discounts the possibility didn't live through the 60's.

What do the 60s have to do with now? A possibility? Anything I guess is possible but this is so remote it's beyond stupid to even mention.

[Yonivore]

What do the 60s have to do with now? A possibility? Anything I guess is possible but this is so remote it's beyond stupid to even mention.
Well, the chief comparison between now and the 60's is how partisan and rancorous the two political parties have become.

But, my question is, why would they necessarily be race riots? I think they're more likely to be incited by unions.

Here's Mayor Bloomberg's take.

Mayor Bloomberg predicts riots in the streets if economy doesn't create more jobs (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/09/16/2011-09-16_mayor_bloomberg_predicts_riots_in_the_streets_i f_economy_doesnt_create_more_jobs.html)

[ElNono]

Bloomberg's take was not racial at all. As a matter of fact, he was talking about college graduates, and what happened in Cairo over unemployment.

Where's the "racial riots" again?

[Yonivore]

Bloomberg's take was not racial at all. As a matter of fact, he was talking about college graduates, and what happened in Cairo over unemployment.

Where's the "racial riots" again?
I didn't say it was racial. In fact, I asked the same question as you. My point -- and I didn't even read the article -- prominent politicians are starting to talk about the current climate resulting in violence.

[ElNono]

I didn't say it was racial. In fact, I asked the same question as you. My point -- and I didn't even read the article -- prominent politicians are starting to talk about the current climate resulting in violence.

If you didn't even read the article, how do you know what "prominent politicians" are starting to talk about?

And I was responding to ray, who linked the same article earlier, and made the racial riot claim.

[Yonivore]

If you didn't even read the article, how do you know what "prominent politicians" are starting to talk about?

And I was responding to ray, who linked the same article earlier, and made the racial riot claim.
I guess the headline would have to be totally disconnected from the article.

But, if it makes you happy, here's the graf:


"We have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs," Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show.

"That's what happened in Cairo. That's what happened in Madrid. You don't want those kinds of riots here."
Seems to me I didn't need to read the article to know what Bloomberg was talking about. Besides, reading the content didn't support the point I was making; it was enough to demonstrate prominent politicians are forwarding the idea. Hell, I didn't even indicate I agreed with Bloomberg.

[ElNono]

I guess the headline would have to be totally disconnected from the article.

But, if it makes you happy, here's the graf:

Unlike you, I did read the article.


Seems to me I didn't need to read the article to know what Bloomberg was talking about. Besides, reading the content didn't support the point I was making; it was enough to demonstrate prominent politicians are forwarding the idea. Hell, I didn't even indicate I agreed with Bloomberg.

First of all, I like Bloomberg very much (wish he would run for Prez one of these days), but there's a big disconnect on college students from the US to those in Spain or Egypt. The biggest disconnect would be that higher education in those countries is mostly free (government funded).
US college students are nothing like those guys.

Second of all, when you make the claim that "prominent politicians" (plural) are talking about this, I expect you to list more than one.

[Yonivore]

Unlike you, I did read the article.
And? Did you arrive the same conclusion he was predicting riots?


First of all, I like Bloomberg very much (wish he would run for Prez one of these days), but there's a big disconnect on college students from the US to those in Spain or Egypt. The biggest disconnect would be that higher education in those countries is mostly free (government funded).
US college students are nothing like those guys.
Nice accolades, did he predict riots?


Second of all, when you make the claim that "prominent politicians" (plural) are talking about this, I expect you to list more than one.
Okay. I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations. Nah, I'm not sorry.

[ElNono]

And? Did you arrive the same conclusion he was predicting riots?

No.


Nice accolades, did he predict riots?

No, he didn't.


Okay. I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations.

:lol talking out of your ass again
:lol running away when called out on it

[Yonivore]

No.
So, let me get this straight.

This statement...

"We have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs."

When followed up with this statement...

"That ['we have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs.'] is what happened in Cairo. That ['we have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs.'] is what happened in Madrid. You don't want those kinds of riots here."
...isn't a prediction of riots if 'we have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs?'

Okay. I think it's reasonable to say Bloomberg was predicting riots if things don't change. You're free to disagree.

[ElNono]

So, let me get this straight.

This statement...
When followed up with this statement...
...isn't a prediction of riots if 'we have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs?'

Okay. I think it's reasonable to say Bloomberg was predicting riots if things don't change. You're free to disagree.

