OMFG what is wrong with you people!? There's more to think about than OWS and the long history of a dual-party system. Obama breed's socialism in a capitalist society; Fannie and Freddie, the bailouts, Obama-Care, only to name the most prominent examples. Socialism in a capitalist society is counter-productive. It's no wonder our economy is in the tank; we spent all our money bailing out (or should I say buying out) )the banks and car companies, and gearing up for a socialist healthcare system (which won't work anywhere near as well as a free-market healthcare system, no matter how far we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the proof [Europe's prime examples, Canada, and our own military]).

I for one logical thinking mind believe a business-conscious individual with money on the mind is exactly what this country needs right now. Because if we get another four years of this shit (endless, unnecessary spending for nothing more than to fool the people into lining politicians pockets with lobby money), China will own us, and these internet censorship bills and worries about the 1% will be at the bottom of our priority list (you know, the government controls net access in China already, but they have free healthcare :thumbsup: thanks Obama, for paving the way for them).

You know, republicans, business men, and most conservative politicians believe a free-market is the best thing for us, and with that belief come policies like allowing the net to remain uncensored, and letting small businesses sprout up without tons of government regulation and red-tape (small business like Unix and Apple and Microsoft and IBM were at one time, whom are the industry giants that made your precious net possible whether you like them or not), and letting business like GM and Bank of America fail despite their strong ties to the American-Identity (and giving them the opportunity to start over, with a fucking bankruptcy like everyone else!), and encouraging growth, development, and innovation in a healthcare industry not tethered by government involvement in their economic affairs. Conservative politicians believe in a free-market because it works; it may not be fair, but it works. Fucking 99%...wtf? Do you want a job? You need that 1% to be happy to provide you with one...but oh, wait...those stank-ass hippies would probably answer no, wouldn't they? They'd rather take the government dole, pretend to be retarded or act like obesity is a reason for tax-payers to feed them more, and not pay any taxes, and throw their hands up in the air like "wtf happened?" when some other country comes in here and says our laws don't mean shit anymore, we have to do things their way, because they own the government...and, whoops, the government owns the biggest companies in the most important industries to our economy....thanks to who again? Obama.

So yeah...four more years of this shit, i think not. I think we've had about as much as we can stand of Obama. For your country's sake, for your own...please do not vote for socialism...it will end us.

At 11/3/11 05:13 PM, Ravariel wrote: and the success of the Arab Spring.

That's an interesting way to describe it.

Obama's polling at about 47% favorable right now, and is beating all of the republicans in the primary race by 16% or more in head-to-head matchups.

Say what now

At 11/17/11 05:45 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/3/11 05:13 PM, Ravariel wrote: and the success of the Arab Spring.

That's an interesting way to describe it.

Say what you will about how it might end, but for now, the people of Egypt and Lybia are deciding their own direction. Whether or not we like that direction... well it's not up to us, is it?

Obama's polling at about 47% favorable right now, and is beating all of the republicans in the primary race by 16% or more in head-to-head matchups.

Say what now

That's from 2 months ago. I actually can't find the poll where I got my numbers, which make me suspect something was off about them. However, let us take the most recent Gallup Polls:

Against a generic Republican opponent, for the last two months Obama has been losing by 8 points. This month he has pulled even.

Against individual opponents, he is tied only with Romney (I consider anything less than 3 points a tie, and Obama leads by 1.8 on average), and beats the rest of the field by 8 points or more (Except for Paul, whom he only leads by 6).

"Electability exists along a spectrum and not in absolutes."
-Nate Silver of the NYT's 538 Blog

Rav, I'm linking to RCP's polling pages. NOTE: these change on a weekly basis so remember an argument made today may not be reflected in the polls tomorrow.

Obama vs. Republican Field

I prefer looking at the Obama vs Republican poll instead of the individual Republicans running. The reason is I think there is too much respondant bias involved with these polls. In short; ppl may not be telling the truth about how they will vote in order to support a candidate.

I think Obama vs Republican is closer to the question: will you vote to re-elect Obama? As of today Obama is ahead but by only 0.4% (RCP average).

Obama Approval Rating

Obama's approval rating is at 43.9% (RCP average). This is significantly below the 48% approval rating that historically guarantees a president re-election.

Well that's if of course the Republicans find a decent candidate who can get higher than that. Historically you'll find that parties often lose when they can't find a hard candidate to rally around (i.e. election of 1860, 1836).

