Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 18,435 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 26th, 2012 @ 11:00 PM

At 8/26/12 02:31 AM, TheKlown wrote: The left is not only stupid, most of them are unattractive aswell and bum off the welfare system.

Seriously, check the welfare maps. You'd be surprised how much more money the conservative states take over the liberal states.

hateyou1
hateyou1
  • Member since: Mar. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 01:17 AM

He will lose the election. Even black voters who supported him in 2008 are turning against him in 2012. The media wants you to believe that Obama would win by a landslide just so that conservatives don't vote. People are realizing that Obama has failed. He raised the debt ceiling by 8 trillion dollars, supports regulations killing small businesses and continues to create more of them, says that the middle class is fine, believes that every achievement is made by government and not by the people who actually made it happen, supports large government, believes that money grows on trees, has absolutely no concept of business, never had a single job in his life, and is married to a wife who hates America and secretly supports the taliban (yes it is true btw).

So yeah, anyone who supports Obama still are pretty much beyond stupid.

DoctorStrongbad
DoctorStrongbad
  • Member since: Oct. 20, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 55
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 06:23 PM

I will be so happy if Obama loses the election. People have been telling me that he win this election for last last two years.


I have a PhD in Troll Physics
Top Medal points user list. I am number 12

Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 06:50 PM

Obama will obviously win, given that the alternative is infinitely worse in every way.


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 27th, 2012 @ 09:23 PM

At 8/27/12 07:37 PM, 24901miles wrote: I think he will win and Romney will run again in 2016.

Romney may run again, but if he gets the nod, the GOP has some severe problems...

Sense-Offender
Sense-Offender
  • Member since: May. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 29
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 08:21 PM

At 8/27/12 01:17 AM, hateyou1 wrote: and is married to a wife who hates America and secretly supports the taliban (yes it is true btw).

You're fucking nuts.


one of the four horsemen of the Metal Hell
sig by Jay11

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 28th, 2012 @ 09:19 PM

At 8/26/12 02:31 AM, TheKlown wrote: The left is not only stupid, most of them are unattractive aswell and bum off the welfare system.

Have you ever made a post that wasn't shit?

MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 07:06 AM

Im thinking romney would win aswell.

Then again, the repuplicans probably got a lot of bad rep from the person who said rape was legitimate or something along those lines and some of the average americans may think " I dont want to vote for rape! thats bad!"


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 12:09 PM

It's truly hard to tell what's going to happen. Obama's supporters aren't too enthusiastic pointing a likely loss for him. Yet at every turn Romney and the entire GOP are trying their hardest to turn people off.

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Aug. 29th, 2012 @ 04:26 PM

At 8/27/12 06:23 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I will be so happy if Obama loses the election. People have been telling me that he win this election for last last two years.

I overheard a conversation from my dad that the Conservatives need to start being pro-gay, stop being racist and start being pro-middle-class. Republicans are slowly realizing that population growth is going to hurt their chances in both this election and in the elections afterwards if they don't start changing their political beliefs. My family and I often watch the Rachel Maddow Show, the Ed Show, and CNN quite a bit, and where this is coming from is quite staggering for the GOP. Considering that nearly 50% of them are racist, it's not hard to imagine how they're going to lose this election. Plus, with right-wing nutjobs like Todd Akins saying dumb shit like the GOP usually does, Romney's positions are being hurt.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Cosmic
Cosmic
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Artist
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 3rd, 2012 @ 02:50 PM

"Woohoo lets vote for Obama because even though all presidents lie, he gives us free shit because we don't want to work for it!"


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 3rd, 2012 @ 05:01 PM

At 8/29/12 04:26 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:
At 8/27/12 06:23 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I will be so happy if Obama loses the election. People have been telling me that he win this election for last last two years.
I overheard a conversation from my dad that the Conservatives need to start being pro-gay, stop being racist and start being pro-middle-class. Republicans are slowly realizing that population growth is going to hurt their chances in both this election and in the elections afterwards if they don't start changing their political beliefs. My family and I often watch the Rachel Maddow Show, the Ed Show, and CNN quite a bit, and where this is coming from is quite staggering for the GOP. Considering that nearly 50% of them are racist, it's not hard to imagine how they're going to lose this election. Plus, with right-wing nutjobs like Todd Akins saying dumb shit like the GOP usually does, Romney's positions are being hurt.

1) You need to stop listening to your dad and quoting it as if its gospel.

2) You need to broaden your base of where you get your news. Maddow and Ed are like quote Hannity and O'Reily from Fox. They are just filtering the new through an ideological bias and then presenting it to you in an entertaining format. In the end you hear and think what they want you to hear and think. And yes...the same goes for right-wing punditry.