I think Bloomberg doesn't want those kind of riots here. I thought he was pretty clear.

[Yonivore]

I think Bloomberg doesn't want those kind of riots here. I thought he was pretty clear.
So, he believes we could have them if kids graduate from college without finding jobs?

Are kids graduating from college and not finding jobs?

You're saying it's not reasonable to conclude Mayor Bloomberg was drawing a comparison between the current situation in the U.S. and Egypt and Spain and suggesting we could have similar riots for the same reason they occurred in those countries?

I think he was saying that. We disagree.

[ElNono]

So, he believes we could have them if kids graduate from college without finding jobs?

Are kids graduating from college and not finding jobs?

You should ask him those questions. I'm not Bloomberg.

What he said though is that we wouldn't want those riots here.

I frankly don't think you'll see them here (and I'm predicting here), because the situations are completely different. But that's what I think anyways.

[Yonivore]

You should ask him those questions. I'm not Bloomberg.

What he said though is that we wouldn't want those riots here.

I frankly don't think you'll see them here (and I'm predicting here), because the situations are completely different. But that's what I think anyways.
So, we disagree on what Bloomberg said.

The writer of the headline and I believe it is reasonable to conclude Mayor Bloomberg was predicting riots if the prospects of our college graduates remain comparable to those of Egypt and Spain (who experienced riots, in large part, due to this circumstance -- according to Mayor Bloomberg).

You believe it is reasonable to conclude what, Mayor Bloomberg's two statements were what? Unrelated? Why would he make the comparison and then raise the specter of riots?

In the end, you don't know and suggested I ask Mayor Bloomberg what he meant. Obviously, I don't have that luxury but, the reporter did ask and I think he reasonably concluded that is exactly what Mayor Bloomberg was suggesting.

After all, the reporter also has the benefit of witnessing the nuances of Mayor Bloomberg's statements including tone and body language, etc... If he believes Mayor Bloomberg was predicting riots, I think it's reasonable -- based on the statements published -- to agree.

Only Mayor Bloomberg could clear this up. Give him a call, would you?

[ElNono]

So, we disagree on what Bloomberg said.

I think we both agree he didn't make any prediction.


The writer of the headline and I believe it is reasonable to conclude Mayor Bloomberg was predicting riots if the prospects of our college graduates remain comparable to those of Egypt and Spain (who experienced riots, in large part, due to this circumstance -- according to Mayor Bloomberg).

The headline per se is really irrelevant.
It's not like this story wasn't published in other media outlets with different headlines.

Mayor Bloomberg Warns of Street Rioting if U.S. Fails to Create Jobs (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/215212/20110916/jobs-unemployment-mayor-bloomberg-rioting-madrid-cairo-obama.htm)
Mike Bloomberg Thinks New Yorkers Might Riot Over Lack of Jobs (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/mike_bloomberg_37.php)


Only Mayor Bloomberg could clear this up. Give him a call, would you?

You're the one with questions for the Mayor. You should definitely give him a call.

[Yonivore]

You're the one with questions for the Mayor. You should definitely give him a call.
Actually, I'm comfortable with the reasonableness of believing he was predicting (warning in another headline) or (suggesting the possibility ["might"] in another) there would be rioting, akin to Spain and Egypt, because our college graduates are similarly situated.

You're the one not satisfied.

[ElNono]

he was predicting (warning in another headline) or (suggesting the possibility ["might"] in another) there would be rioting

So, in your opinion, is the Mayor predicting, warning or suggesting?

I'm certainly satisfied. I already stated what my opinion is on the issue.

[Yonivore]

So, in your opinion, is the Mayor predicting, warning or suggesting?
Yes. I think I said that. And, in this context, there's not much difference between the three.

According to the quotes, as presented, Mayor Bloomberg appears to believe there will be rioting if the similarly situated graduates aren't assuaged where those in Spain and Egypt were not.

Semantic games don't change that reasonable conclusion.


I'm certainly satisfied. I already stated what my opinion is on the issue.
Happy for you.

[ElNono]

Yes. I think I said that. And, in this context, there's not much difference between the three.

Yes he is predicting, yes he is warning or yes he's suggesting?

And sure there's a difference between the three in this or any context.


According to the quotes, as presented, Mayor Bloomberg appears to believe there will be rioting if the similarly situated graduates aren't assuaged where those in Spain and Egypt were not.

According to the quotes, as presented, Mayor Bloomberg wouldn't want those riots here.

