A few things I've been watching:

Gallup is showing an increase in distrust of big government along with a corresponding drop in distrust of big business. Furthermore, shifts in the opinions of Democrats is fueling this shift. This is not good for a president who's trying to portray Wall Street as the enemy and government solutions as the answer. If he cannot steer the narrative towards Republican intransigence and woo independant/moderate voters...I think the progressive message he pedled in Kansas will be a loser.

Hillary
She continues to be a factor. The same pollsters I mentioned earlier are now arguing for a "Draft Hillary" movement in New Hampshire. Yes I know she's already said she's not running. BUT if there is enough of a buzz...she may decide to run. This is doubtful at this time. What is more likely is she'll replace Biden on the ticket...in fact I wouldn't be surprised to see him resign between now and then (although I'm not exactly holding my breath). There are so many interesting things to say about this. If Hillary runs and things turn around between now and '16 she's good to go for president. However, if not then Obama could ruin the chances of his Democratic successor for the nomination.

Condi Rice
What about the Republican's Veep? I've heard about Condi Rice, which I think would be an inspired choice. You've got a black female who is accomplished in government, academia and the arts. Furthermore, she adds much needed foreign policy experience/knowledge to a field that is focused solely on Domestic issues.

Finally...@ Camero...
I think Huntsman has no traction because he has very few bona fide conservative credentials. He's broken with the party on things like Global Warming and Gay Marriage and served as a high ranking Obama official. I don't think his Mormon faith has anything to do with his struggles in the polls.

At 12/19/11 04:23 PM, TheMason wrote: Condi Rice
What about the Republican's Veep? I've heard about Condi Rice, which I think would be an inspired choice. You've got a black female who is accomplished in government, academia and the arts. Furthermore, she adds much needed foreign policy experience/knowledge to a field that is focused solely on Domestic issues.

She would be an excellent pick... for a sane candidate. If someone other than Romney gets the nom, I think she'd be an excellent choice (though I expect a Gingrich nomination would find Huntsman a better fit), and if Romney gets it, he might be looking for a VP that appeals to the base more than to independents such as Huckabee, but she would still give the ticket the racial punch to counter Obama, and possibly force a VP ticket switch to Clinton, which, honestly, I think would be a disastrous move for Obama.

Finally...@ Camero...
I think Huntsman has no traction because he has very few bona fide conservative credentials. He's broken with the party on things like Global Warming and Gay Marriage and served as a high ranking Obama official. I don't think his Mormon faith has anything to do with his struggles in the polls.

You mean, a sane conservative who has executive experience, serious foreign policy chops, and will appeal to independents for just those reasons that the GOP might not love him?

Seriously, they're flipping insane not to run him.

It all depends. Obama's base is very unified, and moderate Democrats are shrinking in number. The Republican base could rally around someone like Gingrich, but a moderate Republican like Romney could drive hardline Republicans to not vote at all. And I doubt that Romney could woo enough moderate Democrats or independents to vote for him. If Gingrich wins the primaries, he may have an edge against Obama (especially because he can tout his whole "I balanced the budget in the 90s" schtick). If Romney wins, his base won't rally around him because some say he's a RINO. I think Gingrich could win against Obama, but Romney wouldn't.

It really depends upon the Republican candidates.

At 12/20/11 05:25 PM, Ranger2 wrote: It all depends. Obama's base is very unified, and moderate Democrats are shrinking in number. The Republican base could rally around someone like Gingrich, but a moderate Republican like Romney could drive hardline Republicans to not vote at all. And I doubt that Romney could woo enough moderate Democrats or independents to vote for him. If Gingrich wins the primaries, he may have an edge against Obama (especially because he can tout his whole "I balanced the budget in the 90s" schtick). If Romney wins, his base won't rally around him because some say he's a RINO. I think Gingrich could win against Obama, but Romney wouldn't.

The problem is Obama is basically down to his base. Recently his campaign has talked very publicly about the fact that he's lost the white working class vote...which has long been the group that's one them the WH. So he's going into the election with a party that on the whole is rather uninspired to vote for him again. Furthermore, there are numerous "Draft Hillary" movements.

On the Republican side...I don't think Romney would loose that many Republican votes despite his status as being the moderate.

Also...I'm pretty sure that Romney would do pretty well with both independents and moderate Dems. Most of the polling shows these are the groups that are abandoning Obama and I think Gingrich will have trouble with baggage both from his personal life and political life.

But 2012 will most likely be a Republican year, but that all depends on how the economy does between now and November. If it remains where it is...Obama will be one-term president.

At 12/20/11 12:27 AM, Ravariel wrote: You mean, a sane conservative who has executive experience, serious foreign policy chops, and will appeal to independents for just those reasons that the GOP might not love him?

Seriously, they're flipping insane not to run him.

Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman has had an account here this entire time! How shocking!

At 12/20/11 09:43 PM, animehater wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman has had an account here this entire time! How shocking!

Shh! You'll blow my cover, dammit!

Scratch that, Obama may have a chance next year, since that NDAA bill states that US citizens CAN'T be detained.

Ron Paul now doesn't have my vote anymore, since he tried to fool america into believing Obama was a traitor.

*bump*

I thought I'd bump this topic because Obama has had a very good three months. Back in September and November I thought the Republican candidate was favored to win between 60-80%. However, some things have changed and the tide is starting to break in favor of Obama. Right now I think Obama has a slightly better than 50% shot at getting re-elected. Here's why:

(NOTE: Just a reminder, this is a topic about handicapping the election and examining the electoral fundamentals and NOT about whether or not Obama should or should not be re-elected. If you want to flame on that topic please post HERE. Thank you.)