I don't know if it means anything, but as I look at historical trends, I notice that if Obama wins this election, it'll be the first time in ages that three consecutive Presidents have all served eight year terms. The last that happened was when Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe did it back in the early 1800s. Could that be a sign that Obama is doomed to fail? Or are we about to see another shift in Presidential trends?

Obama has been worse than Bush on every single issue which is some kind of achievement I guess, too bad it's a bad one.

The only reason he stands a chance to be re-elected is because all the republican candidates are clowns.

Fortunately, there's no way Obama can lose to any of those pathetic clowns. Unfortunately, there's no better choice than Obama.

Good thing I'll still be 17 so I won't have to decide between voting for the best of the shit-pile or not voting at all.

At 11/25/11 08:40 AM, camobch0 wrote: Fortunately, there's no way Obama can lose to any of those pathetic clowns.

I still think there's time for a dark horse candidate to come in and garner enough support to beat Obama. History has shown that some people can have brilliant campaigns within a short period of time, come from seemingly nowhere, and win the Presidency. Isn't that how Jimmy Carter more or less got into office?

At 11/17/11 03:17 AM, EoD696 wrote: So yeah...four more years of this shit, i think not. I think we've had about as much as we can stand of Obama. For your country's sake, for your own...please do not vote for socialism...it will end us.

Got any points with examples worth reading? Lurkers like myself loathe rants. Please, stick to the topic instead of launching off on a partisan rant. Boring post is boring.

At 11/25/11 08:40 AM, camobch0 wrote: Fortunately, there's no way Obama can lose to any of those pathetic clowns. Unfortunately, there's no better choice than Obama.

Okay, elect your incompetent dictator one more time. Do it, go to war against Iran, spread your military further, but don't bitch when the USA faces its downfall, and don't whine when more terrorist attempts are made against your declining country because they supposedly hate your "freedoms."

At 11/25/11 07:32 PM, Preternatural wrote:

Okay, elect your incompetent dictator one more time. Do it, go to war against Iran, spread your military further, but don't bitch when the USA faces its downfall, and don't whine when more terrorist attempts are made against your declining country because they supposedly hate your "freedoms."

I don't want that asshole as the president, but is it better to have an insane religious asshole who will fuck us up even worse than Obama will? I don't support ANY of the current candidates for president, but we might as well chose the one who will fuck us up the least. Hopefully sometime in the semi-distant future we will be able to elect someone like Elizabeth Warren. But then again, this is Amuricaaa.

At 11/20/11 11:08 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Obama has been worse than Bush on every single issue which is some kind of achievement I guess, too bad it's a bad one.

Nothing gets my goat more than seeing a liberal say stuff like this...

Pure political naivete and blindness rolled into one sad opinion.

Get this guy on board, and things will be honky dory.

Okay, there have been a few things I've been ruminating on and I've been thinking about updating this topic.

First, I'll start out with some dim light at the end of the tunnel for Obama '12.
1) November unemployment rate was at 8.6%, the first time since March '09 that it has been under 9%...a fatal number for an incumbent president's re-election bid. Furthermore, the Household Survey that is more inclusive because it includes farm labor and small business is also showing positive movement. This may mean the economy is becoming less sluggish. This is news that Obama needs in order to be re-elected.

BUT:
a) The numbers also showed that an unusually high number of workers left the labor pool (gave up looking for a job): 300K. This can create a masking effect in the unemployment rate since those who gave up looking are no longer counted as "unemployed" by this statistic thereby reducing the sample population and making gains in jobs appear more significant than they are.
b) Remember, we're going into the Christmas shopping season when many places are hiring on a temporary basis. Thus when the January numbers come out...we could return to around 9% unemployment and stay there until November 2012. Obama needs this to be a trend...not a one or two month bump. If it is holiday jobs...then it will have no effect on the vote.

2) I'm watching a possible rift start to form in the Tea Party. Here in STL the co-founder of the local Tea Party group, Dana Loesch and the group she helped create broke-up. From what I'm reading/hearing/seeing is the tensions between those Tea Partiers who want a president who is firmly conservative and those who think anyone will be better than Obama. This is good for Obama because some want to see the Tea Party, Constitutionalists and Libertarians to put up a strong third-party bid for the presidency (Ron Paul? Donald Trump?). If the right splits and there is a third-party conservative candidate...Obama wins. (I give it an 80-95% chance.)

3) In The Path to 270, political scientists Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin outline a strategy based on shifting demographics that could lead to an Electoral College victory for Obama. In this, Obama needs to increase his share of the latino vote, which they predict will increase in vote share, and keep up excitement in the youth and black votes. In terms of the white vote, he needs to realize he's going to loose these voters...so he has to keep these losses to a minimum.

