|
United States22883 Posts
The polling information from this far out isn't accurate data, though. The stat in question was Obama's approval rating amongst Jewish voters, who generally have a very high turnout. He is going to win Jewish voters in a landslide, regardless of what the approval ratings say today or tomorrow.
It's been 40 years since people first started saying Jews would begin voting for Republicans 40%+, and it just doesn't happen. Before the 2008 election there were stories about how Obama couldn't win over Jews and it was all based upon raw polling data without any further analysis or nuance going into it. Then he wins 78% of their votes.
One of the problems with early polling data is that it really doesn't reflect how people will feel/think in November. People say they're unhappy with the point of sending a message, but when push comes to shove it won't sway their vote, even if they're still unhappy. Of course it depends on the group and issue, but this is what happens most of the time. This year, the situation is even worse. The only way Obama fails to secure the Jewish vote is if he bombs Israel. Otherwise, he's going to get 80%+ this year because Romney and Santorum are absolutely not getting those votes.
They can pander to AIPAC all they want but the crusty old men in that room are still diametrically opposed to most of Santorum's social views and Romney's religion has been trying to convert dead Holocaust victims. They're both fucked.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On March 15 2012 01:17 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 00:48 Jibba wrote:
The candidates say anything they can to get a vote, and the media says anything they can to get ratings. All three cable news networks are just terrible. I implore people not to watch them for election coverage, just go to the NYTimes or Washington Post front page instead. Try the 538 blog through the New York times if you want some real insight, the people that run that blog seem to have all the knowledge when it comes to elections.
538 is brilliant, but if you follow the main NYT Caucus Blog, they add in Nate Silver's analysis and they include the rest of their political bloggers as well. They do a much better job of remaining neutral and avoiding sensationalist nonsense.
|
On March 15 2012 01:30 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:55 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 10:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:31 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:14 DoubleReed wrote:On March 14 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:04 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 09:54 Probulous wrote:On March 14 2012 09:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It has everything to do with Obama's appeal to the American electorate. The vast majority of the people who do not support bombing Iran are going to vote for Obama anyway, regardless of what he does. However, by bombing Iran, Obama will cement his position among many independents and groups from whom he has lost support (re: Jews.... just look at what happened in Weiner's district to see how badly democrats are doing among that voting block). That's pretty sickening. Bombing another country to shore up your own local support. Holy shit what has the world come to. I mean people are so jaded about politicians but if they persuaded by this kind of crap you can't really blame the politicians can you? I try my best not to become a cynic but reality really bites. Its not true. Obama has not lost support disproportionally among jewish americans ( gallup), and most of them live in uncompetitive states in the general anyhow (NY, Mass, Cali). Next to that, to my knowledge the jewish american community is essentially split on bombing Iran, there's no actual broad support for bombing Iran (ignoring AIPAC which has very little to do with the actual jewish community). The issue is just as divisive within the US population as a whole as it is within the jewish american community (something like 52ish percent in the american population as a whole, 54ish in the jewish) (Quite the useless stereotype you have there) How can you say that Obama has not lost support among Jewish Americans when that poll that you cited shows that he has lost 30 fucking points? In the past, Jewish Americans have voted for democrats almost as reliably as the African American population. Disproportionally was the keyword in that sentence. And really the approval rating doesn't mean they would vote republican considering the options. This kind of willful denial is so amusing. Ignore 2010. Ignore all the special elections where democrats lost when they should have won. It's different in 2012. Just wait. I honestly don't know how to argue with nostradamus-like predictions of the future. Show me a poll that has a republican candidate even near Obama in a state with a significant jewish american population and you might have a point. It's way too early to pay much attention to polls. I think this is absolutely true. People tend to put a lot more faith in polling than they realistically should. That's rather obvious. But if you actually want to discuss the possible outcomes of either the primary or the general at this point, people should refer to actual information, especially when making claims about the preference of a bloc of voters. 'Wait and you'll see I'm right' or 'my gut feeling tells me otherwise' aren't actual arguments, which is one (of many) problems I have with xdaunt's posts.