The rest is part of your imagination.


Semantic games don't change that reasonable conclusion.

What semantic games?

[Yonivore]

Yes he is predicting, yes he is warning or yes he's suggesting?

And sure there's a difference between the three in this or any context.
Nah, not in this context. I believe the Mayor believes these graduates will riot.


According to the quotes, as presented, Mayor Bloomberg wouldn't want those riots here.

The rest is part of your imagination.
I don't want them either but, that doesn't mean they're not going to happen if the graduates aren't dealt with.


What semantic games?
See above.

[ElNono]

Nah, not in this context. I believe the Mayor believes these graduates will riot.

Yah, in any context.

And that's not what the Mayor said, regardless of what you believe.


I don't want them either but, that doesn't mean they're not going to happen if the graduates aren't dealt with.

That's what you think, which is fine, even if the Mayor and I don't agree with it.


See above.

Where?

[Yonivore]

I thought you said you didn't know what the Mayor thought.

Anyway, we disagree. I think it is reasonable to characterize the Mayor's statements as a prediction, or a warning, or a supposition based on his words. Is it worth another several pages of this back and forth to arrive at that same conclusion?

[Nbadan]

My formula says Obama is a lock to.....no matter the GOP nominee..

[Yonivore]

My formula says Obama is a lock to.....no matter the GOP nominee..
History says, if the unemployment rate remains above 7.2%, he loses to any opponent.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/business/economy/02jobs.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1316214024-bNV/8jwKliWdXIR0xTt/MQ)


WASHINGTON — No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.

[ElNono]

I thought you said you didn't know what the Mayor thought.

I did?


Anyway, we disagree.

No doubt.

[Nbadan]

History says, if the unemployment rate remains above 7.2%, he loses to any opponent.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/business/economy/02jobs.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1316214024-bNV/8jwKliWdXIR0xTt/MQ)


Problem is, in poll after poll, people still blame Bush rather than Obama for the state of the economy....now the GOP wants to shove Bush Jr Jr down voters collective throats? Ain't gonna happen no matter the unemployment rate..

[Wild Cobra]

Problem is, in poll after poll, people still blame Bush rather than Obama for the state of the economy....now the GOP wants to shove Bush Jr Jr down voters collective throats? Ain't gonna happen no matter the unemployment rate..
Keep telling yourself that. We don't mind.

[Nbadan]

Keep telling yourself that. We don't mind.

That's right.....run from the truth....I just deliver it.

[Nbadan]

More truth..



... Obama beats all four of the GOP contenders that PPP included in its survey, but Romney holds him to the smallest lead; the former Massachusetts governor is also the only candidate to keep Obama from getting less than 50-percent support. Obama beats Bachmann by a 53–39 margin, and Rick Perry by only slightly less — 52 percent to 41 percent. Newt Gingrich performs similarly, losing to the president 41–53 ...

Link (http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/13/obama-leads-perry-romney-in-new-poll)

While manufacturing hate for Obama among other wing-nuts, the GOP forgot to get a viable candidate

[Yonivore]

Problem is, in poll after poll, people still blame Bush rather than Obama for the state of the economy....now the GOP wants to shove Bush Jr Jr down voters collective throats? Ain't gonna happen no matter the unemployment rate..
I suspect, by next November 2012, if Obama hasn't made some progress on the economy, they're not going to care who's to blame; they're going to come to the collective realization this President is incapable of fixing it.

You'll notice the poll didn't say if the unemployment rate was 7.2% 14 months out.

There's a whole lot of campaigning ahead -- and there's a whole lot of misery and fucking up for the administration to still inflict on voters.

[boutons_deux]

"if Obama hasn't made some progress on the economy"

you govt-hating right-winger are clowns, fools.

You hate govt, "govt IS the problem", say govt has no role to play in a free-market economy, can't create jobs, trash the stimulus as useless and wasteful,

but but but!!!

... trash Barry for not fixing the economy and creating millions of jobs. :lol

Even more stupid is to believe the Repug job creation trickle-down fantasy that killing regulation and cutting more taxes on the UCA and wealthy will create jobs. :lol

Why isn't sacred, adored free market capitalism creating jobs? Because capitalism doesn't GAF about jobs or any country, only about amassing more capital by any means, no matter the costs on humans and the environment.

[xrayzebra]

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.

Well my friends, do you still think I am a crazy old man?