POSITIVES
1) Unemployment Rate
November, December and January have all seen a drop in the unemployment rate from above 9%. No president has one re-election with unemployment over 7.8%, and that was Reagan who only won because the rate was dropping and people were feeling optimistic about his policies. Back in September/November I said that unemployment would have to drop down to about 8.2% for Americans to feel this way about Obama and his administration. I also said in December we'd have to wait until February to see if unemployment would continue to drop...or if it would prove to be seasonal in nature.

Well according to Reuters unemployment for February will continue this trend; down to 8.3%.

2) Approval Rating
Probably as an effect of better jobless numbers, Obama's average approval rating is now 48.6%. This is significant because no president with a 48% or higher approval rating has lost re-election.

3) Silly Republicans
I've heard ppl argue that the slog between Obama and Hillary in '08 didn't hurt Obama in the general election. I have to disagree. In a year where the economy tanked because the financial system was teetering on collapse while a Republican was in office...the Democrat should have been commanding a lead in the polls and then the ballot box. However, Obama trailed McCain until September 18 when Bear-Sterns collapse and McCain wigged out and suspended his campaign. Obama quipped that as president one had to multi-task so he was going to continue campaigning.

Then on election day he won an electoral college loopsided victory of 365 to 173 (spread of 192). His popular vote was 52.9% to 45.7% (spread of 7.2%) . Compare this to Reagan in 1980: EC was 489 to 49 (spread of 440) and popular vote of 50.7% to 41.0% (spread of 9.3%)...oh yeah Reagan had a Republican (John Anderson) who ran third party and drew 6.6% of the vote most of which probably came from would-be Reagan voters. 2008 should have seen the Democrat win with much, much better numbers more like Reagan's 1980 victory.

The difference? Reagan did not fight anyone for his nomination like Obama did.
The point? I believe tough nomination fights hurts the party who is taking on either a) an incumbent president or b) the nominee of the out-going president's party.
How this favors Obama? (Just to spell it out...) The continued fighting between Romney and the Republican base is going to hurt whoever get the nomination making beating Obama much more difficult.

But it's not all roses and penicorn farts for Obama...

Negatives
1) Unemployment Rate
Wheras Reuters has polled economists about their predictions of February's unemployment rate, Gallup is predicting the BLS will put the February unemployment rate back up around 9.0%. The bad news for Obama: Gallup polls about 30,000 households in a method more akin to the BLS' methodology than Reuters. So we'll have to see what tomorrow brings. If the number goes back up...well Obama will start to look like toast again. Which brings me back to his approval rating...

2) The Bradley Effect
I think this could be one of the most racially divisive elections in American history (in contrast to 2008). I have seen and heard so many charges being against Obama=racism that this could suppress the number of poll respondants who truthfully answer on whether or not they are going to vote for the Republican. I put this number (if the Bradley Effect is in play) at 3-6% which means the real number to assure his re-election is not 48%, but more in the realm of 51-54%. We won't know this until election and we see how closely the poll numbers match the score at the ballot box.

3) Gas Prices
When Obama took office gas was at $3.11. Now it is at $3.76 according to CNN money. This is bad news for Obama since it means higher inflation and the increased fuel costs add a burden to family budgets both directly and indirectly. Now I know some may be getting ready to respond that the president doesn't have any control over the price at the pump. But these are most likely Obama supporters saying the same thing Bush supporters said in '04. But the reality is 1) the public still holds the prez responsible and 2) the president does have control over some things that directly impact the price of gas (interest rate decreases and policies that lead to a falling US dollar forces OPEC to up what they charge per barrell AND how many permits the administration approves to drill within the US effects our domestic supply).

What this means is if gas prices continue to go up...Obama will get the blame.

4) Israel and Iran
Things ain't lookin good over there. If Israel bombs Iran Obama is going to be in one helluva pickle. Appease his doveish base...or look impotent to independents who view Israel favorably and Iran negatively. Also, what about Egypt and the stability of the Arab Spring he has touted as his foreign policy successes? What about Syria and Lybia? In the end the Mid East could be the straw that breaks the back of Obama '12.

At 7 days ago, TheMason wrote: *bump*

There is nothing in here I don't agree with, though there is one more factor that might be in the negatives for Obama: Real wages have been falling steadily since 2007, and the uptick in hiring has not had any mirror in an uptick in wages. Basically, those people who are going back to work, are working significantly lower-paying jobs.

Also, the polls on Obama are all over the place. A Washington Post poll has him pretty severely in the negatives, (only a 46% overall approval rate) especially when it comes to Gas prices. Also, an ABC/NYT poll has him at 41% approval rate. Yet a Reuters/Ipsos poll has him at 50%, so go figure.

I wonder, though, if an Iranian engagement would be at all bad for Obama. If Israel strikes in May, as has been reported that they could, we would undoubtedly be dragged in. There will be no dawdling from Congress, as any hesitation will be blood in the water at their next election. Obama will know that he can't afford not to go, politically. Regardless of the Dovish nature of the left, such a move might only solidify positive feelings for him. The doves aren't about to vote for Romney or Santorum, and war has generally been a good campaign move for incumbents (LBJ excepted).