So wait, my posts stating that Obama is in trouble are the "gut feeling" and unsubstantiated posts? As opposed to what, all of the posts from everyone saying that Obama is going to win simply because the republican field is weak? Fine, let's explore why Obama is in trouble in a little more detail:
Here are the main reasons:
1) Bad economy. This is the big one. The economy is not improving fast enough such that Obama can claim credit for a turnaround this fall. Unemployment is high and will remain high because of the sheer number of people that left the workforce and will eventually return. Moreover, Republicans have some very easy lines of attack on Obama on the economy that include: 1) Obama's stimulus package failed to keep unemployment below 8% despite Obama's promise, 2) Obama's administration has obstructed private enterprise that would create jobs (XL pipeline, Boeing plant in SC), 3) Obama has wasted government resources and intervention on a failed and corrupt green energy industry (Solyndra and the three or four other green energy companies that received federal funding and went belly up. These are big vulnerabilities.
2) Obamacare. It was a bad idea when it was passed, and it is looking like an even worse idea now. Obamacare has always been unpopular and it singlehandedly drove voters overwhelmingly to republicans in 2010. I don't know if you all have been following the recent news, but Obamacare, to no one's surprise, is turning out to be twice as expensive as initially pitched to Americans. Oh, and in case anyone forgot, the Supreme Court will be ruling on Obamacare in June. This issue will be coming up again this fall, even if Romney is the nominee.
3) High gas prices. Does anyone really believe Obama and his administration when they say that they are doing everything that they can to put downward pressure on gas prices? Of course not.
4) High debt. Biggest spender in American history. If this issue is communicated clearly to the American people by the republican nominee, this may be the most devastating issue of all. The numbers are incredibly stark. Moreover, the problems in Europe are only going to draw more attention to America's own debt issues.
5) Afghanistan. Anyone paying attention sees imminent disaster looming in Afghanistan. Things aren't going well over there. The democrats and Obama own this war. In 2006 when they were arguing against the surge in Iraq, their point was that Afghanistan was the "good war" that we should be fighting. The irony is that it is highly unlikely that they meant what they said and had any interest in continuing the fight over there. The democrats were merely playing politics, and it trapped them into assuming responsibility for the war.
6) Lack of achievement. What can Obama point to as a positive achievement? The only thing that comes to mind is saving GM and Chrysler, but even then, that achievement is marred by selling the auto industry to the UAW, forcing GM to make a car that no one wants (the volt), and the fact that a managed bankruptcy that slashed union pensions (not government intervention) is what ultimately allowed these companies to be profitable again. As I mentioned above, Obamacare is unpopular. The stimulus package is a dirty word as well. What else does Obama have to stand on? The answer is nothing. He's not going to be able to get by on preaching about hope and change this time around. His campaign pitch is going to go like this: "Ignore what I have done over the past 4 years. I'm still better than those crazy republicans." Is this really going to sell well when the election is ultimately going to be a referendum on him? Probably not.
So what evidence is out there suggesting that I am right in arguing that Obama has problems? First, Obama's approval rating is low. Of course, this will always fluctuate. More importantly though, all you have to do is look at how elections have gone since 2009. In short, democrats have been getting pummeled -- often times on their own turf (like the Ted Kennedy's senate seat and NY-9). The 2010 elections were disastrous for democrats on national and state levels. Hell, just look at all of the democrat incumbents that have decided not to run for reelection such as Barney Frank and Ben Nelson. They see what's coming. The obvious counterargument is that 2012 is not 2010, thus it will be different. That might ultimately be the case. Then again, pigs may fly in 2012 as well. I'll believe it when I see it.
|
On March 15 2012 01:47 Jibba wrote:
The polling information from this far out isn't accurate data, though. The stat in question was Obama's approval rating amongst Jewish voters, who generally have a very high turnout. He is going to win Jewish voters in a landslide, regardless of what the approval ratings say today or tomorrow.
It's been 40 years since people first started saying Jews would begin voting for Republicans 40%+, and it just doesn't happen. Before the 2008 election there were stories about how Obama couldn't win over Jews and it was all based upon raw polling data without any further analysis or nuance going into it. Then he wins 78% of their votes.
One of the problems with early polling data is that it really doesn't reflect how people will feel/think in November. People say they're unhappy with the point of sending a message, but when push comes to shove it won't sway their vote, even if they're still unhappy. Of course it depends on the group and issue, but this is what happens most of the time. This year, the situation is even worse. The only way Obama fails to secure the Jewish vote is if he bombs Israel. Otherwise, he's going to get 80%+ this year because Romney and Santorum are absolutely not getting those votes.
They can pander to AIPAC all they want but the crusty old men in that room are still diametrically opposed to most of Santorum's social views and Romney's religion has been trying to convert dead Holocaust victims. They're both fucked.