3) That 50% of Republicans and conservatives is a pretty extraordinary claim, do you have a source? Afterall extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It also shows a major lack of historical knowledge.
A) The GOP is the party that emancipated the slaves.
B) The Democrats are the party that had the KKK as the terrorist wing of its party from reconstruction to LBJ.
C) It's the Republicans who got LBJ his 'Great Society' and civil rights initiatives passed...the Democrats stalled it.
D) FDR courted blacks only to undercut the Republican base (until him 95% of blacks voted Republican). However, he referred to them as 'Useful N*****s' only good for their votes. Then he pushed legislation like minimum wage and pro-union bills that actually cut black in-roads into the mainstream economy. Minimum wage raised the cost of labor which hurt unskilled laborers who found themselves priced out of the labor market because they could not compete with someone with skills...even for menial jobs. And back then unions were extremely racist because they saw black workers as cheap competition for work and so giving them more power (ie: National Labor Board) allowed them to keep blacks out of the labor market and from competing with their white members for jobs. (In many ways the unions used the same tactics, more effectively, against blacks during the Great Depression that they tried to use against things like NAFTA and MFN for China in the 1990s.)

The common reply to this little history lesson is: "well in the 1970s Nixon pursued a 'Southern Strategy' that brought the Republicans more in line with the South and the Democrats became more of a Northeast and West Coast party. Thus the Republicans took in all these bigots that were once Democrat."

There is truth in that. However, the Republicans did disavow David Duke's runs on the Republican ticket in Louisianna. And did change attitudes towards race in the South positively. For example Governors Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal are up and coming stars in the party in Louisianna and South Carolina. Both are of Indian descent in the deep South. Both are viewed favorably by those evil racists in the Tea Party, as well as Marco Rubio who is Cuban.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 3rd, 2012 @ 06:22 PM

With the economic numbers being what they are, I do not think Obama should be doing as well as he is doing.

While tied on Real Clear Politics' average of polls, when you take toss-up states out of the mix (ie: polls are within the margin of error) you get Obama with 332 electoral votes. Nate Silver's prediction model over at the New York Times' 538 Blog gives Obama about a 75% chance of winning.

Silver's model includes both economic factors and election polls. However poli sci models based solely on economic predictors show an Obama loss. Obama's approval rating is just under what he needs to get re-elected (ie: 48%), but the direction of the country remains stagnat at 63% saying wrong track and 31% saying right track.

And now the DNC starts this week. And it could show a definite lack of enthusiasm for Obama. Supporters are having to be bused into NC in order to fill the stadium of 74K seats. I think this is grave for Obama when you look at three events from the past summer that shows the Republican base is energized:

Wisconsin Recall
Now I know many people think the two are not connected. But I think that ignores several things. 1) statewide elections tend to do less well in terms of turn-out than presidential elections. Not only did we see unusually high turn-out in the Walker recall...we saw it in the STATE Senate recall too. 2) This was a dress rehersal for both camp's proxies to compete before the national election.

The result: mostly Republican victories. They barely lost the Senate, but only by losing two seats they never should have held to begin with.

Chick-Fil-A
One of the mayors at the center of the controversy was Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. As in former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So while on the surface it is not Obama...underneath I think part of it is showing Conservatives are a 'silent majority'. And if they are willing to wait 4 hours for a chicken sandwich just to prove a point...why wouldn't they show up to vote for Romney over Obama?

Glenn Beck
Okay...going to get trolled for this one. But if all you have to say amounts to: "Glenn Beck sucks" don't waste your time because you are so ideologically blind that you miss the point.

Recently held an event at Dallas Cowboys Stadium...the largest NFL stadium. He sold it out.

Meaning for Obama
I think Obama's support is far below what the polls are showing. If it were tied, I think this would motivate both sides since either candidate has a chance. But I'm just not seeing it on the Democratic side. I'm thinking that there is a huge enthusiasm gap and the Dems are having trouble motivating their troops to be active on their behalf. So I think that in an election where it's going to be a razor thin margin for Obama to win...he has flagging support. This is not good.

Furthermore, that turn-out for pro-Union ppl in Wisconsin was not as good as for walker and that the counter-Chick-Fil-A protest movement didn't have as much turn-out for "Chick-Fil-A National Appreciation Day" could also be a sign that the polls are going to be egregiously wrong this year. I've heard that some of the polls are oversampling Democrats based on '08 demographics. This is possible and probably has a hand in it.

On the other hand, I do think we are seeing signs of the Bradley Effect in play.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 12:31 AM

@ Mason

It's not really fair to look at movements such as Chic-fil-A and just think that they support a majority of Americans. Think of the '68 election, Nixon campaigned on a "Silent Majority" which wasn't protesting, and he was right. That year there were a record number of left wing protests, and he won that year. In '72, the first year 18 year olds were allowed to vote, he carried all but one state and D.C.. Obviously just because people are expressing their political opinion it does not mean that they represent a majority of Americans.

