Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 18,911 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 14:42:05

At 9/12/12 02:26 PM, Warforger wrote:
I know right? They shouldn't teach that there were any negative effects of the Reagan economic policy and keep the facts from contradicting our wet dream of Reagan because that's the truth.

They shouldn't teach that Reaganomics are conservative economics.

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 16:16:48

At 9/12/12 11:09 AM, Ericho wrote: Romney apparently has a zero percent rating with black people. I'm going to say right now that it's impossible to get elected with a zero percent approval rating from any large group, especially when the current President belongs to that group. Of course, we on the Internet supported Ron Paul, and he never really went anywhere, so what we say might not mean anything.

To be honest the GOP were never popular with black people, since 1972 i don't think a republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15% of the black vote. Of course a republican can't seem to win with less than 10% of the black vote.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 18:42:27

At 9/12/12 04:16 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

To be honest the GOP were never popular with black people, since 1972 i don't think a republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15% of the black vote.

To be fair, after black people were allowed to vote following the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, they regularly voted Republican, which was to be expected, given that they were mostly responsible for their freedom.

FDR changed all of that in 1932.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

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 2012-09-12 18:59:17

At 9/12/12 02:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/12/12 02:26 PM, Warforger wrote:
I know right? They shouldn't teach that there were any negative effects of the Reagan economic policy and keep the facts from contradicting our wet dream of Reagan because that's the truth.
They shouldn't teach that Reaganomics are conservative economics.

Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.


"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
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 19:16:20

At 9/12/12 06:59 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 9/12/12 02:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.

Trickle down economics is government enforcement/control of the economy. Conservative economics would be a total separation of government from private finance. Now, I know the common liberal argument is that Reagan was a de-regulator, and that equals conservatism. It doesn't. He deregulated a certain sector of the economy. That's liberalism, and it's exactly what GWB, Obama did, and Mitt Romney will do.

Also, Regan didn't cut taxes. He increased taxes on the top 10%. He cut SOME taxes for SOME people. Not conservatism. That's government favoritism of one sector/class of people over another, which is the polar opposite of conservative economics.

Furthermore, because of his ridiculous spending on welfare (corporate and social) he managed to triple the deficit, increased unemployment.

I really wish both side would stop calling Ronald Reagan a conservative. He was a republican. They are not the same, and 9 times out of 10 republicans aren't even conservative.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 19:20:19

At 9/12/12 07:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I really wish both side would stop calling Ronald Reagan a conservative. He was a republican. They are not the same, and 9 times out of 10 republicans aren't even conservative.

Nobody cares what goes on in your little world. In the world of US politics, Reagan was most definitely conservative. Seeing as this is a discussion based in US politics, the label is extremely apt.

Bolo
Bolo
  • Member since: Nov. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 48
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 19:31:48

At 9/12/12 10:38 AM, TheMason wrote: asdf

We're both seeing what we want to see, that is, our favorite candidate coming out with the victory.

The fact remains, though, that Obama's record is sterling -- the website you criticized as "liberal" is quite liberally sourced, and perfectly accurate. Nearly all early indicators favor Obama, pundits are predicting his victory, etc. People will vote on the things that have happened during his term, and quite frankly, there have been a large number of good things. The weakness of Romney as a candidate is definitely apropos. A great many people vote for the stronger candidate, or at least abstain from voting for the weaker one.

I'm pretty confident Obama will win. I'll revisit this thread on November 6 and either pick apart my analysis if it was incorrect, or gloat if it was correct.


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 2012-09-12 20:29:06

At 9/12/12 07:16 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/12/12 06:59 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 9/12/12 02:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.
Trickle down economics is government enforcement/control of the economy. Conservative economics would be a total separation of government from private finance.

..........Trickle Down economics is just lowering taxes on the upper class so they invest it in the other classes. That seems roughly the minimum.

Now, I know the common liberal argument is that Reagan was a de-regulator, and that equals conservatism. It doesn't. He deregulated a certain sector of the economy. That's liberalism, and it's exactly what GWB, Obama did, and Mitt Romney will do.

What? So de-regulating is liberal as long as you don't de-regulate everything. I look forward to my meat filled with saw dust and hundreds of coal miners dying due to little inspection or oversight.

Also, Regan didn't cut taxes. He increased taxes on the top 10%. He cut SOME taxes for SOME people. Not conservatism. That's government favoritism of one sector/class of people over another, which is the polar opposite of conservative economics.