There are a few things wrong with this strategy though, and I think it is a loser for the following reasons:
a) They base their Latino argument on the trend that over the last 30 or so years the Latino vote share has increased on average 2% per election. This is compared to a comparative drop in the White vote. The problem here is that this is an average. Some presidential years the increase was 4% for Latinos and other elections the numbers were -2%. In short: we don't know if '12 will see an increase or decline in the minority and youth vote. Economic stagnation could lead to a lack of enthusiasm for the incumbent president/party. It could also lead to naturalized Latinos returning to their countries of origin and therefore shrink one of their key demographics. In fact the Border Patrol has released figures showing that in FY 2011 they arrested 328K people trying to illegally cross the border. This is down from about 1.6 million eleven years ago. Furthermore, this is part of trend we've seen that correlates with both new emphasis on halting immigration and the recession.
b) Obama has the same problem McCain had in '08: he's on the loosing side of the enthusiasm gap. From where I sit Obama will start out with only 20% strongly approving of him (the easy sell) and 40% strongly disapprove (the very hard to impossible sell). So is it really wise for his campaign to just turn its back on over 80% of the electorate?

Bad news:
Is Obama Toast?, is a model statistician Nate Silver wrote for New York Times Magazine that caused a shit-ton of buzz on the left. Basically, if the economy remains sluggish Obama will probably loose, he pretty much handicaps Obama as having a slightly higher chance of joining the ranks of the one-term presidents than being re-elected.

I've got to admit I think Obama's campaign needs to look at Silver's post and ignore Texiereia's study.

I looked at Rassmussen's daily presidential strongly approve/disapprove of Obama's performance. Using this as a proxy/measure for Obama's excitement level and averaged out:
* Only 21.2% of Obama's support are hardcore enough that they will DEFINITELY be at the polls come election day.
* On the other hand, 40.6% of his opponent's base will DEFINITELY be at the polls come election day.

Thus Obama is going to have work very, very hard at turning out the other 22-25% that are less supportive of him. This only gets him to about 45%...THEN he'll have to win the 1% that don't know/care AND chip away another 5-6% of the Republican's weak supporters. At this point I think the Obama team is probably looking at doing all they can to ensure an Electoral College victory as a hedge against loosing the popular vote. (Ironic, don't you think?)

At 12/6/11 10:02 PM, TheMason wrote: At this point I think the Obama team is probably looking at doing all they can to ensure an Electoral College victory as a hedge against loosing the popular vote. (Ironic, don't you think?)

Indeed. And it's hard to say yet what Obama's re-election campaign will focus on since the repubs haven't even chosen a candidate yet. But the shocker to me is that Obama and the dems have practically handed the Repubs the easiest win in DECADES and they seem absolutely determined to fuck the dog every way it can be fucked.

At 12/7/11 01:14 AM, Ravariel wrote: Indeed. And it's hard to say yet what Obama's re-election campaign will focus on since the repubs haven't even chosen a candidate yet. But the shocker to me is that Obama and the dems have practically handed the Repubs the easiest win in DECADES and they seem absolutely determined to fuck the dog every way it can be fucked.

While I believe Obama has gotten a bum rap, I totally agree with this.

If only the Republicans would get over themselves, they would have essentially an open door to the Presidency. However, they're too high and mighty, thinking that they must find a super conservative, and it WILL come back to bite them. As much as Obama will have trouble getting elected, people will NOT put a Gingrich, or a Cain, or a Perry in office.

At 12/7/11 12:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As much as Obama will have trouble getting elected, people will NOT put a Gingrich, or a Cain, or a Perry in office.

If the economy remains stagnant and GDP does not grow more by more than 2.5 by next November then I think Gingrich would win against Obama. If the GDP grows no more than 2.0 Perry would win. At any less than 1.5 growth in GDP any Republican...including Sarah Palin...would win.

If the economy stagnates then his approval ratings will probably sink below 40% which is practically a guaranteed win for the opposition.

There's something else that happened recently that I think really signifies that Obama may actually be unelectable: Hillary 2012.

Over the past few months I've been reading OpEds by liberals who are dissatisfied with the job Obama has done. Now to the casual voter, the idea that Obama has been stopped at every turn by the GOP (aka the party of NO!)...those of us who closely follow politics know that Obama has been a disappoint in how effective he can govern. For the first two years of his term he did not need to court any Republican votes in Congress. All he had to do was convince fellow Democrats to vote for his legislative initiatives. But even with super-majorities in both house of Congresses...he couldn't produce the policies.