Otherwise you're confusing the Democrats being unable to muster their momentum from '08 as the Democrats losing in general. This is a good case where you have a winnable election, but lack the candidate and the platform to do so. As it stands the Republicans are slowly losing states due to demographic changes and due to their hardline Social Conservatism (even deeply red states like Arizona and North Dakota are slipping away because of that). Now the Republicans may seem like they're in the lead for now, but that's because the Democrats are about to offer their rebuttal (which the Republicans won't have as much time to counter) and the Republicans in terms of a platform haven't been able to muster anything that doesn't look like the platform George W. Bush brought forth, something which the Democrats could easily exploit. Maybe that was the point so to hit Democrats for ragging on Bush again, but that hardly makes it seem like it's not a good complaint. This isn't even mentioning the GOP's trouble with women and latino's, two groups they've been alienating for so long and only just now have made a serious effort to appeal to them just after the whole "legimate rape" thing. This isn't even mentioning that the once solidly Republican African Americans contain roughly 0% of people who say they would vote for Romney (it was 0.something so I decide to go the 0% fat route yogurts do) so perhaps they might just not vote or just vote for a 3rd party, but Romney is not siphoning those votes with his social conservatism.

Whatever difficulty Obama may be facing, it's certainly not in the same ball park as the amount of shit Romney has to try to rectify and hasn't seemed to.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 11:32 AM

At 9/4/12 12:31 AM, Warforger wrote: @ Mason

It's not really fair to look at movements such as Chic-fil-A ...

It is fair and while you're right with your history lesson; my point is over the summer there have been three times that conservatives/Republicans have been able to muster a mass group of people around some cause. In the case of Wisconsin there were liberal/Democrat counter-movements that were not successful (Walker's recall) or did not generate meaningful turn-out (Chick-Fil-A).

There are many moving parts to this election and enthusiasm is one of them (it's always a factor really). What I'm pointing to is that three times so far the Republicans are coming out on top. The fourth is the convention and the Republicans didn't have the problems the Democrats are having filling the seats.

Now if Obama wins re-election it will most likely be by a razor thin margin on the popular vote, so he desperately needs to turn-around the lack of enthusiasm for him amongst his supporters.


Otherwise you're confusing the Democrats being unable to muster their momentum from '08 as the Democrats losing in general. This is a good case where you have a winnable election, but lack the candidate and the platform to do so. As it stands the Republicans are slowly losing states due to demographic changes and due to their hardline Social Conservatism (even deeply red states like Arizona and North Dakota are slipping away because of that). ...

No...I'm not confusing anything. I've read the Ruy Texiera (sp?) demographic study, and while it shows a non-traditional way to victory for Obama in 2012, it remains a very risky campaign strategy because the demographic trends he's counting on just haven't gotten strong enough to be a safe strategy.

Also in an election in a year like 2012 who the Republicans pick really doesn't matter all that much. The economy is still very sluggish and the economic data predicts an Obama loss. As for Romney as a candidate, he's as centerist as a candidate can be. He's the safe candidate. Ryan is a good pick because he's young and conservative. Also he's the first candidate from Generation X, the one that has grown-up realizing that FDR screwed us with Social Security and then LBJ with Medicare. Ryan knows the numbers and I believe will be fierce competition for Biden (or Hillary if the Democrats decide they want to get serious about winning).

Also, I don't think the social conservativism is as big of a deal as those on the Left want to believe. Sure, if you just watch MSNBC and read the Huffington Post you're surrounded by others who agree with you so it seems like everyone agrees with you. But if you look at blacks and hispanics they are very conservative themselves. What is keeping them with the Dems is fearmongering and socio-economic bribery. So in some ways Obama winning would be good for Republicans, conservatives and libertarians. Afterall when Medicare crumbles in 2016, he and the Dems will get the blame.


Whatever difficulty Obama may be facing, it's certainly not in the same ball park as the amount of shit Romney has to try to rectify and hasn't seemed to.

Not in the least. Only about a 1/3 of presidents have been re-elected. Only FDR won re-election with an economy as shitty as this one is now. So what difficulty Obama is facing is that he has to buck a very ominous historical trend.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 02:45 PM

I think if Mitt gets elected, we're screwed. Hands down. You see, boys and girls, with someone as wealthy as Mitt Romney, who also refuses to show his tax returns, and with someone who flip-flops his views as much as he does, I think voters are starting to catch onto the bullshit that is the Republican party. Unfortunately, the deciding factor in this election won't even be an economic one, and even then, it still looks like an Obama win. Many polls, such as those of the New York Times, predict an Obama win. They have been predicting it for months. Many factors will go into the Republicans losing this election. For one, there's the legitimate rape issue. Second, there's the fact that the GOP just needs to change its stances, because the population is growing to the point where their views just won't sit well with minorities, who will soon be on par with majorities, and of course, by these terms, I am referring to race. Republicans are having a hard time appealing to women and latinos as well as the Middle Class. Many Democrats make the case that Trickle Down Theory of Economics does not support the middle class, and considering that makes up 99% of the population, if Mitt wins, and people start seeing the immediate effects of not having Medicare, Affordable Health Care, and as soon as people start going bankrupt because of the policies Mitt puts into place, you're going to see HUGE outcries from the public.