He did cut taxes, that was one of the first things he did. The thing though was that this wasn't healthy so he eventually had to raise them. Common misconception there.

Furthermore, because of his ridiculous spending on welfare (corporate and social) he managed to triple the deficit, increased unemployment.

No he cut social spending, thus the whole thing about not helping out minorities. Furthermore it was the military spending he did which annihilated the budget, not welfare.

I really wish both side would stop calling Ronald Reagan a conservative. He was a republican. They are not the same, and 9 times out of 10 republicans aren't even conservative.

You're thinking that Conservative = Libertarian. It doesn't. A Conservative is a grassroots politician, a Libertarian pops up like Communists pop up, from universities and idealists whose ideology comes from outside American politics. So there isn't much basis in American political tradition for either, despite similarities. The main reason being though is that America was founded on elements of Classical Republicanism and Classical Liberalism, Classical Republicanism is pretty much Communism and Classical Liberalism is pretty much Libertarianism. This doesn't mean it was fully devoted to both, but that the Founding Fathers recognized that a pure ideology from either wasn't going to work and that some in-between was required. You may be wondering where I'm going with this, well you see Conservatives descend from their political battles as do Liberals, it doesn't mean they were 100% Classical Liberals thus you see these diverting idea's when it comes to Libertarians. But since America was founded on elements of Classical Liberalism there are area's which they agree and area's which they don't agree. That's the thing, modern Conservatives want the least amount of regulation required and acknowledge a need for it, whereas Libertarians don't think there's any need for that (hence why they're not taken very seriously on a national scale).


"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
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 20:42:10

At 9/12/12 07:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Nobody cares what goes on in your little world. In the world of US politics, Reagan was most definitely conservative. Seeing as this is a discussion based in US politics, the label is extremely apt.

How can one be a conservative, yet never hold or implement any conservative ideals?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 20:51:55

At 9/12/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote:
..........Trickle Down economics is just lowering taxes on the upper class so they invest it in the other classes. That seems roughly the minimum.

Which is not a conservative viewpoint.

What? So de-regulating is liberal as long as you don't de-regulate everything. I look forward to my meat filled with saw dust and hundreds of coal miners dying due to little inspection or oversight.

Sorry, I trusted you were smart enough to know wtf was in your food without the having to trust a corporate-driven government entity. Does the government also need to teach you how to wipe your ass?

He did cut taxes, that was one of the first things he did. The thing though was that this wasn't healthy so he eventually had to raise them. Common misconception there.

Yes, cut taxes on SOME. Then raised them on SOME. That isn't equality, therefore has no basis in conservative ideology.


No he cut social spending, thus the whole thing about not helping out minorities. Furthermore it was the military spending he did which annihilated the budget, not welfare.

Cut social spending? By increasing Social Security and entitlement spending? Okay.

You're thinking that Conservative = Libertarian. It doesn't. A Conservative is a grassroots politician, a Libertarian pops up like Communists pop up, from universities and idealists whose ideology comes from outside American politics. So there isn't much basis in American political tradition for either, despite similarities. The main reason being though is that America was founded on elements of Classical Republicanism and Classical Liberalism, Classical Republicanism is pretty much Communism and Classical Liberalism is pretty much Libertarianism. This doesn't mean it was fully devoted to both, but that the Founding Fathers recognized that a pure ideology from either wasn't going to work and that some in-between was required. You may be wondering where I'm going with this, well you see Conservatives descend from their political battles as do Liberals, it doesn't mean they were 100% Classical Liberals thus you see these diverting idea's when it comes to Libertarians. But since America was founded on elements of Classical Liberalism there are area's which they agree and area's which they don't agree. That's the thing, modern Conservatives want the least amount of regulation required and acknowledge a need for it, whereas Libertarians don't think there's any need for that (hence why they're not taken very seriously on a national scale).

Classical liberalism doesn't work because it marginalizes the American people. True conservatives, IE libertarians, believe in true equality for everyone. It's not hard to see that when the government get involved, someone is favored over the other, and 99% of the time it's industry. Mussolini tried this decades ago. Didn't work so well for Italy, did it? The only way America can ever be truly just, is if government, and private citizens have equal power. This can never happen if government keeps protecting and encouraging industries' behavior of taking advantage of and stomping on the people.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 20:59:08

I'm smelling the beginning of a No-True-Scotsman type argument...