Even here in San Antonio, they are setting up their "demonstrations"
in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

It is only a matter of time until they turn violent.

"On Wednesday, various labor unions joined the protest, including the United Federation of Teachers, the Transport Workers Union, the Service Employees International Union as well as the Working Families Party and MoveOn.org.

But a report Thursday morning in the New York Times suggests that some of the unions are joining the Occupy Wall Street movement in order to have a louder voice for their own issues.

“The Transport Workers Union, representing more than 200,000 active and retired workers, today endorsed the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests taking place in New York City and called on TWU members and local unions to join similar efforts taking place across the country,” the TWU said in a statement"

...

"At a news conference Thursday to discuss his jobs bill, a reporter asked the president what he thought about the Occupy Wall Street protests.

“I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel,” he said.

Meanwhile, a number of celebrities have taken to the streets to show their support, including filmmaker Michael Moore, actors Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and others.

Even billionaire financier George Soros, who made much of his own fortune on Wall Street, publicly announced his support for the protestors.

During a news conference at U.N. on Monday, Soros said he sympathizes with the protesters and understands the frustrations of small business owners dealing with soaring credit card charges."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-movement-gains-momentum-attention-and-controversy/

Remember, Obama is a Community Organizer. This is what he was
trained to do. And he is doing what he was trained to do.

:depressed

[DarrinS]

Xray,

Regardless of the outcome of the election, I don't think there will be violence. The people who have the most legitimate grievances, i.e. the 50% who pay taxes, aren't likely to form the kind of mobs we are witnessing on Wall Street. They don't have that much free time on their hands.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Xray,

Regardless of the outcome of the election, I don't think there will be violence. The people who have the most legitimate grievances, i.e. the 50% who pay federal incometaxes, aren't likely to form the kind of mobs we are witnessing on Wall Street. They don't have that much free time on their hands.

there..made your post more intellectually honest..

[MannyIsGod]

Xray,

Regardless of the outcome of the election, I don't think there will be violence. The people who have the most legitimate grievances, i.e. the 50% who pay taxes, aren't likely to form the kind of mobs we are witnessing on Wall Street. They don't have that much free time on their hands.

Says a lot, tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny...

Social Security and Medicare are for future benefits. Not taxes.

Yes...

We all disagree on that point, but please do respect that some of us do distinguish a difference.

[DarrinS]

there..made your post more intellectually honest..

Intellectually honest people knew what I meant.

[Nbadan]

Remember, Obama is a Community Organizer. This is what he was
trained to do. And he is doing what he was trained to do.

:depressed

Are you off your pills old man? You seriously think Obama is behind these "Occupy" city drives.. Obama is shitting his pants just like every other politican who works for Wall Street and the Corpo-Oligarchy our government has progressed to....there is power in votes...people have the power to change things...get the money away from the money-changers and into the hands of the people who need it...

....there may well be violence, I hope not, but there are tons of young folks who can't find jobs and a system that just doesn't seem to give a damn...

[Wild Cobra]

Are you off your pills old man? You seriously think Obama is behind these "Occupy" city drives.. Obama is shitting his pants just like every other politican who works for Wall Street and the Corpo-Oligarchy our government has progressed to....there is power in votes...people have the power to change things...get the money away from the money-changers and into the hands of the people who need it...

....there may well be violence, I hope not, but there are tons of young folks who can't find jobs and a system that just doesn't seem to give a damn...
He might not be behind it, but it is what he is agood at. Far better than his skills as president.

I must say "Thank God" that his leadership skills are so poor. If he was sucessful in bringing the change he wanted, we would be the USSA. Not the USA.

[Nbadan]

He might not be behind it, but it is what he is agood at. Far better than his skills as president.

I must say "Thank God" that his leadership skills are so poor. If he was sucessful in bringing the change he wanted, we would be the USSA. Not the USA.

Looking back, I think he has had moderate success....sure he caved in on some issues which are very significant to members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and he is viled by more of the more liberal members, but the context a President works in is important when judging his influence on policy in Washington, and Washington is a very pro-business, pro-lobby, pro-money to get your ass re-elected place....maybe in a second term he will let his 'real skills' lead Washington, but for now he is clearly playing a pro-Washington game...that's why he will be re-elected.....

...but also because the GOP is running a truly shitty field...