Frankly, we are better off than we were 4 years ago. When Obama started, the unemployment number was about 15%. Obama saved the GM plants in Ohio, he killed Osama Bin Laden (actually, he only gave the executive military order that led to Osama's death), and he supports gay marriage. If people were smart and don't want to be forced to have prayer in schools, creationism being taught instead of evolution, and a socially backwards society, vote Obama, or else, this nation is going going down the toilet. Look at it this way. Romney has plans for jobs; you just have to move to China to get them.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 03:17 PM

At 9/4/12 02:45 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: I think if Mitt gets elected, we're screwed. Hands down.

God, poeple. Seriously, calm the fuck down.

Regardless of who gets elected, Obama or Romney, we will be fine. If anything it's the small stuff (not always small, but never Country-ending) that will be different.

You can like or dislike either candidate, I do, but please, come back to the real world.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 06:30 PM

At 9/4/12 03:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/4/12 02:45 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: I think if Mitt gets elected, we're screwed. Hands down.
God, poeple. Seriously, calm the fuck down.

Amen.


Regardless of who gets elected, Obama or Romney, we will be fine. If anything it's the small stuff (not always small, but never Country-ending) that will be different.

I'll be honest in that I think Obama is the worse choice. However I do not think it will be the end of the world if he gets re-elected.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 07:35 PM

At 9/4/12 11:32 AM, TheMason wrote: There are many moving parts to this election and enthusiasm is one of them (it's always a factor really). What I'm pointing to is that three times so far the Republicans are coming out on top. The fourth is the convention and the Republicans didn't have the problems the Democrats are having filling the seats.

That measures politically active, which as I pointed out does not translate to a popular plurality.

At 9/4/12 11:32 AM, TheMason wrote: Now if Obama wins re-election it will most likely be by a razor thin margin on the popular vote, so he desperately needs to turn-around the lack of enthusiasm for him amongst his supporters.

Yes and that's what Obama has been trying to do, he's been going to countless social networking sites like Reddit or Twitter.

No...I'm not confusing anything. I've read the Ruy Texiera (sp?) demographic study, and while it shows a non-traditional way to victory for Obama in 2012, it remains a very risky campaign strategy because the demographic trends he's counting on just haven't gotten strong enough to be a safe strategy.

To be fair it isn't November yet, many things can still go on despite the election being so far away. In '48 everyone was predicting a victory for Dewey, the Republican candidate, and polls were showing that but then polls at the last week before the election began to pick up a Truman victory, those were pulled back. Truman then won. So the current target are independents, which the Republicans can't really mobilize with all those Social Conservatives.

Also in an election in a year like 2012 who the Republicans pick really doesn't matter all that much. The economy is still very sluggish and the economic data predicts an Obama loss. As for Romney as a candidate, he's as centerist as a candidate can be. He's the safe candidate.

He would be, had he not been forced to adopt more strikingly Conservative views. Which perhaps is the biggest problem for Romney.

Ryan is a good pick because he's young and conservative. Also he's the first candidate from Generation X, the one that has grown-up realizing that FDR screwed us with Social Security and then LBJ with Medicare. Ryan knows the numbers and I believe will be fierce competition for Biden (or Hillary if the Democrats decide they want to get serious about winning).

Social Security has been fine and medicare would have been fine, the only problem is that Republicans starting with Reagan take over the Presidency and create record deficits and debts while trying to cut entitlement programs. Then the Republicans do things like take money out of the SSA in order to start up wars. Basically, those programs would've been fine had the macroeconomics of the government been sound or consistent. As it stands it hasn't.

Also, I don't think the social conservativism is as big of a deal as those on the Left want to believe.

IIRC Akin was leading in Missouri with 7 points ahead of his opponent, after the "Legitimate rape" comment he is now losing by 5 points. Women are also showing more support for Democrats because of the Social Conservatism of the GOP(and more women vote than men).

Sure, if you just watch MSNBC and read the Huffington Post you're surrounded by others who agree with you so it seems like everyone agrees with you. But if you look at blacks and hispanics they are very conservative themselves.

They're Socially Conservative, but economically Liberal. It's why Florida is a swing state and not a deep red state.

What is keeping them with the Dems is fearmongering and socio-economic bribery.

?

So in some ways Obama winning would be good for Republicans, conservatives and libertarians. Afterall when Medicare crumbles in 2016, he and the Dems will get the blame.