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 21:55:58

At 9/12/12 06:59 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow...... So de-regulations and lower taxes is totally not conservative. I'd like to see what you think Conservative economics are.

Actually, if you look at the Clinton-Bush era it was W. how expanded government regulation especially following the spectacular failure of Enron early in his presidency (and the subsequent scandal). And it was Clinton who de-regulated the banks to allow full-service banks (insurance, mortgages and checking accounts all under one roof) and multi-state branches (now Bank of America can have a branch on every corner, snuffing out local banks kinda like Walmart allegedly does). And let's not forget it was CLINTON who eased restrictions on FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE that allowed for the sub-prime crisis to happen.


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

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 2012-09-12 22:15:10

At 9/12/12 09:55 PM, TheMason wrote: And let's not forget it was CLINTON who eased restrictions on FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE that allowed for the sub-prime crisis to happen.

Let's not forget that George Bush encouraged Greenspan to keep the interest rates low thus providing massive fuel to the subprime crisis.

I can also blame this on Wall Street, Consumer America, the Baby Boomers, the Greatest Generation, WalMart, Homer Simpson, that angry looking cloud in the sky, and that one really big spider that scared me as a child. Blame Clinton if you want, but no one person is responsible for more than 5% (at the ultra highest) of the tapestry of bad acting, bad ethics, bad thinking, bad timing, bad policy, and just plain bad luck that caused the subprime crisis. Anyone who claims to have the definitive answers if Jesus to a Muslim, or John Smith to a Baptist.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 22:20:35

At 9/12/12 08:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: How can one be a conservative, yet never hold or implement any conservative ideals?

Favoring businesses in order to perform the actions that should be taken by the government is a conservative position. Just because the word "government" is involved doesn't mean it's not conservative. A Pizza with cream sauce instead of tomato sauce is still a pizza.

Also, like I said before, think of the parameters here. We don't exist in your pseudo-intellectual world where theory is everything and the real world be damned (see: any economic theory ever made). Just because you don't think it's conservative enough, doesn't mean it's not conservative to those who exist in the real world.

BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 22:23:45

At 9/12/12 10:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Also, like I said before, think of the parameters here. We don't exist in your pseudo-intellectual world where theory is everything and the real world be damned (see: any economic theory ever made). Just because you don't think it's conservative enough, doesn't mean it's not conservative to those who exist in the real world.

toldddd

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-12 22:40:09

At 9/12/12 07:31 PM, Bolo wrote:
At 9/12/12 10:38 AM, TheMason wrote: asdf
We're both seeing what we want to see, that is, our favorite candidate coming out with the victory.

Sorry...but no.

Like I said before, I don't watch the convention coverage because it is just political theater: all sound & fury signifying nothing.

I am a trained political scientist and I've also worked on a couple of campaigns. So in the past 20 years I've learned a thing or two about elections. I'm pretty steeped in the history and have knowledge of how the predictive models work.

In the end, elections are kind of like my fantasy football league and presidential elections are my Superbowls. So while yes I want Romney to win...what I want to happen and what I think will happen are two different things. The first (want) is based on my ideology and education. The second (prediction) is based on my training and objective data (professional polls, predictive models).

But if you wish to ignore these things (the stuff the pros talk about and what's keeping both sides awake at night), and just go off your own gut-feeling based upon info that is highly subjective and filtered through ideological lenses...then go right ahead my friend.


The fact remains, though, that Obama's record is sterling -- the website you criticized as "liberal" is quite liberally sourced, and perfectly accurate. Nearly all early indicators favor Obama, pundits are predicting his victory, etc. People will vote on the things that have happened during his term, and quite frankly, there have been a large number of good things. The weakness of Romney as a candidate is definitely apropos. A great many people vote for the stronger candidate, or at least abstain from voting for the weaker one.

* The economic indicators do not favor Obama...in fact the only way to put the phrases 'economic indicators' and 'favor Obama' in the same sentence (and not be totally full of shit) is to put 'do NOT' between them. The only indicators favoring Obama are the head-to-head polls.
A) His average approval rating has averaged under 48% (the number that virtually guarantees re-election) since about 2010. It started ticking up last month to 49% today...but it needs to stay there. It could be 'bounce' (ie: goes up then down) from the convention or a 'trend' (ie: stays up). We won't know until October.
B) The direction of the country polls have been pretty consistently 60% wrong track his entire presidency.