[cheguevara]

Obama still projected to be re-elected

http://howeypolitics.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=7096
9/22/2011 1:53:00 PM

BY: CHRIS SAUTTER

WASHINGTON - So you think some of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s views are too far out of the mainstream to be acceptable to most independent voters? That’s what some detractors were saying about former California Governor Ronald Reagan in 1979, a year before the 1980 presidential elections. Yet Reagan went on to easily defeat incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

With the economy sputtering and approval ratings falling, comparisons between the Carter and the Obama presidencies are appearing with increasing frequency. The implication, of course, is that Barack Obama is headed for a similar fate as Carter in his re-election bid. The extreme views of Republican frontrunner Rick Perry will not stand in the way of voters demanding change in 2012, some argue, if the economy continues to falter just as Reagan’s views didn’t prevent voters from voting out Carter.

But it is much too early to reach such conclusions and there are fundamental differences between the two elections. At least one expert, American University professor Allan Lichtman, flatly predicts Obama will be re-elected. Lichtman has developed a model he calls “The Keys To the White House” for predicting the outcome of presidential elections. Using his model, Lichtman has accurately predicted the correct winner of every presidential election since he developed it in 1984.

Lichtman’s model is based on 13 keys that evaluate the performance of the incumbent president. If six or more of the keys produce a negative rating with the sitting president, the incumbent’s party loses the presidential election.

Lichtman says none of the individual keys by themselves are enough to predict the outcome. Thus, a poor economy by itself or even in conjunction with a small number of other keys are insufficient to push a sitting president out of office. Obama is winning 9 of the 13 keys. Lichtman says that record is enough to convince him that Obama will win re-election.

The reality is that Carter’s problems ran significantly deeper than Obama’s. Like Obama, Carter faced economic policy failures. But Carter also experienced significant foreign policy defeats, most notably the Iran hostage crisis and the failed rescue attempt. In addition, Carter faced a serious challenge for the nomination within his own party as Senator Edward Kennedy contested Carter in primaries and caucuses, winning several. And, currently at least, there is no independent candidate challenge for the presidency, as there was in 1980 when liberal Republican Congressman John Anderson ran for president siphoning off Democratic support for Carter.

Aside from the factors in Lichtman’s model, there have been significant demographic changes since 1980 that bolster Obama’s chances of winning re-election. Obama easily defeated John McCain in 2008 while winning only 43% of the white vote, while Carter lost in a landslide in 1980 with 43% of the white vote.

According to a recent National Journal analysis, Obama can win key battleground states such as Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, even Virginia, even as his share of the white vote drops because of increased minority voting. And, on top of that, Obama’s share of the senior citizen vote - Obama’s weakest demographic group - is likely to improve if Perry becomes the Republican nominee. Perry’s statements calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme will undoubtedly push some reluctant seniors into Obama corner.

Rick Perry will have considerably more difficulty winning independent, suburban voters than did Ronald Reagan in 1980. For one thing, Reagan’s views never worried most voters. Reagan was a well-known and well-liked public figure long before he ran for President. His unsuccessful campaign for President in 1976 against Gerald Ford put him in the spotlight and provided him with valuable national exposure. Reagan’s soothing style was re-assuring, not worrisome to most Americans, his views notwithstanding.

The blustery Rick Perry is introducing himself to the nation for the first-time. While the Republican base is enthusiastically embracing his candidacy, most independent voters and conservative Democrats (the so-called “Reagan Democrats”) view Perry warily. Perry’s views and style do scare many independents. Further, the Texas governor looks and sounds too much like his predecessor at a time when approval of George W. Bush’s presidency remains low.

This isn’t to say the odds for Barack Obama’s re-election are overwhelming. Though the killing of Osama Bin Laden has elevated Obama’s favorable ratings on foreign policy and protecting the country to a very high level, there is always time for a disaster overseas. And, Ralph Nader’s possible Democratic primary challenges to Obama - while not in the same league as Kennedy’s challenge to Carter - could prove to be a genuine distraction.

Finally, the Republican Party could wake up and nominate a more electable opponent than Rick Perry. But it isn’t likely. 2012 is shaping up as a year, like 1964 and 1980, when the Republican base seems to be demanding that the party nominate one of its own. The Republican base has never warmed up to Mitt Romney. And, while some in the Republican establishment continue to hope for a more acceptable alternative to Perry, none is likely to emerge at this late date.