I think this is related to Ron paul vs obama as well. The surveys currently shows obama being only a slight favourite vs obama (most likely cus a lot of democrats will vote for ron paul). However I am convinced that is not gonna happen in a real election. Ron Paul's libertarian POV is currently being seen as something new and refreshing. There isn't reallly a lot of controversy about the fact that Ron Paul don't want government involved in helping the poor (as repulibican voters don't really care about that). However in a real election this will get more attention (in a negative way) and leftist will vote for Ron Paul.
|
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything.
|
On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything.
Yes, you're correct about Bin Laden. I forgot about that one. But let's look at the others: the economy, high debt, and Obamacare. You're not even characterizing those as outright positive achievements, and you seem to admit they are problems, even if they are "undeserved" problems. Again, Obama really doesn't have anything positive to run on in an election that it will inevitably be a referendum on him. This is obviously a huge problem.
So really now, who's actually wearing the tinted glasses?
EDIT: And I forgot to mention: you didn't even address the last part of my post listing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that democrats/Obama are in trouble.
|
On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything.
Wait wait I think I can answer this. *puts on elephant hat*
1) Bush started the process of killing Bin Laden, Obama just got lucky to pick up where he left off and took credit for the kill.
2) Economy is growing despite Obama's best efforts to kill it. Most of the growth is in states where the GOP won in 2010 and have struggled but persevered to overcome the obstacles the Obamination has set forth.
3) Obamacare is the worst thing that's happened to this country since FDR. From the utter disregard of states rights and the constitution to trampling of religious freedoms, Obamacare is just a tool the government is using to encroach on my life.
4) Bush was winning the wars in the middle east and Obama just cuts and runs like the coward he is while playing dangerous with Pakistan and starting unconstitutional wars with Libya.
5) Our country was founded on Christian ideals, whats wrong with Christey Mc Sweatervest?
6) The high gas prices right now are a direct result of Obama blocking drilling and using the FED as a tool to save his overspending ass.
Did i get it mostly right?
|
My favourite part of the economy rhetoric is when its going wrong, its 100% Obamas fault /pitchforks. When it is going well, it is not at all because of Obama and his policies, he has 0% influence on its poitive aspects /pitchforks. People see this line of reasoning, and somehow eat it up. They almost even phrase it like that for god sake. I dont understand how stupid some people can be.
The Republican party just plays to the fear of the people. It seems like they just try to scare the shit out of people in an effort to paint themselves as the only possible saviours of a damned nation. Its such a strange strategy, yet somehow it works. Confuses the hell out of me though.
|
On March 15 2012 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Yes, you're correct about Bin Laden. I forgot about that one. But let's look at the others: the economy, high debt, and Obamacare. You're not even characterizing those as outright positive achievements, and you seem to admit they are problems, even if they are "undeserved" problems. Again, Obama really doesn't have anything positive to run on in an election that it will inevitably be a referendum on him. This is obviously a huge problem. So really now, who's actually wearing the tinted glasses? EDIT: And I forgot to mention: you didn't even address the last part of my post listing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that democrats/Obama are in trouble.
Killing bin Laden is something that could be a dealbreaker. I did answer economy/high debt/biggest spending. Also ObamaCare, he did not achieve what he wanted, but it´s a step towars universal healthcare, his solution to a problem which is healthcare in the US. No he cannot run on the economy - at least not as a positive success. In these times pretty much no (western) incumbent politician can - maybe if you are Mr. Hu from China and want to get applause from your posse of boot licking Comrades. I am not even outright defending Obama - just pointing out flaws I see with your quite partisan assessment - at least that´s my opinion. On the other hand it´s nice for a change to have someone who is not completely sold on Obama getting his 2nd term  . Though if I could bet on it today - I probably would.
|
On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything.
Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.)
Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed.
|
On March 15 2012 03:13 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Yes, you're correct about Bin Laden. I forgot about that one. But let's look at the others: the economy, high debt, and Obamacare. You're not even characterizing those as outright positive achievements, and you seem to admit they are problems, even if they are "undeserved" problems. Again, Obama really doesn't have anything positive to run on in an election that it will inevitably be a referendum on him. This is obviously a huge problem. So really now, who's actually wearing the tinted glasses? EDIT: And I forgot to mention: you didn't even address the last part of my post listing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that democrats/Obama are in trouble. Killing bin Laden is something that could be a dealbreaker. I did answer economy/high debt/biggest spending. Also ObamaCare, he did not achieve what he wanted, but it´s a step towars universal healthcare, his solution to a problem which is healthcare in the US. No he cannot run on the economy - at least not as a positive success. In these times pretty much no (western) incumbent politician can - maybe if you are Mr. Hu from China and want to get applause from your posse of boot licking Comrades. I am not even outright defending Obama - just pointing out flaws I see with your quite partisan assessment - at least that´s my opinion. On the other hand it´s nice for a change to have someone who is not completely sold on Obama getting his 2nd term . Though if I could bet on it today - I probably would.