* Just because something is sourced does not mean it is NOT biased. It's actually kinda cute that you think it's sourcing is in any way relevant. I'm not saying that absolutely zero has been done on Obama's watch. I'm just saying that: 1) not much since his stimulus and ACA...nothing much of consequence has happened on it. 2) What has happened (including stimulus & ACA) happened without his leadership. He stumped for those things and organized and advocated for them...but providing leadership for them...not so much.

* The weakness of the challenger is not totally irrelevent. (You read a lot of absolutes into things, don't you? Are you sure you're not Sith?) However, in a poor economy it doesn't matter. In 1992 a weak candidate beat out a guy who started the election cycle with a 92% approval rating. Early on most pundits were predicting a Bush victory and thought that the Dems were just phoning it in with Clinton. In 1980 many thought Ronnie was far too right wing to stand a chance against Carter. In fact Ronnie was trailing Carter (as much if not more than Romney is Obama) in the polls. Hate to burst your bubble...but in bad economic times (1980, 1992 and possibly 2012) a guy the punditry counts out often wins.

Now as for Romney...he is not far right. And I'm not sure that he will flop in the debates like some of the Dems on this thread think he will. Afterall, he did go through a challenging primary fight which means he's used to it at this point. He's warmed up, while Obama will step into the first debate cold.

* This week is shaping up to be potentially very bad for Obama. Violence in Lybia & Egypt undercut his argument for his foreign policy record and could cast doubt on his Natl. Security cred. Plus the teacher strike in Chicago will put public unions back in the news and could damage Democratic party unity since this isn't a Republican vs the Unions but Obama's ex-Chief of Staff vs the Unions. My point in bringing this up is these kind of unexpected events can quite often turn on the incumbent pres/VP/party. (ex: 1980 & 2008.) Obama does not want/need this kind of press this close to the election.


I'm pretty confident Obama will win. I'll revisit this thread on November 6 and either pick apart my analysis if it was incorrect, or gloat if it was correct.

Honestly I think BOTH candidates as of today stand a 48-52% chance of winning. (Fancy statistical talk for a 50/50 shot.)


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 2012-09-12 22:53:19

At 9/12/12 10:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Let's not forget that George Bush encouraged Greenspan to keep the interest rates low thus providing massive fuel to the subprime crisis.

That is fair, I concede that point.


I can also blame this on Wall Street, Consumer America, the Baby Boomers, the Greatest Generation, WalMart, Homer Simpson, that angry looking cloud in the sky, and that one really big spider that scared me as a child. Blame Clinton if you want, ...

Yes but you confuse the issue and don't really address my point: it was Clinton who de-regulated in the 1990s while Bush talked a big de-reg game...but expanded government's regulatory powers more than Clinton. From 2000-2004 I was a Bush fan...I'll admit it. But over time I came to realize he was speeding us towards a cliff. You can be fiscally responsible and cut taxes but you have to cut spending as well. You can also be fiscally responsible and raise social spending...but you have to raise taxes. Bush lowered tax rates and increased spending on not just the military but social spending like medicare, education (technocrats...not teachers) and foreign aid. In terms of government spending...Bush was incredibly reckless.

But Bush's shortcomings are not what is at issue at the moment. The issue is de-regulation which someone erroneously painted Bush as a de-regulator; when it was Clinton who was responsible for the de-regulation that blew-up around this time four years ago.

As for your point about no one being responsible for the bad acting that goes on in government in general and the White House in particular then let's be intellectually honest and say:

* Clinton overstated his accomplishments at the DNC; afterall all the stuff he took credit for was done by 95% of the people working in his administration and not him.
* Bush then wasn't as bad as ppl give him credit for; afterall if he's a slow, dim-witted and retarded as ppl claim then he probably only did about 1% of the things done 2001-2008. (Cheney picked up this 4% difference and because he is more machine than man and lives off of the Dark Side of the Force; Cheney did 60% of the bad stuff of the Bush era...and none of the good.)