That's 4 years from now, it's hard to see if that will happen now.

Not in the least. Only about a 1/3 of presidents have been re-elected.

Not all of those Presidents went for re-election, not counting those assassinated it became a commonplace trend to top Washington's 2 term precedent with a 1 term precedent. That didn't stop every President afterward to go for a 2nd term of course.

Only FDR won re-election with an economy as shitty as this one is now. So what difficulty Obama is facing is that he has to buck a very ominous historical trend.

And FDR won because things were improving, unemployment was going down the GDP was slowly rising businesses stopped closing and he was re-structuring the economy and the government so that it doesn't come to that scenario again. Likewise Obama has made progress, the debt projections have been going down and job creation has gone up. Thus Obama has a chance to say "we're at least making a recovery".


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 09:07 PM

At 9/4/12 07:35 PM, Warforger wrote: That measures politically active, which as I pointed out does not translate to a popular plurality.

Dude...it is indicative of turn-out. It is a predictor. It is a sign. Now does it mean a 1:1 translation, probably not. However, those three events do show motivation of different groups of political society. And the indication is not favorable to Obama. It is a portent...not a prediction.


At 9/4/12 11:32 AM, TheMason wrote: Now if Obama wins re-election it will most likely be by a razor thin margin on the popular vote, so he desperately needs to turn-around the lack of enthusiasm for him amongst his supporters.
Yes and that's what Obama has been trying to do, he's been going to countless social networking sites like Reddit or Twitter.

Aww...isn't that just so cute? Now let's see what's going on in NC...the DNC is looking to downsize (again) for Obama's speech to a 20K seat stadium. Maybe it is weather...maybe its he can't fill that many states (and that'd just make for poor PoliOptics). Then there are the protesters who want to Occupy Obama Campaign Offices nationwide. Now these are fringe elements from his side. Not good.


No...I'm not confusing anything. I've read the Ruy Texiera (sp?) demographic study, and while it shows a non-traditional way to victory for Obama in 2012, it remains a very risky campaign strategy because the demographic trends he's counting on just haven't gotten strong enough to be a safe strategy.
To be fair it isn't November yet, many things can still go on despite the election being so far away. In '48 everyone was predicting a victory for Dewey, the Republican candidate, and polls were showing that but then polls at the last week before the election began to pick up a Truman victory, those were pulled back. Truman then won. So the current target are independents, which the Republicans can't really mobilize with all those Social Conservatives.

Sorry...but you're trying to move the argument away from my rebuttal to your point. You're trying to insert your own strawman into the argument (social conservatives).

But the problem for your argument is that my point holds; this country remains a center-right country. Even many of these ethnic demographics are socially conservative (blacks and hispanics) so the Dems need to move center/right...not the Repubs moving center/left.


Also in an election in a year like 2012 who the Republicans pick really doesn't matter all that much. The economy is still very sluggish and the economic data predicts an Obama loss. As for Romney as a candidate, he's as centerist as a candidate can be. He's the safe candidate.
He would be, had he not been forced to adopt more strikingly Conservative views. Which perhaps is the biggest problem for Romney.

Wait...you mean to tell me that someone had to tack right/left to get his party's nomination? Holy History Batman! This has never happened before...oh no...wait...it happens every election.


Social Security has been fine and medicare would have been fine, the only problem is that Republicans starting with Reagan take over the Presidency and create record deficits and debts while trying to cut entitlement programs. Then the Republicans do things like take money out of the SSA in order to start up wars. Basically, those programs would've been fine had the macroeconomics of the government been sound or consistent. As it stands it hasn't.

Damn those vile Republicans! Oh wait...FDR was the first president to take from SSA to pay for WWII followed by Truman for Korea and LBJ for Vietnam...then there's all the social spending both side have used SSA 'vouchers' to pay for.


Also, I don't think the social conservativism is as big of a deal as those on the Left want to believe.
IIRC Akin was leading in Missouri with 7 points ahead of his opponent, after the "Legitimate rape" comment he is now losing by 5 points. Women are also showing more support for Democrats because of the Social Conservatism of the GOP(and more women vote than men).

It's just a momentary dip for Akin. According to the latest PPP (a polling outfit for the Democrats) have Akin now trailing Claire by 1%. See she played it smart and hung back and let him flounder. However the national campaigns (Obama and the Democratic House and Senate Campaign Committees) overplayed their hand and now in Missouri I think Akin will be getting a sympathy swing after he came out and apologized and guess what...in the 1970s (when Akin was a young man) it was taught in medical and nursing schools that a woman's body did spontaneously abort during high stress situations such as rape. So he was exposed to a fact in his youth and, not being a MD, did not know theory had changed.

What is keeping them with the Dems is fearmongering and socio-economic bribery.
?