Barack Obama has struggled in his first term as President. But that is a far cry from a failed presidency as many consider Carter’s. Besides, Obama is a much better campaigner than anyone the Republicans can put up against him short of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obama still projected to be re-elected

http://howeypolitics.com/m/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=7096
9/22/2011 1:53:00 PM

BY: CHRIS SAUTTER

WASHINGTON - So you think some of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s views are too far out of the mainstream to be acceptable to most independent voters? That’s what some detractors were saying about former California Governor Ronald Reagan in 1979, a year before the 1980 presidential elections. Yet Reagan went on to easily defeat incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

With the economy sputtering and approval ratings falling, comparisons between the Carter and the Obama presidencies are appearing with increasing frequency. The implication, of course, is that Barack Obama is headed for a similar fate as Carter in his re-election bid. The extreme views of Republican frontrunner Rick Perry will not stand in the way of voters demanding change in 2012, some argue, if the economy continues to falter just as Reagan’s views didn’t prevent voters from voting out Carter.

But it is much too early to reach such conclusions and there are fundamental differences between the two elections. At least one expert, American University professor Allan Lichtman, flatly predicts Obama will be re-elected. Lichtman has developed a model he calls “The Keys To the White House” for predicting the outcome of presidential elections. Using his model, Lichtman has accurately predicted the correct winner of every presidential election since he developed it in 1984.

Lichtman’s model is based on 13 keys that evaluate the performance of the incumbent president. If six or more of the keys produce a negative rating with the sitting president, the incumbent’s party loses the presidential election.

Lichtman says none of the individual keys by themselves are enough to predict the outcome. Thus, a poor economy by itself or even in conjunction with a small number of other keys are insufficient to push a sitting president out of office. Obama is winning 9 of the 13 keys. Lichtman says that record is enough to convince him that Obama will win re-election.

The reality is that Carter’s problems ran significantly deeper than Obama’s. Like Obama, Carter faced economic policy failures. But Carter also experienced significant foreign policy defeats, most notably the Iran hostage crisis and the failed rescue attempt. In addition, Carter faced a serious challenge for the nomination within his own party as Senator Edward Kennedy contested Carter in primaries and caucuses, winning several. And, currently at least, there is no independent candidate challenge for the presidency, as there was in 1980 when liberal Republican Congressman John Anderson ran for president siphoning off Democratic support for Carter.

Aside from the factors in Lichtman’s model, there have been significant demographic changes since 1980 that bolster Obama’s chances of winning re-election. Obama easily defeated John McCain in 2008 while winning only 43% of the white vote, while Carter lost in a landslide in 1980 with 43% of the white vote.

According to a recent National Journal analysis, Obama can win key battleground states such as Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, even Virginia, even as his share of the white vote drops because of increased minority voting. And, on top of that, Obama’s share of the senior citizen vote - Obama’s weakest demographic group - is likely to improve if Perry becomes the Republican nominee. Perry’s statements calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme will undoubtedly push some reluctant seniors into Obama corner.

Rick Perry will have considerably more difficulty winning independent, suburban voters than did Ronald Reagan in 1980. For one thing, Reagan’s views never worried most voters. Reagan was a well-known and well-liked public figure long before he ran for President. His unsuccessful campaign for President in 1976 against Gerald Ford put him in the spotlight and provided him with valuable national exposure. Reagan’s soothing style was re-assuring, not worrisome to most Americans, his views notwithstanding.

The blustery Rick Perry is introducing himself to the nation for the first-time. While the Republican base is enthusiastically embracing his candidacy, most independent voters and conservative Democrats (the so-called “Reagan Democrats”) view Perry warily. Perry’s views and style do scare many independents. Further, the Texas governor looks and sounds too much like his predecessor at a time when approval of George W. Bush’s presidency remains low.

This isn’t to say the odds for Barack Obama’s re-election are overwhelming. Though the killing of Osama Bin Laden has elevated Obama’s favorable ratings on foreign policy and protecting the country to a very high level, there is always time for a disaster overseas. And, Ralph Nader’s possible Democratic primary challenges to Obama - while not in the same league as Kennedy’s challenge to Carter - could prove to be a genuine distraction.

Finally, the Republican Party could wake up and nominate a more electable opponent than Rick Perry. But it isn’t likely. 2012 is shaping up as a year, like 1964 and 1980, when the Republican base seems to be demanding that the party nominate one of its own. The Republican base has never warmed up to Mitt Romney. And, while some in the Republican establishment continue to hope for a more acceptable alternative to Perry, none is likely to emerge at this late date.