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 2012-09-12 23:32:16

Black Vote & Presidential Elections

I thought I'd take a look at how blacks vote in presidential elections. This is my source for my data. I wanted to go back to 1972; but UConn didn't post results going back that far. But the results are:

SINCE 1976
AVERAGE BLACK VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS: 87.33%
AVERAGE BLACK VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS: 10.78%

Of the last 9 elections the Republicans have won the White House 5 times and the Democrats 4 times. So I thought I'd look at the % Black Vote Republicans win both when the won and lost the White House.

REPUBLICANS WIN WHITE HOUSE: 10.8%
REPUBLICANS LOOSE WHITE HOUSE: 10.75%

SINCE 1976 WITH 2008
PEAK BLACK VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS: 95% (Democratic Win)
LOW BLACK VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS: 83% (2 Democratic Wins & 1 Republican Win)

PEAK BLACK VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS: 17% (Democratic Win)
LOW BLACK VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS: 4% (Democratic Win)

SINCE 1976 WITHOUT 2008
PEAK BLACK VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS: 91% (Republican Win)
LOW BLACK VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS: 83% (2 Democratic Wins & 1 Republican Win)

PEAK BLACK VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS: 17% (Democratic Win)
LOW BLACK VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS: 9% (2 Republican Wins)

Then I decided to look at the last three elections.

====

SINCE 2000
AVERAGE BLACK VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS: 91%
AVERAGE BLACK VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS: 8%

REPUBLICANS WIN WHITE HOUSE: 10%
REPUBLICANS LOOSE WHITE HOUSE: 4%

(NOTE: I almost didn't run the second set of numbers because of the small sample size. One loss and two victories does not really make for a good trend.)

====

CONCLUSIONS

1) There is no trend indicating that a swing in the black vote effects who wins the White House. If you take out 2008 and look at the top three times Democrats have polled the black vote (91% in 1984, 90% in 2000 and 89% in 1988) the Republican won. Likewise if you look at the elections where Republicans did their worst (9% in 1984 & 2000, 10% in 1992) they won 2 and lost 1.

2) The average Republican vote for either a win or loss is around 10%. In fact of the three years that Republicans did best amongst blacks (17% in 1976, 14% in 1984 and 12% in 1996) they lost two of those contests.

3) While 2008 was a slaughter for the Republicans with the black vote (4%) and 2012 probably won't be much different; the black population is in decline as a % of the US population. Combined with Obama's 'evolution' on gay marriage and the incredibly high rate of unemployment in black communities this demographic's turn-out may be depressed; however there may be a racially charged element to the race that could provide a boost to turn-out. My main point here is that it all about turn-out in the black community. It could be 100% but with a low turn-out amongst blacks...Obama looses. Likewise, Romney could poll (if it 1976 not 2012**) 17% of the vote but with a giant turn-out Obama would win.

So overall...the black vote will most likely NOT be key factor in and Obama victory (or a Romney defeat). However, depressed turn-out could be important (secondarily or tertiary) to a Romney victory.

NOTE
** This year the Obama campaign is taking a very ballsy campaign strategy where they have essentially abandoned the white working class voter in favor of making a coalition of minorities. Obama would be the first to win election/re-election without winning this demographic especially white males.


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

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 2012-09-12 23:59:31

At 9/12/12 11:32 PM, TheMason wrote: Black Vote & Presidential Elections

All fine and dandy. Those statistics are far too general to hold any meaning now.

How about you pop out a comparison in the states of Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. If even just 20% of the 10% black population it takes to gurantee a Republican in the White House go Democrat, that could be enough to tip these swing states in Obama's favor.

Usually Nort Carolina isn't a swing state, and we don't know how much this demographic has played in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia before. If the blacks are more conservative than Cali, Illinois, and New York blacks a smaller shift could mean big trouble now that the general populations of these states is slowly purpling.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-13 00:08:24

At 9/12/12 10:53 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes but you confuse the issue and don't really address my point: it was Clinton who de-regulated in the 1990s while Bush talked a big de-reg game...but expanded government's regulatory powers more than Clinton.

While I may not necessary agree with his minutae, he did achieve the end game goal: surplus.


As for your point about no one being responsible for the bad acting that goes on in government in general and the White House in particular then let's be intellectually honest and say:

Personally, I would credit the accomplishments of the highest two tiers of the executive (Secretaries and their immediate underlings) as accomplishments of the Office of the President. They are hand picked by, organized, controlled (either directly or through oversight/delegation), and generally work through the policies of the President.

What my point was before is that no one cause was significant enough to be named "THE cause of the subprime".