At 8 days ago, TheMason wrote: *bump*

Hey Mason,

My fear is that the economy will do better despite what Obama has done heading forward to November. Republicans will have to get the message across that his policies will force the US economy into a nosedive in the coming years. Remind the public that it was the national debt that caused so much loss in foreign confidence in the US dollar, and show how Obama ran a larger deficit in one year, most of it wasteful spending, then W. had in his first 6 years. Say something like, yeah you can vote for Obama, but you'll be screwed. Republicans just aren't apt at getting the message across.

Obama can't run on policy, the numbers cannot support him. He's got one thing going for him and that's democrats are idiots. Probably is most of these republicans are the same.

Oh god, stop voting for Frothy!

At 2 days ago, n64kid wrote: Obama can't run on policy, the numbers cannot support him.

I wouldn't bank on that. The rest of the Country seems to be waking up to just how useless Congress is. Obama can very easily (and with at least some level of truth) deflect his policy shortcoming onto Congress.

He's got one thing going for him and that's democrats are idiots. Probably is most of these republicans are the same.

If the Democrats are idiots for liking Obama, does that make the Republicans who are seriously considering both Newt and Santorum functionally retarded?

At 4 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: I wouldn't bank on that. The rest of the Country seems to be waking up to just how useless Congress is. Obama can very easily (and with at least some level of truth) deflect his policy shortcoming onto Congress.

Keystone pipeline and sound clips from the Obama 08 campaign will destroy him. Don't even have to take it out if context ether.

If the Democrats are idiots for liking Obama, does that make the Republicans who are seriously considering both Newt and Santorum functionally retarded?

newt is a miserable human being but I don't mind his supporters. Frothy on the other hand.... Yes all retarded, whether they're functional or not is up to you.

On a more serious topic, how on earth did the huskies get snubbed from the tourney?

At 9 hours ago, n64kid wrote: Keystone pipeline and sound clips from the Obama 08 campaign will destroy him. Don't even have to take it out if context ether.

I don't buy that the Keystone pipeline will hurt him much. The division there rests completely on party lines. If the Republican Candidates wish to get into a fight over Partisan policy, they're gonig to have a tough slog, especially with the nutcases being allowed to remain in so long.

How exactly would the sound clips hurt him? I could think of a couple directions, but I want to clarify how you are thinking with the above sentence.

newt is a miserable human being but I don't mind his supporters. Frothy on the other hand.... Yes all retarded, whether they're functional or not is up to you.

The saddest thing, from a purely strategic standpoint, is that the Republicans should be having an easy go of this. The economy is bad. The President's approval ratings are fairly low. Many independents and center left are unsure how much they like Obama. If the republicans didn't have their heads so far up their ass, they would be walking away with a landslide victory. However, because of the A+ level candidates they found, it may actually turn out to be a landslide the other direction. In Husky terms, they Couged it.

On a more serious topic, how on earth did the huskies get snubbed from the tourney?

One word: underachieving. Losing at home to NDSU, and losing to OSU in the conference tournament sealed it.

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

I don't buy that the Keystone pipeline will hurt him much.

Swing states, my good man! Mizzou benefits greatly. Places like Colorado which are far from the coasts depend heavily on midwestern pipelines, and if you've ever driven in the Rockies, high gas prices will be an issue.

The division there rests completely on party lines. If the Republican Candidates wish to get into a fight over Partisan policy, they're gonig to have a tough slog, especially with the nutcases being allowed to remain in so long.

Agreed, Santorum needs to step aside and let the grown-ups debate. It's a shame my man Huntsman dropped out after New Hampshire. Oh well, my party is insane.

How exactly would the sound clips hurt him? I could think of a couple directions, but I want to clarify how you are thinking with the above sentence.

He made a lot of promises that weren't kept. A lot of broken promises too, mainly all the biggies of his 08 campaign.

Here's a link to some liberal site that skews facts in favor of Obama.

The saddest thing, from a purely strategic standpoint, is that the Republicans should be having an easy go of this. The economy is bad. The President's approval ratings are fairly low. Many independents and center left are unsure how much they like Obama. If the republicans didn't have their heads so far up their ass, they would be walking away with a landslide victory. However, because of the A+ level candidates they found, it may actually turn out to be a landslide the other direction. In Husky terms, they Couged it.

In a Romney vs Obama match up, I'm seeing a Republican victory. Santorum should have given up months ago. Damn it Frothy.

One word: underachieving. Losing at home to NDSU, and losing to OSU in the conference tournament sealed it.

Pac-12 is down down down, but I still expected the conference regular season champ making it.

At 9 hours ago, gumOnShoe wrote:

3) Gas Prices. In the end it won't be his fault, but yes public opinion isn't known for its bright and astute observations.

Weren't you blaming Bush for funding his big oil buddies last election? Anyways, I don't want to start a hissy fit, but I hear Bush is responsible for making oil production at it's highest level, while Obama is taking credit. I also hear Obama's policies are bringing production way down in the coming years, yet Obama denies it. Kind of unpopular during an election year, but yes, federal policies do greatly affect oil and gasoline prices.

At 32 minutes ago, n64kid wrote: federal policies do greatly affect oil and gasoline prices.

And by greatly, you mean 'slightly'.

At 37 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

And by greatly, you mean 'slightly'.

I did say federal policies, not just the president. Supply and demand affect oil prices. Taxes and regulations significantly affect gas prices. Gas by me in California is about 4.30, roughly 30 cents of that are state taxes, 19 cents are federal taxes, maybe a nickel goes to the station, and roughly 6 cents goes to the big oil companies. The rest is the cost of drilling refining and transporting the stuff.

I'd say the difference in gas prices here vs Europe are great, and not slight. 4.30 vs 8 bucks is great!