You're missing the point, as have the two posters above. The real issue is how will the American people view these issues? Do you really think that they are going to give Obama a pass on the economy? History strongly suggests that they won't ("It's the economy, stupid."). Do you really think that the American people, who really hate Obamacare, are going to give Obama a pass on it because Obama was unable to pass universal healthcare? Do you really think that the American people are going to sympathize with Obama on Obamacare because the media has supposedly given it a bad rap?
Seriously, who's actually being the partisan advocate? I'm explaining why Obama and the democrats are in trouble, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by recent election results. What I'm getting in response is a bunch of excuses from liberal sympathizers rather than a realistic assessment of Obama's current situation and prospects for reelection.
|
On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed.
Finally, someone who gets it.
|
It's true that the Republicans have the advantage going into this election for a variety of reasons. The Republicans have to totally throw away the election to lose.
Luckily, it looks like that's exactly what they're doing, with candidates that mainly appeal to radical conservatives instead of the moderates, while Obama has more appeal for the moderates.
|
On March 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:13 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Yes, you're correct about Bin Laden. I forgot about that one. But let's look at the others: the economy, high debt, and Obamacare. You're not even characterizing those as outright positive achievements, and you seem to admit they are problems, even if they are "undeserved" problems. Again, Obama really doesn't have anything positive to run on in an election that it will inevitably be a referendum on him. This is obviously a huge problem. So really now, who's actually wearing the tinted glasses? EDIT: And I forgot to mention: you didn't even address the last part of my post listing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that democrats/Obama are in trouble. Killing bin Laden is something that could be a dealbreaker. I did answer economy/high debt/biggest spending. Also ObamaCare, he did not achieve what he wanted, but it´s a step towars universal healthcare, his solution to a problem which is healthcare in the US. No he cannot run on the economy - at least not as a positive success. In these times pretty much no (western) incumbent politician can - maybe if you are Mr. Hu from China and want to get applause from your posse of boot licking Comrades. I am not even outright defending Obama - just pointing out flaws I see with your quite partisan assessment - at least that´s my opinion. On the other hand it´s nice for a change to have someone who is not completely sold on Obama getting his 2nd term . Though if I could bet on it today - I probably would. You're missing the point, as have the two posters above. The real issue is how will the American people view these issues? Do you really think that they are going to give Obama a pass on the economy? History strongly suggests that they won't ("It's the economy, stupid."). Do you really think that the American people, who really hate Obamacare, are going to give Obama a pass on it because Obama was unable to pass universal healthcare? Do you really think that the American people are going to sympathize with Obama on Obamacare because the media has supposedly given it a bad rap? Seriously, who's actually being the partisan advocate? I'm explaining why Obama and the democrats are in trouble, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by recent election results. What I'm getting in response is a bunch of excuses from liberal sympathizers rather than a realistic assessment of Obama's current situation and prospects for reelection.
You're completely ignoring how weak the Republican field is though. In 2004, Bush had sub-50% approval rating in the months leading up to the election. Obama is at 50% now. Bush won in 2004 because he had a weak opponent. Do you not see how the same is likely to happen to Obama this year?
|
Canada5062 Posts
It's saddening the energy that people put into debates about the issues facing the President and the would-be candidates. None of this really matters. People are applying rational constructs to try and make sense of a process that is inherently false. Debate only further legitimizes a very mendacious system that is badly in need of fixing.
A two-party democracy? Give me a break. Most of you would not accept a Starcraft league that only recognizes a champion from one of two pro teams.
|
On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed.