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-13 01:57:16

At 9/12/12 10:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/12/12 08:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: How can one be a conservative, yet never hold or implement any conservative ideals?
Favoring businesses in order to perform the actions that should be taken by the government is a conservative position. Just because the word "government" is involved doesn't mean it's not conservative. A Pizza with cream sauce instead of tomato sauce is still a pizza.

Also, like I said before, think of the parameters here. We don't exist in your pseudo-intellectual world where theory is everything and the real world be damned (see: any economic theory ever made). Just because you don't think it's conservative enough, doesn't mean it's not conservative to those who exist in the real world.

The thing is the government tends to favor business while not giving the citizenry equal treatment. We pay more taxes and have less rights than any corporation does. Giving industry the freedom to operate with impunity, while taking away the peoples' rights to keep them in check isn't conservatism. That's fascism.

The term "conservatism" is not open to interpretation.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-13 02:33:56

At 9/13/12 01:57 AM, LemonCrush wrote: The term "conservatism" is not open to interpretation.

Actually conservative is a relative term. What is conservative in Sweden is Liberal in the US. What is conservative in the US is ultra liberal in Iran.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-13 02:38:39

At 9/13/12 02:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/13/12 01:57 AM, LemonCrush wrote: The term "conservatism" is not open to interpretation.
Actually conservative is a relative term. What is conservative in Sweden is Liberal in the US. What is conservative in the US is ultra liberal in Iran.

Ok, American conservatism. Founding principles...whatever you wanna call it

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-13 18:09:39

At 9/12/12 11:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/12/12 11:32 PM, TheMason wrote: Black Vote & Presidential Elections
All fine and dandy. Those statistics are far too general to hold any meaning now.

Actually, no they are not. They show a trend.


How about you pop out a comparison in the states of Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. If even just 20% of the 10% black population it takes to gurantee a Republican in the White House go Democrat, that could be enough to tip these swing states in Obama's favor.

Here's the thing that is unique about the black vote: it is incredibly homogenous and I doubt their would be a shift in the black vote in NC and Virginia...that wouldn't be reflected elsewhere.


Usually Nort Carolina isn't a swing state, and we don't know how much this demographic has played in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia before. If the blacks are more conservative than Cali, Illinois, and New York blacks a smaller shift could mean big trouble now that the general populations of these states is slowly purpling.

Here's the thing, from everything I've seen on it blacks in Va or NC will not be that more conservative than blacks in NYC, Ca or Il. For example black turn-out in liberal bastions such as Ca has been important for anti-gay and anti-immigration legislation.

It's just that with this segment of the population; they are more partisanly conscious than ideological conscious.

What will matter more is how blacks turn-out. So what would be important to look at would be:
* Blacks as a % of a given state and
* Some measure of likely turn-out of that population.

The second is difficult in '12. On one hand they shouldn't turn-out for Obama b/c of black unemployment and some feelings that the first black president only has his own back over that of his community. On the other hand, Obama is black and his proxies have been playing the race card pretty heavily so racial loyalty could motivate an energized turn-out.

As with the rest of this election, when you look at the fundamentals and take emotion out of it...all the indicators contradict each other.


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

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 2012-09-14 00:17:19

At 9/13/12 06:09 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, no they are not. They show a trend.

This is an election that looks as if it may come out to a few swing states with large African American populations where the victor, whomever he may be, will win by eeking it out. Even just slight variations in a national trend could tip the scale in a state like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, or Virginia.

Normally this would be splitting hairs, but when victory is expected by less than a hair...

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-14 01:13:27

At 9/12/12 08:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/12/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote:
..........Trickle Down economics is just lowering taxes on the upper class so they invest it in the other classes. That seems roughly the minimum.
Which is not a conservative viewpoint.

.....Dear lord. So Conservative's don't give a shit about the economy at all and just want rich people to get richer, which they do by investing in the other classes. Wait this doesn't make any sense. I don't see how this is "Liberal". Why am I reminded of Communists accusing anyone to the left of them of being Right wing Fascists?

What? So de-regulating is liberal as long as you don't de-regulate everything. I look forward to my meat filled with saw dust and hundreds of coal miners dying due to little inspection or oversight.
Sorry, I trusted you were smart enough to know wtf was in your food without the having to trust a corporate-driven government entity. Does the government also need to teach you how to wipe your ass?