At 24 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 32 minutes ago, n64kid wrote: federal policies do greatly affect oil and gasoline prices.

And by greatly, you mean 'slightly'.

Fact Check:

1) Federal taxes: One of the things coming out the think tank at U of Chicago is the idea that government can effect societal change through regulatory changes. Things like taxes and fees can be used to turn customer towards or away from products. Many in the Obama administration (including himself) have talked about the need to raise energy prices as a way to spurn Americans from fossil fuels. By cutting tax subsidies to oil companies, the price we pay at the pump is going to increase because there is added costs to the oil suppliers (added by government) that makes it way to the pump.

2) Gasoline recipies: Federal regulations and state regulations mean that refineries have to make blends of gasoline to sell in various markets. What does this mean? There is no one single US oil/gas market. Instead there are "island markets". So since refineries have to pump out about 18 different gasoline recipies...and they cannot "cook" all 18 blends at one time...this is a government forced inefficiency on the industry that drives up prices.

3) Permitting process: The federal government and the president in particular have great power in allowing the oil companies to expand and build new infrastructure (eg: pipelines & refineries). This has a negative effect on the oil supply and ability to efficiently produce gasoline. This president in particular is perceived (and I think fairly so) as being hostile to the oil industry and has blocked new permits in the Gulf of Mexico and the Keystone pipeline. Furthermore, the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf meant current permit holder's permits were invalid. This meant that operations that were allowed before the BP oil rig explosion of 2010 were invalid and had to be re-applied for.

4) Monetary process: The president has oversight over the Federal Reserve system and therefore how valuable the US dollar. What does this have to do with the cost of oil? The Marshall Plan following WWII made it where every barrell of oil sold in the world was sold in US dollars. Which means that policies such of quantative easing increases the supply of US dollars making them less valuable. Oil producers on the other hand see their oil as just as valuable as before the dollar's value shrunk...so they raise the price of crude.

Fact Check Bottomline:
The assertion that the government (much less the president with his executive authority) has very little to do with the price of oil is a fallacy. While, the president may not be the single most inluential player is up for debate. However, he is a MAJOR player in what the price we pay at the pump is. The policies that he advocates and/or how he executes the laws passed by congress can cause the price to go up or down significantly enough to qualify for major player status.

What this means for Obama 2012?
I think Obama's energy policies, like his healthcare efforts, is out of step with the majority of Americans' priorities. He has gambled on green/renewable energy technologies and made it a central focus of his presidency and in so doing has funneled significant amounts of money to these emergening techs. This is all well and good...however Americans love a winner and so far his initiatives have yet to bear fruit and instead appear to be a waste of taxpayer mone. y (NOTE: waste at best; some of the 'bundlers' who raised money for Obama in '08 have been involved in companies like Solyndra which adds a petina of corruption to the company's failure.) This will make for easy fodder to point to these failures as proof of his incompetence.

Couple this with his famous quote about how under his policies energy costs "...will skyrocket..." and the Republican nominee will have a potential knock-out punch for Obama come election day.

At 3 minutes ago, TheMason wrote:

At 24 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 32 minutes ago, n64kid wrote: federal policies do greatly affect oil and gasoline prices.

And by greatly, you mean 'slightly'.

Fact Check:

Aw Mason, I missed you <3

At 16 seconds ago, TheMason wrote: Fact Check:

1) Federal taxes: One of the things coming out the think tank at U of Chicago...

One thing I meant to post here was to post the connection to what's going on in the Ivory Tower of U of Chicago and Obama:

Obama taught law there and became tight with several professors across the University's various programs. When he went to Washington he took many of these academics with him. Most prominent would be Cass Sunstein who advocates using the power of government to effect social change.

So...Obama took the current schools of thought floating around U of C with him to 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave to advise him during his administration.

At 1 hour ago, n64kid wrote: 19 cents are federal taxes

$.19 per gallon is hardly "greatly" effecting prices.

At 1 hour ago, TheMason wrote: 1) Federal taxes:

I don't doubt that that has some effect. What I do doubt is that it has a big effect.

2) Gasoline recipies:

Such varied recipies aren't a result of the Federal Government. They're a result of State governments. Just goes to show that State's Rights isn't always the best option.

3) Permitting process:

If this had any significant impact, gas now would be higher than it was prior to Obama's presidency. However, gas is still cheaper now than it was in the Summer of 2008.

4) Monetary process:

The current value of the US dollar has more to do with the defecit and with our trade defecit. The budget is in the hand of Congress. the trade defecit is in the hands of the private sector.

Fact Check Bottomline:
The assertion that the government has very little to do with the price of oil is a fallacy.

No. The true fallacy is that the President is responsible for every swing in gas prices. (God forbid supply and demand have any effect on prices)

he is a MAJOR player in what the price we pay at the pump is.

No he's not. At the very biggest estimate, he might both directly and indirectly control 10% of the price.

however Americans love a winner and so far his initiatives have yet to bear fruit and instead appear to be a waste of taxpayer money.

If we want to talk about wastes of money, let's seriously entertain a war in Iran.

Also, I suggest those who bitch about the ACA testify to how our system is actually worth the shitload of money we pay now. But, that is for a different thread.

Couple this with his famous quote about how under his policies energy costs "...will skyrocket..." and the Republican nominee will have a potential knock-out punch for Obama come election day.

Romney? Yes. Newt or Santorum? No chance in hell.

At 28 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1 hour ago, TheMason wrote: 1) Federal taxes:

I don't doubt that that has some effect. What I do doubt is that it has a big effect.