"They're Socially Conservative, but economically Liberal. It's why Florida is a swing state and not a deep red state." -you

The liberal economic philosophy is a combination of Keynsian and Marxist economic theory. This involves government intervention in the economy to help the have-nots and keep things going smoothly in times of economic contraction. Which for politicians means: "Vote for me and I'll fund the programs/projects important to you...consequences be damned!"


So in some ways Obama winning would be good for Republicans, conservatives and libertarians. Afterall when Medicare crumbles in 2016, he and the Dems will get the blame.
That's 4 years from now, it's hard to see if that will happen now.

Too bad it's the GAO (Govt Accounting Office) as well as the trustees of the programs reporting this...but it's okay. Stick your head in the ground like a good little Ostrich...the Dems (and Republicans) know better than us mere plebes.


Not in the least. Only about a 1/3 of presidents have been re-elected.
Not all of those Presidents went for re-election, not counting those assassinated it became a commonplace trend to top Washington's 2 term precedent with a 1 term precedent. That didn't stop every President afterward to go for a 2nd term of course.

True. However since Truman Democrats have had trouble winning re-election to the White House. Since the Civil War there have been more Republican presidents than Democratic ones.


Only FDR won re-election with an economy as shitty as this one is now. So what difficulty Obama is facing is that he has to buck a very ominous historical trend.
And FDR won because things were improving, unemployment was going down the GDP was slowly rising businesses stopped closing and he was re-structuring the economy and the government so that it doesn't come to that scenario again. Likewise Obama has made progress, the debt projections have been going down and job creation has gone up. Thus Obama has a chance to say "we're at least making a recovery".

There was a sense that things were getting better. However, the depression was a double-dip depression and by 1939 his Commerce Secretary was testifying before Congress that all their efforts were for naught.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 50
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 10:05 PM

I think our current President needs to lose, my reasons for this as seen below.

1: If Chuck Norris is right about 1000 years of darkness if "he" is ever elected for another term, that alone means our current president will simply keep violating the Constitution to the point where the US will be engulfed in another Cival War.
2: If Osama Bin Laden was meant to die, his death should of been keeped as a "SECRET" and ONLY AS A SECRET but nooooo, now we have to deal with the mess that classified information has been leaked since Osama Bin Laden's Death, why do you think they intend to release the book "No Easy Day"??? Why do you think they wanted Osama Bin Laden's Death go public???? So our current President can further increase his chances of winning, he cares for nobody but himself and only himself!!!! To put it simple, Osama Bin Laden's death exposed to the public has done all of us more harm then good.
3: If "he's" allowed to have another term in office, Alaska will become it's own nation in the event the United States of America makes a major fall, Indian Tribes will go back to there old ways albeit the differences.
4: If he's allowed ot have another term in office, might as well go to Canada and make that a Super Power in it's wake.

Jmayer20
Jmayer20
  • Member since: Jul. 3, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 4th, 2012 @ 10:44 PM

If Obama loses it will be because people are really upset that he has not ended the recession. Not because any one likes Romney. That's why Romney's main focus on this campaign is how Obama did not fix economy yet. Also I would like to point out that no one is looking at Obama's successes. He improved world relations with the United States. He got us out of Iraq and is in the process of getting us out of Afghanistan. He toke out Osama Bin Laden. He created 4 million jobs for the U.S. He stopped us from going into a depression.

In fact if the Republican's did not oppose him and slow down ever thing he try's to do he probably would have ended the recession by now. Now lets look at Romney all he promises to do is the same economic policy that the Bush administration did which got us into this recession in the first place. It is insane to do the same economic policy and expect the opposite results.

TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 5th, 2012 @ 02:35 AM

Why are people so harsh on Obama?

Will Obama win or lose the election


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 5th, 2012 @ 07:30 PM

At 9/4/12 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote::

Dude...it is indicative of turn-out. It is a predictor. It is a sign. Now does it mean a 1:1 translation, probably not. However, those three events do show motivation of different groups of political society. And the indication is not favorable to Obama. It is a portent...not a prediction.

Ok? The RNC was open to people who wanted to come in while the DNC is closed because it's too packed. The DNC is bigger than the RNC and the delegates at the DNC are more motivated for Obama than the RNC's are for Mitt Romney. I still fail to see how these make a difference.

Sorry...but you're trying to move the argument away from my rebuttal to your point. You're trying to insert your own strawman into the argument (social conservatives).

But the problem for your argument is that my point holds; this country remains a center-right country. Even many of these ethnic demographics are socially conservative (blacks and hispanics) so the Dems need to move center/right...not the Repubs moving center/left.

The Repub's move to the right because the delegates won't allow a shift left or a compromise on anything. Not because the country is.

Wait...you mean to tell me that someone had to tack right/left to get his party's nomination? Holy History Batman! This has never happened before...oh no...wait...it happens every election.