Wow. If everything was de-regulated corporations would control the flow of information, they would also get away with alot of shit like I said. Perhaps if you read up on US History during a time called the "Gilded Age" you'd realize that regulations are necessary and probably why libertarians aren't taken very seriously.

Otherwise yes sawdust was put into food, in fact tainted food was a huge problem in the days before the FDA. During the Spanish American war more American soldiers died because of the tainted food than because of combat just to put that in perspective. Corporations responded that they'll be destroyed if they weren't allowed to produce tainted food.

He did cut taxes, that was one of the first things he did. The thing though was that this wasn't healthy so he eventually had to raise them. Common misconception there.
Yes, cut taxes on SOME. Then raised them on SOME. That isn't equality, therefore has no basis in conservative ideology.

So raising taxes on people is inequality. Wow.


No he cut social spending, thus the whole thing about not helping out minorities. Furthermore it was the military spending he did which annihilated the budget, not welfare.
Cut social spending? By increasing Social Security and entitlement spending? Okay.

The first thing Reagan did when he took office was propose a cut to medicare. Otherwise he stabilized the trend which before was growing tremendously. I'd say that's a good job.

Classical liberalism doesn't work because it marginalizes the American people. True conservatives, IE libertarians,

Wow. So you still think despite me explaining to you that Libertarians aren't the same thing as Conservatives, that Libertarians are Conservatives? Because they're not. They're cut from different backgrounds which I explained.

believe in true equality for everyone.

All serious political ideologies advocate that, it's just they disagree on what "equality" is and how it should be achieved. Libertarianism on the other hand, probably has the weakest definition and at the end of the day has little to do with it, it merely has to do with freedom (which seems to always be made peculiar by labor unions).

It's not hard to see that when the government get involved, someone is favored over the other, and 99% of the time it's industry. Mussolini tried this decades ago. Didn't work so well for Italy, did it?

Oh great let's mention Fascism, a completely irrelevant discussion.

The only way America can ever be truly just, is if government, and private citizens have equal power. This can never happen if government keeps protecting and encouraging industries' behavior of taking advantage of and stomping on the people.

You know, intervention is there for a reason. The government didn't just go by and say "oh I want to destroy business", it was more like Muckrakers kept pointing our how fucking horrible unrestrained business was, they called for a boycott, nothing happened, they kept going until finally a large public outcry came up and yet no boycott, just the government regulating business finally. Thus I find these notions that the "private citizen" go up and fight corporations hilarious, devoid of reality and lacking of understanding of psychology.

Also did you even look at the vast majority of regulations? I mean of course some are corrupt, but this doesn't mean that regulations in general are. Most of them hinder business, not supporting it.

Overall you assume the President is a supreme dictator. Hint: He's not. Yes you're finding things that don't agree with Conservative ideology, that's because he didn't control Congress. Otherwise he was a Conservative, it is baffling how you argue he isn't.


"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
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-14 02:42:12

At 9/14/12 01:13 AM, Warforger wrote: Perhaps if you read up on US History during a time called the "Gilded Age" you'd realize that regulations are necessary and probably why libertarians aren't taken very seriously.

You mean that period of time which saw one of the fastest rates of economic growth, real wages, and falling prices?
That period that built the foundation for the industrial american economy?

Oh gee look how much better we are nowadays! Lucky we have all those millions of pages of regulations! Otherwise there would be stagnating/falling real wages, huge corporations sheilded from competition and a shitty econo-oh wait.


At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
Remember: he was shot in the back 35 feet away from the police cruiser. That's not up for debate.

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-14 02:43:13

#ifobamadontwin

And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.


At 8/16/14 11:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
Remember: he was shot in the back 35 feet away from the police cruiser. That's not up for debate.

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-14 03:16:22

At 9/14/12 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.

Only racists such as yourself think black people are dumb.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
hateyou1
hateyou1
  • Member since: Mar. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election 2012-09-14 17:03:20

At 9/14/12 03:16 AM, Light wrote:
At 9/14/12 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.
Only racists such as yourself think black people are dumb.

Majority of black people voted for Barack Obama and many of them plan on re-electing him despite the fact he proved to be a failure. Unemployment rates has increased 3%, housing values decreased, gas pries are a dollar more expensive, and food inflation is going up. So yeah, those particular "black people" would be considered dumb and trust me, there are a lot of them.