There are several types of gasoline taxes: direct and indirect. A direct tax is the tax you pay per gallon at the pump which for the most part goes into the federal highway fund. At $0.19/gal this is about 5% of what I pay for my gallon of gas.

However, you also have subsidies to the oil companies that free them of some of their tax liability to the federal and state governments. Now, without these subsidies oil companies will have to pay more taxes and energizes his base (strikes both environmental and progressive cords). However, the companies still have to show a profit and grow their businesses...so rather than just eat this cost they pass it along to the consumer.

We're talking about 4 Billion dollars Obama is talking about ending which translates to another $0.03/gal for the consumer. This adds another 1% to what the government, by playing with their power to tax, could add to our gas budgets. So we're up to 6% already.

And this isn't all inclusive I'm sure. I'm sure there are other tax levers that the president and congress has that could increase or decrease what we pay at the pump.

2) Gasoline recipies:

Such varied recipies aren't a result of the Federal Government. They're a result of State governments. Just goes to show that State's Rights isn't always the best option.

Actually the federal government does play a part in these formulas. However, I do agree with you that the states may be too powerful in this process. Therefore I've argued that it may just be an appropriate use of the Interstate Commerce Clause for the federal government to step in and create a more uniform form of formulated gasoline blends.

3) Permitting process:

If this had any significant impact, gas now would be higher than it was prior to Obama's presidency. However, gas is still cheaper now than it was in the Summer of 2008.

A little intellectual honesty please?
1) This is March...in March of 2008 the national average was $3.16/gal. Now it is $3.54 where I live so before all the increases that go with summer driving we will probably see gasoline top the Summer 2008 average of $4.

2) I am not arguing that the government plays the only role in gas prices, thus I'm not arguing that the government is the only significant player. Like recessions/depressions price fluctuations have many different causes and each one is different from the one before. In 2008 it was speculators playing the market...we'll have to see what the cause is this year. But since Obama is calling for an end of subsidies as part of a political game doesn't bode well for him looking powerless/blameless on this issue.

3) Gas prices have remained high throughout his administration, which combined with his comments and his actions in the Gulf and w/Keystone will give this argument legs.

4) Monetary process:

The current value of the US dollar has more to do with the defecit and with our trade defecit. The budget is in the hand of Congress. the trade defecit is in the hands of the private sector.

*sigh* You're about 1% correct.
* Trade deficit: irrelevent and never talked about. We're talking about the value of the US dollar vs other currencies...yes the trade deficit has an impact. But the fastest way to devalue currency is through policies such as quantitative easing...which is under the purview of the Treasury and the Fed (Executive agencies NOT congressional ones).
* The budget is approved by Congress...but typically submitted by the president. But this is what the Federal government is going to spend...not monetary policy. Two totally different things.
* In 2007/8 a falling US dollar led OPEC to raise the price of crude thereby inflating crude prices worldwide.

Fact Check Bottomline:
The assertion that the government has very little to do with the price of oil is a fallacy.

No. The true fallacy is that the President is responsible for every swing in gas prices. (God forbid supply and demand have any effect on prices)

Straw man argument...I'm not arguing that he is the most significant player nor the most significant player every time. However, I do think it is a fair argument that this president's policies have played a part in this swing and that will make him vulnerable in November.

he is a MAJOR player in what the price we pay at the pump is.

No he's not. At the very biggest estimate, he might both directly and indirectly control 10% of the price.

1) In taxes category alone I've established that he's at least responsible for 6%. I think it's fair to say that in the other three economic levers he's at least in control (directly or indirectly) of another 6% each which puts it at about 24%. (My personal opinion is the number is no higher than 33%.)

2) Furthermore, in a system as large and complex as the oil economy 10% is actually HUGE.

however Americans love a winner and so far his initiatives have yet to bear fruit and instead appear to be a waste of taxpayer money.

If we want to talk about wastes of money, let's seriously entertain a war in Iran.

1) Irrelevent, an attempt to flame/divert the argument.
2) I don't think a war in Iran is a good idea.

Also, I suggest those who bitch about the ACA testify to how our system is actually worth the shitload of money we pay now. But, that is for a different thread.

Irrelevent, an attempt to flame/divert the argument by building a strawman...but I think you see this.

Couple this with his famous quote about how under his policies energy costs "...will skyrocket..." and the Republican nominee will have a potential knock-out punch for Obama come election day.

Romney? Yes. Newt or Santorum? No chance in hell.

I agree with Newt. I think he's got too much baggage and dirt.

Santorum? I can see him pulling another Reagan (minus the charm and charisma). If it comes down to economic issues and Obama losses that argument for his re-election I think he's done. Santorum could easily beat him. If it wasn't for unemployment starting to get better...Newt would have a good shot!

At 1 hour ago, TheMason wrote: However, you also have subsidies to the oil companies that free them of some of their tax liability to the federal and state governments. Now, without these subsidies oil companies will have to pay more taxes and energizes his base (strikes both environmental and progressive cords). However, the companies still have to show a profit and grow their businesses...so rather than just eat this cost they pass it along to the consumer.

I really don't like this argument. While it seems very plausible, I hate it. Coming from the Right it just smacks of hypocrisy. This argument is saying that Obama removing government intervention in the Oil industry as a bad thing, but when Obama shuts down oil rigs due to safety concerns, or vetos a pipeline, it become Obama is interfering in oil.

So we're up to 6% already.

I'd hardly call 6% great or important. Especially seeing as 22 cents is a common variation from region to region.