I basically agree, especially with the perception part. I am definitely not in a position to predict how the average joe sees him, and it is a fact that America is generally a center right/rather conservative country. But what I read here and on the interwebz somewhat tells me(just my gut feeling!) that the average liberal tends to be convinced that Obama will get his 2nd term( mainly taking into consideration the republican nomination process) and the average conservative finding himself in an awkward spot where he is sort of disillusioned by his own candidates which can result in a lack of enthusiasm. And that´s basically where I try to go the middle way and say that both are neither wrong nor right. Anything can still happen - depending on the campaign and the platforms they will use to run on.
|
On March 15 2012 03:29 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:13 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Yes, you're correct about Bin Laden. I forgot about that one. But let's look at the others: the economy, high debt, and Obamacare. You're not even characterizing those as outright positive achievements, and you seem to admit they are problems, even if they are "undeserved" problems. Again, Obama really doesn't have anything positive to run on in an election that it will inevitably be a referendum on him. This is obviously a huge problem. So really now, who's actually wearing the tinted glasses? EDIT: And I forgot to mention: you didn't even address the last part of my post listing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that democrats/Obama are in trouble. Killing bin Laden is something that could be a dealbreaker. I did answer economy/high debt/biggest spending. Also ObamaCare, he did not achieve what he wanted, but it´s a step towars universal healthcare, his solution to a problem which is healthcare in the US. No he cannot run on the economy - at least not as a positive success. In these times pretty much no (western) incumbent politician can - maybe if you are Mr. Hu from China and want to get applause from your posse of boot licking Comrades. I am not even outright defending Obama - just pointing out flaws I see with your quite partisan assessment - at least that´s my opinion. On the other hand it´s nice for a change to have someone who is not completely sold on Obama getting his 2nd term . Though if I could bet on it today - I probably would. You're missing the point, as have the two posters above. The real issue is how will the American people view these issues? Do you really think that they are going to give Obama a pass on the economy? History strongly suggests that they won't ("It's the economy, stupid."). Do you really think that the American people, who really hate Obamacare, are going to give Obama a pass on it because Obama was unable to pass universal healthcare? Do you really think that the American people are going to sympathize with Obama on Obamacare because the media has supposedly given it a bad rap? Seriously, who's actually being the partisan advocate? I'm explaining why Obama and the democrats are in trouble, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by recent election results. What I'm getting in response is a bunch of excuses from liberal sympathizers rather than a realistic assessment of Obama's current situation and prospects for reelection. You're completely ignoring how weak the Republican field is though. In 2004, Bush had sub-50% approval rating in the months leading up to the election. Obama is at 50% now. Bush won in 2004 because he had a weak opponent. Do you not see how the same is likely to happen to Obama this year?
Kerry was worse than any of the current republican candidates. He makes Romney look as empathetic as Bill Clinton. That said, Bush wasn't exactly the strongest candidate in either 2000 or 2004, but he still won.
More importantly, Bush won in 2004 because things were generally going well on all fronts: in the wars and in the economy. As I have pointed out above, Obama really doesn't have anything going for him.
|
On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it.
So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want.
|
The only reason Obama has any chance of losing this election is that Fox News fills so many people's brains with an absolutely astounding amount of horse shit. Journalism is the canary in our political coalmine. And that canary has been fucking dead for a while.
edit:
How can you actually win an election like that?
Your entire electorate only gets their news/opinions from 1 source....
You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc...
I think this republican primary has proven once and for all that no one gives a shit about facts or evidence contrary to their opinions.
|
On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:On March 15 2012 02:45 Doublemint wrote:
@ XDaunt :
If you stopped looking through the red glasses for once, you´d come to a more sensible conclusion. NOTHING to show for? Really? How about killing Bin Laden? An economy that is growing pretty slowly but steadily. High debt argument after the greatest depression since the 1930s? Obamacare( a term phrased by right wingers) is mostly unpopular due to months and months of media spin, disgusting hyperbolic language included(death panels/Communism/Czar/Fascism...etc.)
I give you that there have been quite some fuckups like Solyndra - yet compared to neocon playing world police and war against terror, that´s peanuts. Also that printing a shitton of money will be pretty bad and bite them twice in the ass(Obama and the FED) due to high gas prices. But I don´t quite see how foreign issues like Afghanistan will be a major problem for Obama. It´s neither the war he started nor can he be directly responsible, quite the contrary. The sooner the US will leave the better for Obama(not necessarily the US, but we are talking politics here).
All that without even mentioning he will run against Christey Mc Sweatervest or Mr. Flip Flop himself. Republicans would have to run the campaign of the century, to spin all that into their favor. Not sure that´s going to happen. Money can´t buy you everything. Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.) Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want.
It´s quite doable to win elections like that - you just described how politics works. And don´t kid yourself that in Canada only rational arguments and facts will be put into consideration... Though I am quite sure that in the long run it will neither be good for the country nor its people. Every nation has the government it deserves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