The problem is that Romney is embracing the policies that everyone is blaming for the recession. He's claiming that he and Ryan are a new team but at the end of the day they're still the same people the GOP has been running ever since 1980, and it's showing. There's a reason why they didn't work in the 2000's, and that's because while trickle down does create jobs it sends them overseas. It worked in the 80's because Businesses hadn't developed that practice yet.

And if you look at elections like 1980, there's always a lot of emphasis on new idea's. Reagan brought new idea's in and attacked the age of his opponets idea's, FDR brought in new idea's and attacked the age of his opponets idea's, Kennedy brought in new idea's and attacked the age of his opponent's idea's etc. etc. Romney hasn't brought any new idea's to the table other than ones that are extensions of old idea's that were unpopular. This is the core problem, they've been tested and have become really unpopular and the Democrats are relentless in exploiting this.

Damn those vile Republicans! Oh wait...FDR was the first president to take from SSA to pay for WWII followed by Truman for Korea and LBJ for Vietnam...then there's all the social spending both side have used SSA 'vouchers' to pay for.

The difference was that they were able to at least restore those payments. The GOP policy of both Bush's and Reagan has annihilated any balance the budget had. If the budget was even at Carter levels it wouldn't be so bad, but it's much worse; it's far worse than that.

http://cdn.obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/budget_defic it_or_surplus.gif

"They're Socially Conservative, but economically Liberal. It's why Florida is a swing state and not a deep red state." -you

The liberal economic philosophy is a combination of Keynsian and Marxist economic theory. This involves government intervention in the economy to help the have-nots and keep things going smoothly in times of economic contraction. Which for politicians means: "Vote for me and I'll fund the programs/projects important to you...consequences be damned!"

Um or maybe it's perhaps Conservative economics have actually not done disadvantaged minorities very well and have actually made them poorer. Thus when somebody tries to argue trickle down with them it isn't very popular. Maybe that's why minorities tend follow Liberal economics rather than Conservative. This isn't even mentioning the negative stigma those economics have now since Bush Jr.

Although I don't get where the "Marxist" part comes from, considering they haven't proposed nationalizing industries, banning economic classes or overthrowing the Bourguise.

Too bad it's the GAO (Govt Accounting Office) as well as the trustees of the programs reporting this...but it's okay. Stick your head in the ground like a good little Ostrich...the Dems (and Republicans) know better than us mere plebes.

Like I said, 4 years in the future. Obama may reform it by then or Romney may have if they take office. Chances are they'll wait till the last minute to do it. There is alot that can happen in 4 years.

There was a sense that things were getting better. However, the depression was a double-dip depression and by 1939 his Commerce Secretary was testifying before Congress that all their efforts were for naught.

Um the economic depression had ended when he had taken office and the economy had been growing. It took a recession in 1937-38 because Roosevelt felt that all those work programs had completed their goals and so he began cutting them and thus they had to lay people off, thus a recession happened. Otherwise unemployment was going down, the GDP was growing and the economy was picking up throughout his term.

Now the terminology people use for "depression" becomes confusing because they're often used in the same subject but mean different things in different contexts. In terms of economic growth it's negative growth by at least 15% (anything below that is a recession). Now that negative growth had ended 1933 when FDR took office. But then people often include the recovery in there as well so it often becomes confusing when you're talking about which. This is also why we're not technically in a recession right now.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
CWBHOODJONES
CWBHOODJONES
  • Member since: Nov. 24, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 5th, 2012 @ 09:57 PM

Watch "2016 Obama" Lets go republicans! America F yeah!


CWBJONES

BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 07:09 AM

At 9/5/12 02:35 AM, TheKlown wrote: Why are people so harsh on Obama?

lol that image cant be serious

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 10:30 AM

Well, all hope has been lost on the Republican side. Clinton in his speech last night was able to answer more tough questions and provide more ideas in one night than Republicans could in three days. If that's not saying something, I don't know what is. Mitt Romney may as well give up the ghost.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 01:07 PM

After I was seeing how moving the speech last night turned out to be, I think I'm going to say that Obama is probably going to get re-election. It's not just that he Democratic party is promoting gay marriage, it's that they seem to be promoting the idea of equality and diversity for pretty much everyone, judging by some of the interviews they've given. Of course, Americans can just be stupid again like they did with Bush in 2004 and elect Romney, who I have to give credit to for at least being a better candidate than someone like Rick Santorum.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Gunner-D
Gunner-D
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 02:07 PM

Obama 2012

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 6th, 2012 @ 05:29 PM

At 9/5/12 07:30 PM, Warforger wrote: Ok? The RNC was open to people who wanted to come in while the DNC is closed because it's too packed. The DNC is bigger than the RNC and the delegates at the DNC are more motivated for Obama than the RNC's are for Mitt Romney. I still fail to see how these make a difference.