And this isn't all inclusive I'm sure. I'm sure there are other tax levers that the president and congress has that could increase or decrease what we pay at the pump.

Like I said (or at least i thought I said) before, I still wouldn't see 10% as enough to blame rising gas prices on Obama.

Actually the federal government does play a part in these formulas. However, I do agree with you that the states may be too powerful in this process. Therefore I've argued that it may just be an appropriate use of the Interstate Commerce Clause for the federal government to step in and create a more uniform form of formulated gasoline blends.

The toughest thing for the Commerce Clause is that it would set a floor for the price that the states could be free to go above. I think a spending clause would be a better option. Tie environmental Federal funds, or some of those highway funds on the usage of a specified four recipes (4 taking in the three major recipes and diesel).

A little intellectual honesty please?

I do admit I was pushing that one. :)

* In 2007/8 a falling US dollar led OPEC to raise the price of crude thereby inflating crude prices worldwide.

The US dollar is falling becuase the economy tanked. Nay, it fell because the private sector created hundreds of billions of fake dollars and then was forced to pay them out to the public after they crashed in order not to destroy the average man's savings.

Straw man argument...

Really? If that were the case, why was Obama so quickly blamed for the price increases?

I'm not arguing that he is the most significant player nor the most significant player every time. However, I do think it is a fair argument that this president's policies have played a part in this swing and that will make him vulnerable in November.

The real fallacy I see here is blaming Obama for rising prices. The points you made above have been pretty much constant all term. Nothing Obama has done has warranted the 20% (complete guess) rise in prices over the past 2 months. The gas taxes might have risen 2 cents, but that is in response to the rise, not a cause of it. The 3 cents you mention for oil subsidy removal is merely three cents if is just started, but I doubt it just started.

So in the end, even if Obama is a major player, I have yet to see anyone tie this specific rise to anything specific Obama has done or not done.

1) In taxes category alone I've established that he's at least responsible for 6%. I think it's fair to say that in the other three economic levers he's at least in control (directly or indirectly) of another 6% each which puts it at about 24%. (My personal opinion is the number is no higher than 33%.)

Specifics please.

2) Furthermore, in a system as large and complex as the oil economy 10% is actually HUGE.

In the aggregate, but we don't judge gas prices in the aggregate, we judge them by unit. The average person isn't saying "Obama's 10% involvement in gas is costing our country hundreds of millions!" they say "a 40 cent rise per gallon in two months is too much!" While the aggregation issue is valid, it is not being used to legitimize the claims so it's not that relevant here.

1) Irrelevent, an attempt to flame/divert the argument.
2) I don't think a war in Iran is a good idea.

It's not an attempt to divert. It's a question at the motives of the argument. The Republican candidates can cry waste of money for no gain all they want, but so long as they support a war in Iran they cannot claim superiority on that basis.

Irrelevent, an attempt to flame/divert the argument by building a strawman...but I think you see this.

This is diverting, but not meant to build up a strawman or anything. You mentioned this was like healthcare and I was expressing my dislike of that view and inviting such debate to continue in a more appropriate thread.

I agree with Newt. I think he's got too much baggage and dirt.
Santorum? I can see him pulling another Reagan (minus the charm and charisma). If it comes down to economic issues and Obama losses that argument for his re-election I think he's done. Santorum could easily beat him. If it wasn't for unemployment starting to get better...Newt would have a good shot!

Santorum's definitely got some of the pieces to pull that off. The difference between Santorum and Reagan here? Reagan didn't have/openly support/vow to foist upon others absolutely fucking nutty social beliefs. The economy can be extremely important up until the moment some believe their lifestyle and culture are threatened.

Hey sorry to gang up on you. 2 vs 1 isn't fair, so you can ignore me and continue with this when Mason comes back.

At 11 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1 hour ago, TheMason wrote:

I really don't like this argument. While it seems very plausible, I hate it. Coming from the Right it just smacks of hypocrisy. This argument is saying that Obama removing government intervention in the Oil industry as a bad thing, but when Obama shuts down oil rigs due to safety concerns, or vetos a pipeline, it become Obama is interfering in oil.

Tax subsidies isn't government interference, it's government preference. While I'd normally be against tax breaks for specific industries, I am not against this. The reasons are because there are so many taxes already. As I brought up earlier, there is a federal fuel tax at around 19 cents. Despite this being higher than the amount of profit that these big evil oil companies receive, the federal government also taxes those profits, and taxes distributions of those taxed profits paid to investors. Not to mention all the costs of compliance to federal guidelines and restrictions. Something's up when you can buy oil for less than a dollar a gallon in OPEC nations while we pay 3-4 bucks. Our largest supplier, Canada, isn't that far away to create high shipping costs to bring oil to refineries and bring it out to the stations. So my claim is that federal policies are the direct result of why some countries pay less than a buck, some 8 bucks a gallon, and some 3-4.

Tangent question, do you believe that the government should make well more than 80% off of gasoline sales? That is, if the stations and oil companies combined make around 10-11 cents a gallon in profit, a state like California takes in 30+ cents, and the federal government takes in 19 cents? This doesn't include the corporate taxes on profits either.

I'd hardly call 6% great or important. Especially seeing as 22 cents is a common variation from region to region.
Like I said (or at least i thought I said) before, I still wouldn't see 10% as enough to blame rising gas prices on Obama.

You might, but if gas is at 3 bucks, and a month later it's 3.30, people will notice and complain. Our claim is that yes, while there's a lot playing into supply and demand that is out of the government/president's control, a lot of it can be greatly influenced by what they say and do.