So now there appears there is a dump Obama for Hillary movement that may be brewing.

In the Wall Street Journal,two Democratic pollster have written an OpEd that encourages Obama to step down in order for Hillary to run. This would be a repeat of 1968 when LBJ stepped down. So right now I see three options:

1) STATUS QUO: In this option we continue down the path towards Obama 2012 with the Democratic party presenting a united front and everyone supporting the incumbent.

2) PRIMARY CHALLENGE: In this option Hillary decides to challenge Barack. They duke it out until one side wrestles the nomination from the other...a fight that will last possibly until the convention. The victor would emerge in a weakened position because now they have expended so many resources against an opponent who will not appear on the November ballot. Furthermore, Hillary's current high approval ratings would probably drop because of the mudslinging. If Hillary wins she would have the support of more whites and women. However, she will loose both a percentage of the black vote and depressed black turn-out. But she may energize the youth vote. Obama on the other hand would retain an energetic black vote but loose more of the women's vote. This would only make the path to victory easier for the Republicans.

3) OBAMA DOESN'T RUN: In this final option, Obama steps down and clears the path for Hillary. I don't think anyone will challenge her and she can focus on slamming the leading Republicans before they are done bloodying themselves. I think this gives the Democrats their best chance at capturing a second term in the WH...I'd give it a 50/50 shot. Right now I think they have about a 30% chance.

Well, it looks like Obama has begun his campaign in earnest, and it's a direction that, frankly, I'm surprised he's having the balls to take. He seems to be trying to take back the "liberal/progressive as epithet" and turn it on it's head, for once truly defending and espousing the benefits of a progressive system. He has also made a heavy base-rising stroke of international policy in a new policy direction regarding foreign aid.

This could be an absolute disaster if he can't control the message, but even a moderately left position will be far more appealing than a radical right position that the Republicans seem desperate to hold up. That said, if Gingrich can toe the line between bomb-thrower and oblivious blowhard, Obama is going to have a rough go of it even if the economy improves.

At 12/7/11 11:47 PM, Korriken wrote:

1) STATUS QUO:

most likely.

I do agree that this the most likely scenario based on history.

2) PRIMARY CHALLENGE:

not really all that possible, given that Hillary has chosen not to run for president in 2012.

I am well aware that Hillary has made this announcement. However, it happens all the time in politics when someone say's they won't run for the WH and then decides to anyway. (It's common with Governors.) So no...it really is possible and I think the second most likely scenario.

Although, did just think of a fourth: Obama co-opts the challenge by convincing Biden to drop from the ticket and name Hillary VP to set her up for 2016.

3) OBAMA DOESN'T RUN:

I just can't imagine Obama having the humility to say, "Ok I tried, I failed, Hillary, you go for it!"

This is why I think this is the least likely scenario. I think Obama is not able to conceive a loss of a second term right now and I think he'll resist any suggestion to effectively resign by not running.

It'd probably be more likely another democrat steps up to oppose Obama, problem is, I can't imagine anyone trying it.

Obama has a machine behind him, so the other Democrats know they will go up against Chicago-style politics so the idea of running against him would be a very big turn-off. Better to wait for 2016. That's why Hillary is the only real challenger I see out there...she has the Clinton machine behind her and able to take on Obama.

At 12/8/11 12:27 AM, Ravariel wrote: This could be an absolute disaster if he can't control the message, but even a moderately left position will be far more appealing than a radical right position that the Republicans seem desperate to hold up.

I don't think so, the US is a Center-right country, so I think that Obama can easily be painted as firmly left instead of center or moderately left. Thus I think someone who is further right (ie: Reagan in '80) could beat him.

At 12/8/11 09:23 AM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so, the US is a Center-right country, so I think that Obama can easily be painted as firmly left instead of center or moderately left.

Well, that's what I mean about being able to control the message.

Thus I think someone who is further right (ie: Reagan in '80) could beat him.

Problem is, even Reagan '80 is to the left of the current Republican field (excepting Huntsman and the ever-squishy Romney) right now. Granted, candidates generally tack center once the general election comes, but this has been, by far, the furthest right that the republicans have gone in some time. How Huntsman isn't running away with this election I have no idea.

At 12/8/11 10:33 AM, Ravariel wrote: How Huntsman isn't running away with this election I have no idea.

