Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
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.
"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.
Well my friends, do you still think I am a crazy old man?Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
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/...d-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
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.
there..made your post more intellectually honest..Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Says a lot, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
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.
Intellectually honest people knew what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
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...Quote:
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
....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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
...but also because the GOP is running a truly shitty field...
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
it's looking like Perry/Palin and Romney/Christie...hmmmm...
5 months later, still on point
Quote:
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.... :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by hater
Obama wins easily still
Quote:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...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.
I see 9 keys to 4 for Obama.
Only a miracle could save Romney now
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.
4th term of Bush.
My God... You guys are so blind.
Really? Enlighten us.
A waste of my time since you are beyond help.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
What about the differences?
-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