I do admit I was pushing that one. :)

You heard/made it up ;)

The US dollar is falling becuase the economy tanked. Nay, it fell because the private sector created hundreds of billions of fake dollars and then was forced to pay them out to the public after they crashed in order not to destroy the average man's savings.

Dollar was declining well before the great recession, even when we were at the highest levels of production under Bush. This was because we were printing money to cover deficits. Before you go off blaming Bush for those, we've had like 35 deficits out of the last 37 years, so it's a bipartisan failure.

Really? If that were the case, why was Obama so quickly blamed for the price increases?

He looks like the straw man from the Wizard of Oz :P

The real fallacy I see here is blaming Obama for rising prices. The points you made above have been pretty much constant all term. Nothing Obama has done has warranted the 20% (complete guess) rise in prices over the past 2 months. The gas taxes might have risen 2 cents, but that is in response to the rise, not a cause of it. The 3 cents you mention for oil subsidy removal is merely three cents if is just started, but I doubt it just started.

So in the end, even if Obama is a major player, I have yet to see anyone tie this specific rise to anything specific Obama has done or not done.

If you haven't seen what Obama has not done, you must not listen to the news that much. But I digress. You know who energy secretary Steven Chu is? This is a guy that follows what Mason was saying about taking the U of C ideas and bringing them to the white house. Chu, while gas prices were at similar levels in 2008, said he wanted gas prices to be at Europe's 10 dollar level. Have the people suffer with high gas prices while an alternative may or may not be feasible within 10 years.

It's not an attempt to divert. It's a question at the motives of the argument. The Republican candidates can cry waste of money for no gain all they want, but so long as they support a war in Iran they cannot claim superiority on that basis.

Military spending at times of war vs at times of peace aren't that different. Social security, medicare, welfare, medicade? That's 60% of the federal budget. Not to mention that's based on total spending, not revenue.

At 3 hours ago, n64kid wrote: Hey sorry to gang up on you. 2 vs 1 isn't fair, so you can ignore me and continue with this when Mason comes back.

The harder the argument the better the gain. Anyway, this is not the first time I have had 2 people going at me at once, nor is this the most that have at one time. Spend 7.75 years on the BBS and it's bound to happen.

Tax subsidies isn't government interference, it's government preference.

Coming from the party that generally is gung ho free market, this is nothing but flat out hypocrisy. I could argue for a long time how subsidies can have some seriously nasty effects, but that's for another day.

While I'd normally be against tax breaks for specific industries, I am not against this.

I am for this too, however, I want strings attached. if the companies are going to take my money, I want them to have some other responsibilities to me.

That is, if the stations and oil companies combined make around 10-11 cents a gallon in profit,

I really need to see where this number came from. I have a hard time seeing giants like Exxon who rake in billions a year do so largely off of a dime or so a gallon split with the station. I have not done the research, but my gut is screaming "bullshit" at the top of its lungs at those numbers. I am open to being proven wrong, however that would take two separate sources.

You might, but if gas is at 3 bucks, and a month later it's 3.30, people will notice and complain. Our claim is that yes, while there's a lot playing into supply and demand that is out of the government/president's control, a lot of it can be greatly influenced by what they say and do.

I would love to hear exactly how the federal Government could cause, or have a large hand in causing, prices to raise 10% in a month.

You heard/made it up ;)

You wish. I remember ditching my car in April of 08 and feeling so lucky as my coworker would stop for gas on his way to dropping me off, and he'd drop $4.30+ a gallon.

What I was pushing was the connection, not the price levels.

Dollar was declining well before the great recession, even when we were at the highest levels of production under Bush. This was because we were printing money to cover deficits. Before you go off blaming Bush for those, we've had like 35 deficits out of the last 37 years, so it's a bipartisan failure.

The US dollar was actually quite steady until about 2008. Was it falling in value? yes, but it was more of a mollasses down a slightly inclined surface crawl than a fall. The Yen went from 120 to the dollar in 2007, to 70 to the dollar in 2008. It's not even like Japan is doing so rosy either.

If you haven't seen what Obama has not done, you must not listen to the news that much. But I digress. You know who energy secretary Steven Chu is? This is a guy that follows what Mason was saying about taking the U of C ideas and bringing them to the white house. Chu, while gas prices were at similar levels in 2008, said he wanted gas prices to be at Europe's 10 dollar level. Have the people suffer with high gas prices while an alternative may or may not be feasible within 10 years.

I mean to cause the 20%+ jump in the last couple months. What specifically has he done at or around that time that caused or aided the massive jump as of late? The Republicans are slamming him for the high gas prices (compared to January, not 2006). But really, what has he done to cause that specific rise?

Military spending at times of war vs at times of peace aren't that different.

Not too sure about that one. I have a hard time thinking where the military complex could piss away 2-4 trillion dollars in peace time.

Social security, medicare, welfare, medicade? That's 60% of the federal budget. Not to mention that's based on total spending, not revenue.

Not all of these are wastes. Both of the medical services lift a major weight off of hospitals and clinics and off of the insurance pool. We may be paying for Medicare, but we'd pay for the care, and/or the results of the lack thereof if we didn't have them.

At 18 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

Stuff

I started responding point by point. But then decided against it, the Mods have been gracious enough to let me have two presidential election thread b/c they are so totally different. I'll re-state, this is about the electoral fundamentals or (to use a football analogy) talk about the strengths and weaknesses and stats of two teams going to the superbowl.

Now my thread about whether or not Obama deserves re-election is for the fans of each team to go in and flame each other and argue and piss on each other's arguments.