Barack Obama has struggled in his first term as President. But that is a far cry from a failed presidency as many consider Carter’s. Besides, Obama is a much better campaigner than anyone the Republicans can put up against him short of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

:lmao Perry as the only option to Obama...Mr. "13 keys" can't even project 3 weeks ahead, much less a year...

[cheguevara]

read again as to why Romney will not be the nominee. Perry is probably best bet right now. You can't seriously say Cain will be the nominee either. Most logical bet is still Perry.

[Nbadan]

it's looking like Perry/Palin and Romney/Christie...hmmmm...

[hater]

5 months later, still on point


DISCLAIMER:
only thing that would change the outcome now is a major terrorist attack, major white house scandal, major economic crash(like another real estate crash) or Chuck Norris running for the GOP

[hater]

as you see, for those obsessed with economy, economy is only 2 of 13 keys to the white house in an election. I agree with this analysis

DISCLAIMER:
only thing that would change the outcome now is a major terrorist attack, major white house scandal, major economic crash(like another real estate crash) or Chuck Norris running for the GOP



not much has changed.... :tu

Obama wins easily still




http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.

2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.

4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.

5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

[hater]

I see 9 keys to 4 for Obama.

Only a miracle could save Romney now

[Jacob1983]

Obama is likely to win and serve the 4th term of Bush but it's going to be close no matter what. It won't be like 2008. You won't see Obama celebrating at 10pm central time on election night this time. This shit is going to be close and you probably won't know til midnight or 1am or later on election night.

[Wild Cobra]

4th term of Bush.

My God... You guys are so blind.

[Jacob1983]

Really? Enlighten us.

[Wild Cobra]

A waste of my time since you are beyond help.

[Jacob1983]

Explain to me that Obama has no similiarities to Bush. If you can do that, then congrats. If not, you should accept defeat and move on.

[Wild Cobra]

Explain to me that Obama has no similiarities to Bush. If you can do that, then congrats. If not, you should accept defeat and move on.
Of course you can find similarities. Still, to call him another bush, is beyond retarded.

What about the differences?

[cheguevara]

-not prosecuting their banker buddies, check
- bullshiting about war on terror to extend their political life, check
- bullshiting about war on terror to increase the power of the state over ppl, check
- torturing and punishing whistleblowers, check
- oppresing minorities with their war on drugs, check

differences? oh yeah, one wears tanning lotion the other doesn't

[Wild Cobra]

differences? oh yeah, one wears tanning lotion the other doesn't
Wow...

How do you manage to survive with so few brain cells?

[Jacob1983]

But but Obama was suppose to represent hope and change, not nope and the same.

[Wild Cobra]

13 Monkeys?

[Jacob1983]

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/126207.1020.A.jpg

[boutons_deux]

But but Obama was suppose to represent hope and change, not nope and the same.

He did represent hope and change, change away from the murderous war criminals of 2001-2008. I think that was the huge enthusiasm, for Barry, or ANYBODY, who wasn't dubya/dickhead and their wars and system gaming.

Changing DC for the better (essentially impossible) and any changing in the momentum of Fed govt is extremely difficult, esp when the 1% and UCA own and operate Fed govt, and $1T+ operations like the MIC and NatSec are out of rich of the civilian govt.

Even badly damaged by the health industry, and public option excluded, ACA is damn near miraculous. Even Gecko had to climb down on his condemnation of ACA and say HIS replacemtn ACA would actually keep a lot of Barry's ACA, but while screwing sick people with no insurance.

[Homeland Security]

In this election, 90% of self-identified Republicans will vote Romney, 90% of self-identified Democrats will vote Obama, and 55-60% of self-identified independents will vote Romney.

95% of blacks and 66% of Hispanics will vote Obama. Somwhere between 58% and 63% of whites will vote Romney.

It's not really possible for either candidate to exceed 52% of the popular vote. The outcome of the election depends on minority turnout and whether Romney's white support is on the high or low end.

In 2008, the voter demographic was 74% white, 13% black, 9% Hispanic, and 4% other. In 2010, it was 78% white, 10% black, 8% Hispanic, and 4% other. Much of the discrepancy in the polls comes from disagreement on whether the 2012 electorate will look A) like the 2008 electorate, or B) like something in between the 2008 and 2010 electorates.

If the electorate looks like 2008 and Romney's white support is closer to 58%, then Obama wins handily. If the electorate is halfway between 2008 and 2010 and Romney's white support is closer to 63%, then Romney wins.