Three letters:

L

D

S

At 12/8/11 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/8/11 10:33 AM, Ravariel wrote: How Huntsman isn't running away with this election I have no idea.

Three letters:

L

D

S

Were Romney not similar, and were he losing to a slightly less-than-mainstream republican only, I might agree, but he's polling at Margin of Error right now, losing to Bachmann and Santorum as well as Gingrich, Romney and Paul. He should be making a bigger splash than he is.

Anyway, there's a new poll out that is rather telling in many ways, and must be slightly worrying for the republican establishment. In 3 of the 4 first primary states (excepting New Hampshire) Gingritch has a healthy double-digit lead over Romney. In most of those states Obama polls significantly higher than Gingritch (12 points in Florida, which has to scare the repubs), he also beats Gingrich nationally by nearly 7 points (the same margin by which he beat McCain). With the Iowa Caususes less than 3 weeks away, and the ebb of political interest that comes from the holidays, unless Gingrich makes a Perry-level flub Romney is going to find it hard to come back from 3 early primary state losses, and even so nationally Romney is behind Obama by 2 points... within the margin of error, but in no way is he anything close to guaranteed.

What's everyone's take on the Ron Paul factor? If he or someone else, say, Huntsman, ran as an Independent, they'd most likely have the Ross Perot effect and Obama would have a second term. Paul does have enough of a following he could have an effect as a third party candidate.

At 12/14/11 08:38 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: What's everyone's take on the Ron Paul factor? If he or someone else, say, Huntsman, ran as an Independent, they'd most likely have the Ross Perot effect and Obama would have a second term. Paul does have enough of a following he could have an effect as a third party candidate.

No. It's nice that Paul is anti-war (I am too,) but that doesn't suddenly negate the fact that he's a corporatist right-winger. I still don't understand why anyone would follow him.

At 11/25/11 08:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/20/11 11:08 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Obama has been worse than Bush on every single issue which is some kind of achievement I guess, too bad it's a bad one.

Nothing gets my goat more than seeing a liberal say stuff like this...

Pure political naivete and blindness rolled into one sad opinion.

Oh please. Let's face it: the last couple of presidents we've had haven't exactly been role models.
Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman."
Bush: *barfs on the Japanese emperor*
Obama: "Change." Mr. President, change WHAT? "Just change. Don't question it."

It's laughable, really.

Now that the economy appears to be at least stabilizing, Obama's chances of winning are slowly creeping up. That doesn't mean too much... If the Republican don't play stupid.

If the Republicans play the smart game (the one that seeks to get elected) they would put Romney in, even though he trails Gingrich, and they woul dhave a decent, if not good chance to beat Obama.

If the Republican play the dumb game (stick to our guns in the face of insurmountable odds and an easier way out) and stick with Gingrich they will lose. As impotent as many people think Obama is politically, they think Gingrich is slimy and greasy. The right loves him because he knows all of the buzzwords. The left and middle hate him because he's a human sized pile of asshole.

When it comes down to it, the fate of this election is more in the Republicans' hands than in Obama's.

At 12/14/11 10:10 PM, Morph94 wrote: Oh please. Let's face it: the last couple of presidents we've had haven't exactly been role models.
It's laughable, really.

You're not exactly understanding my point.

At 12/14/11 08:38 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: What's everyone's take on the Ron Paul factor? If he or someone else, say, Huntsman, ran as an Independent, they'd most likely have the Ross Perot effect and Obama would have a second term. Paul does have enough of a following he could have an effect as a third party candidate.

I am not convinced Ron Paul is liked enough to cause such a rift. Either way, the Tea Party has already caused a similar rift. The Tea Party is largely why the Republican field has been a circus instead of serious candidates. Perhaps if this rift hadn't already been created there might be a winnable candidate who is not Romney (a very left Republican).

Back to Ron Paul. I still don't see many people following him other than the cult of college students who love him now.

At 11/25/11 07:32 PM, Preternatural wrote:

At 11/25/11 08:40 AM, camobch0 wrote: Fortunately, there's no way Obama can lose to any of those pathetic clowns. Unfortunately, there's no better choice than Obama.

Okay, elect your incompetent dictator one more time. Do it, go to war against Iran, spread your military further, but don't bitch when the USA faces its downfall, and don't whine when more terrorist attempts are made against your declining country because they supposedly hate your "freedoms."

Its time to get an education.

To me, your just one of those ignorant rednecks who bitch about every law, just or not, about how it infringes the Constitution when it isn't.

Wasn't for socialism, the world would be a complete chaos.