Our conversation is starting to drift towards the second one.

Now...fair or not gas prices leaves Obama vulnerable in a key economic issue if they continue to rise. They need to start declining a la unemployment or his chances at a second term becomes very doubtful.

At 11 minutes ago, TheMason wrote: Now...fair or not gas prices leaves Obama vulnerable in a key economic issue if they continue to rise. They need to start declining a la unemployment or his chances at a second term becomes very doubtful.

This is a fair point. Regardless of who is really to blame for high gas prices (a topic that I regret to say is a little bit above my head), people usually look at who's in charge when the economy is going sour, and they punish that guy by voting for the other guy. It's not always fair, but it is what it is.

On the other hand, I wouldn't place TOO much importance on gas prices in predicting who people are going to vote for, as there is little evidence to suggest that the price of gas by itself has had much of an influence on people's decision when it comes to electing a President. Economic growth and unemployment rates is what really matters, and while those things and gas prices normally go hand in hand, if the economy is improving overall while gas prices are going up, the public seems more willing to forgive the price of gas and give the party in charge their support. If employment rates and GDP continues to improve, while gas prices worsen, Obama's re-election chances shouldn't be affected too much.

This is not to say that gas prices have NO effect on voting behavior in and of itself, it's just not the most important factor that people take into consideration.

At 2 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: The harder the argument the better the gain. Anyway, this is not the first time I have had 2 people going at me at once, nor is this the most that have at one time. Spend 7.75 years on the BBS and it's bound to happen.

Good motto to live by.

Tax subsidies isn't government interference, it's government preference.

I am for this too, however, I want strings attached. if the companies are going to take my money, I want them to have some other responsibilities to me.

So if they receive a reduced tax burden, we better have lower prices at the pump? I think it already works like this. Kind of the point about how the federal government is a significant force in gasoline prices.

I really need to see where this number came from. I have a hard time seeing giants like Exxon who rake in billions a year do so largely off of a dime or so a gallon split with the station.

That's the problem right there.... less than 3 percent of ExxonMobilâEUTMs earnings are from U.S. gasoline sales.

Here's a biased source,
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/27/gas-prices-
and-industry-earnings-a-few-things-to-think-about/

but it foots to their 10-k
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials /drawFiling.asp?docKey=136-000119312512078102-610T6HPSOKLTBS 7LOKNUFI4A4D&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-K

I have not done the research, but my gut is screaming "bullshit" at the top of its lungs at those numbers. I am open to being proven wrong, however that would take two separate sources.

I googled "how much of gas prices goes to profits"

Top Link
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxe s-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/

âEUoeFor every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. ThatâEUTMs not a typo. Two cents.âEU

Second Link
http://jb-williams.com/4-25-06.htm

"For starters, many average Americans who hold stock in the oil companies, either directly or indirectly through their 410k or mutual fund. But the fact is, the gross profit margin for a gallon of gas in America today, is what it has always been, on average, .08 cents per gallon, (2.5% at $3.00 per gallon). Though retail gas prices fluctuate with crude prices and supply vs. demand, the gross profit margin per gallon remains roughly the same at all times. (No evidence of price gouging here.)

However the federal government profits approximately .59 cents per gallon through gasoline taxes, 7 ½ times or 750% that of the oil producers themselves and 20% of the price at the pumps. Pay attention here, Washington liberals are attacking oil companies for their 2.5% gross profit margin, while Washington is profiting 20% per gallon. Democrats answer? Tax some more?

If oil companies cut their profit margins by 50%, it would drop the price of a gallon of gas by only .04 cents per gallon. If Washington law makers cut their take by 50%, gasoline would cost .30 cents per gallon less. If the federal government didnâEUTMt tax gasoline at all, the price per gallon at the pumps would be $2.40 per gallon instead of $3.00 per gallon and the oil companies would still be at a respectable 2.5% gross profit margin. Who is gouging whom? "

I'm still going with my 10-11 cent, split between station owners and operators and the giant.

I would love to hear exactly how the federal Government could cause, or have a large hand in causing, prices to raise 10% in a month.

Crisis in Iran... oil prices goes up. Federal government doesn't have a response, no words on securing more oil for the US in the nearby future, no words on allowing the keystone pipeline to be built, dismissing the GOP plan as just drill baby drill, and you have markets responding negatively, pushing oil even higher.

The US dollar was actually quite steady until about 2008. Was it falling in value? yes, but it was more of a mollasses down a slightly inclined surface crawl than a fall. The Yen went from 120 to the dollar in 2007, to 70 to the dollar in 2008. It's not even like Japan is doing so rosy either.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=EURUSD%3DX+Interactive#ch art2:symbol=eurusd=x;range=19990101,20120319;indicator=volum e;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on

USD to Euro, since 1999. Dollar was steadily losing value to the Euro from 2002 to 2008. Much to do with printing. Now that the Eurozone is collapsing, a lot of that has stabilized. Dollar isn't in freefall, but the world is.

I mean to cause the 20%+ jump in the last couple months. What specifically has he done at or around that time that caused or aided the massive jump as of late? The Republicans are slamming him for the high gas prices (compared to January, not 2006). But really, what has he done to cause that specific rise?

Answered above, lack of a solid plan to meet our energy needs in the short and long term. Most of his policy is just the analysis/bashing of the other side.

Not too sure about that one. I have a hard time thinking where the military complex could piss away 2-4 trillion dollars in peace time.

As Mason said below, this is getting way off topic so let's save it for another thread.