Those white 5% in question are moderates in swing states who voted Obama in 2008. Romney's soft-sell "yeah he's a nice guy, but aren't you disappointed he didn't get the job done" schtick is aimed at them. The risk on the Romney side is that in making eyes at those voters he alienates the conservative base, whose turnout he needs.

Obama's strategy continues to be to drive for a low-turnout election where independents disenchanted with him sit it out and he rides his base to re-election. So far this is working. Maybe Romney can thread the needle and keep his base engaged while motivating the moderate independents to vote, but those groups are basically from different countries and I think to keep them together he would need to draw from a well of charisma he just doesn't have.

[CosmicCowboy]

as you see, for those obsessed with economy, economy is only 2 of 13 keys to the white house in an election. I agree with this analysis

DISCLAIMER:
only thing that would change the outcome now is a major terrorist attack, major white house scandal, major economic crash(like another real estate crash) or Chuck Norris running for the GOP

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.


2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.

4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.

This is a plus for republicans. They are the ones that got hurt by Perot, Ron Paul, etc.

5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

Undecided? Give me a fucking break. EVEN the dumbest asshole out there know things are fucked up

6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]

Discounted it? :lmao

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.

His major policy change is unpopular with > 50% of the population

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.

Occupy Wall Street didn't happen?

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.

Fast and Furious?

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

LOL

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

[Homeland Security]

Those keys would apply if we had 1980 demographics in the U.S. If we had 1980 demographics, Romney would win in a landslide akin to Reagan vs. Carter.

But white people only make up 74-76% of the electorate, not 88%. And after decades of tribal sorting, the white vote is stratified by region; there is absolutely no way a Republican could ever win New York like Reagan did.

Black voters turn out in historically high numbers for Obama because he is black. Their vote is about identity; there is literally nothing Obama could do to lose their vote except kill them. If somehow he got the 13th Amendment overturned and re-instituted slavery, blacks would still vote for him 20 to 1 before the shackles went on.

Hispanics vote 2 to 1 for Democrats and have for decades. George W. Bush started to change that, narrowing the gap inside 3 to 2, but then when immigration reform blew up in 2006, and Hispanics realized anew that a quarter to a third of the Republican base hates them for being Hispanic, they went back to historical norms. Their vote is also about identity. The only caveat with Hispanics is that they are comparatively apolitical and have low turnout.

Add blacks and Hispanics together, and you have 18-22% of the electorate that is locked in at 83% Democratic. The only difference any of those above factors make is whether they comprise 18%, 22% or somewhere in between. Then you have the 4% other who vote usually 60% for Democats. What that means is that Republicans have to draw 60% or more of the white vote to break 50% total.

Given the size of the liberal base, if every single white independent in the country voted Republican, you're looking at 66%, which is what Reagan got among whites in 1984. If Romney does that well, and Republicans get their best-case scenario in terms of turnout demographics, Romney tops out at 55%. That is the maximum Republican vote possible with 100% of white independents voting Republican in 2012.

Republicans will never, ever get more than a sliver of the black vote because blacks quite frankly aren't on board with traditional American values. Hispanics will be tough because if the Republicans do anything to appeal to those voters, the nativists and racists in their base will go apeshit.

Unless the GOP figures out how to thread the needle and draw Hispanic voters without making the racists stay home on Election Day, their margin for error for winning elections is going to shrink to zero by 2020. With the GOP's southern white base then frustrated electorally, and a likely financial meltdown happening contemporaneously, they're going to look for other means besides elections to get their way, such as secession, domestic terrorism, etc.

[cheguevara]

whoever said it will be close is right. The strings have been pulling by the "minority" Neocon party(former Republican) to even the stakes. Voting suppression + Unlimited Corporation Campaign Contributions + Party cleansing + Voting Machines will make this a very, very close election.

But as usual, it's all smoke and mirrors, regardless who wins the american public will lose

[Jacob1983]

How many innocent people have been killed because of drone attacks under Obama? Hasn't Obama used more drones on innocent people than evil dummy Bush ever did?

I'm sorry but I simply laugh at people that act like and defend their fantasy of Obama being a complete opposite of Bush. Obama and Bush are extremely similar on foreign policy and fighting the so-called war on terror. Just man up and admit that. I for one will at least respect you a little more because you showed some humility by admitting the truth.