1) The DNC has a very arcane and complex rules system that require more delegates from each state than the RNC. As such the DNC rules call for about 6,000 delegates while the Republican rules call for under 2,300 (with under 2,200 alternate delegates). So talking about delegates does not prove your point because it is a number derived by party rules and not some measure of popular support.

2) I think your point about the delegate's degree of motivation (ie: enthusiasm) is filtered through your own ideological lense. Obama has major problems with his base. A) For those in his base who know how politics run; he is a poor leader and governor. He could not accomplish much when he enjoyed having his party in control of both houses of congress by a greater margin than any modern president since maybe FDR. B) While there are conservatives who do not think Romney is conservative (much less conservative enough), there are leftists who do not think Obama is left enough. In the end the base on both sides are going to hold their noses and vote for their party's nominee.

3) You are dancing around the issue. You have three major political turn-out events where people who hold positions opposite from Obama turned-out in huge numbers. Meanwhile, Obama's acceptance speech has been downsized now three times.

4) "...the DNC is closed because it's too packed..." Sorry...it does not count when you get only 25K ppl agree to show up for a 74K seat arena so you downsize to a 20K seat venue and suddenly claim you don't have enough seats.

The Repub's move to the right because the delegates won't allow a shift left or a compromise on anything. Not because the country is.

*sigh* Sorry...the US is a center-right country.


The problem is that Romney is embracing the policies that everyone is blaming for the recession. He's claiming that he and Ryan are a new team but at the end of the day they're still the same people the GOP has been running ever since 1980, and it's showing. There's a reason why they didn't work in the 2000's, and that's because while trickle down does create jobs it sends them overseas. It worked in the 80's because Businesses hadn't developed that practice yet.

1) The main cause of the recession is a Clinton-era policy decision. Clinton is the president who authorized FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC to buy sub-prime mortgages so that minorities could get home loans (even though trends were going up in regards to this w/o government intervention). Also during this time Obama was on at least one legal team suing CitiBank over this very issue. So I'm so sorry...but the recession is due to more Democratic ideas than traditional Republican ones.

2) In '08 I seriously thought about voting for Obama. He seemed smart and level headed enough to triangulate like Clinton did and govern from the center and partner with business. Instead he turned out to be a blind ideologue without a clue as to how to actually govern. The reason I wanted to vote for Obama? Bush fatigue. Bush was the worst of both worlds: cut taxes while raising spending. This is the same as his father. Both Bushs come from different schools of thought than Reagan (lumping them in together is a sign of your lack of knowledge). The Bushs take a big government approach to governing...not unlike Obama. In essence, Obama's first term has been like a third Bush term...only with a different flavor on the surface.

The difference was that they were able to at least restore those payments. The GOP policy of both Bush's and Reagan has annihilated any balance the budget had. If the budget was even at Carter levels it wouldn't be so bad, but it's much worse; it's far worse than that.

And considering Obama has cut the SSA's withholding tax...it's going to get even worse. Too bad your graph stops at Bush...

The liberal economic philosophy is a combination of Keynsian and Marxist economic theory.
Um or maybe it's perhaps Conservative economics have actually not done disadvantaged minorities very well and have actually made them poorer. Thus when somebody tries to argue trickle down with them it isn't very popular. Maybe that's why minorities tend follow Liberal economics rather than Conservative. This isn't even mentioning the negative stigma those economics have now since Bush Jr.

Maybe its also because Democrats since FDR have made economic promises to the minority communities with NO intention of keeping them. We've had Dems in power in the Congress more years than not since FDR. We've also had about 50% of the presidents be Democrats. And yet we have not made any significant strides towards better education and economic conditions in minority areas. Instead Democrats are more concerned with romanticized notions of 'social justice' (and their Union powerbase) so they oppose companies like Walmart coming into their districts and bringing jobs.

Although I don't get where the "Marxist" part comes from, considering they haven't proposed nationalizing industries, banning economic classes or overthrowing the Bourguise.

I've read alot of Marxist thought...and its not all about the Revolution of the Proletariate. Marx also introduced and talked about the impact of class divisions on politics and the economy. We saw it at the DNC when Elizabeth Warren spoke about wealth being generated from the Middle Class. This is a Marxist economic principle, and a dangerous one to a flailing economy.


Like I said, 4 years in the future. Obama may reform it by then or Romney may have if they take office. Chances are they'll wait till the last minute to do it. There is alot that can happen in 4 years.

Obama: highly doubtful. He doesn't have the capability nor the political guts/nerve to do what is necessary.
Romney: probably try something...but get smacked down my AARP & Democratic fearmongering.

... Otherwise unemployment was going down, the GDP was growing and the economy was picking up throughout his term.

Revise history much? There was a temporary drop in unemployment and then it picked right back up within a year. When things got better was when we entered WWII and put men to work in the military (draft) and women to work on the assembly line.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature