Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

23 Oct 2011 00:56

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I hear what you're saying IK. One would think there is great opportunity here for Perry. But every time you hear him speak he just seems like he can't think on his feet, and every debate seems to cement that assertion.


It really does. I expected his first debate to be a little subar because his state was on fire and he was bit preoccupied, but they just get worse. And the one area you would think he's an expert, border patrol, he still gets crushed.
User avatar ImmaculateKadence
Member
 
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 16:33

23 Oct 2011 01:04

Scott SoCal wrote:Everybody has an opinion and it's still early. Having said that I don'e see a path for Obama. He'll raise a ton of money but he can't run on his record.

Obama gets beat in the general somehwere between 3-5% on the popular vote, he will not win Florida or Ohio, probably loses Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Electroal numbers won't be close.

And if the Republicans had a good candidate it would be a landslide.


I dont like Obama. I think hes a good president but I dont like the guy, due to the way he behaved in the 2008 election, and so long as the Gop candidate is moderate (ie will be pretty much the same in office as Obama) I would enjoy Obama losing.

But the fact of the matter is, the election favours him strongly. He is the sitting candidate. He has a base of diehard fans that will be out in force big time. The Democrats have way more members. His skeletons are already well known and often ignored whereas those of the Gop candidate will come out and shock people.

Bush was able to get evangelical Christians out in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. In both cases the polls predicted a bigger victory for him in those states and it came down to the wire. These evangelical types wont go out for Romney.

Obama won Virginia and North Carolina for christ sake. His machine is like Amrstrong US postal.

I dont know what the human instinct is that causes you to think the Gop actually have a chance, but I see it a lot. I remember a lot of Republicans interviewed on election night refused to admit Mccain was going to lose even after Obama had Colorado.

This isnt an election for the GOP to win. 2016 maybe if they are lucky. 2012, the ball is in the Dems court.
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013. 2nd all time cq rankings.
The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons wrote:When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

The story is beginning again, just as it did 14 years ago


journalist with integrity.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,755
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

23 Oct 2011 01:20

Scott wrote:Everybody has an opinion and it's still early. Having said that I don'e see a path for Obama. He'll raise a ton of money but he can't run on his record.
Obama gets beat in the general somewhere between 3-5% on the popular vote, he will not win Florida or Ohio, probably loses Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Electoral numbers won't be close.

And if the Republicans had a good candidate it would be a landslide.


meanwhile, the GOP track record of leadership for my entire lifetime has been exceptional.

Image
Not done with my drink till I've crunched all the ice crew
User avatar Rip:30
Member
 
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 05:39

23 Oct 2011 01:25

The Hitch wrote:
But the fact of the matter is, the election favours him strongly. He is the sitting candidate. He has a base of diehard fans that will be out in force big time. The Democrats have way more members. His skeletons are already well known and often ignored whereas those of the Gop candidate will come out and shock people.

I dont know what the human instinct is that causes you to think the Gop actually have a chance, but I see it a lot. I remember a lot of Republicans interviewed on election night refused to admit Mccain was going to lose even after Obama had Colorado.



You do realize Obama's approval rating is at an all time low and the two Republican front runners already lead Obama in most polls?

Going into the 12 quarter, I'd say the GOP is in excellent position.
User avatar ImmaculateKadence
Member
 
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 16:33

23 Oct 2011 01:33

ImmaculateKadence wrote:You do realize Obama's approval rating is at an all time low and the two Republican front runners already lead Obama in most polls?

Going into the 12 quarter, I'd say the GOP is in excellent position.


All presidents recover in their last year. The economy probably will improve and so will Obamas approval ratings. The reality of election is also different from approval ratings. Obama has most of the advantages.
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013. 2nd all time cq rankings.
The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons wrote:When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

The story is beginning again, just as it did 14 years ago


journalist with integrity.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,755
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

23 Oct 2011 02:01

ImmaculateKadence wrote:and the two Republican front runners already lead Obama in most polls?
None of the Republicans lead Obama. Romney and Obama are essentially even, but none of the others are even close to Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Even Obama vs "generic" Republican is basically a tie.

Obama's also raised more than all of the Republicans combined and three times as much as Romney, money they haven't even begun to spend.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

23 Oct 2011 02:36

ImmaculateKadence wrote:You do realize Obama's approval rating is at an all time low and the two Republican front runners already lead Obama in most polls?

Going into the 12 quarter, I'd say the GOP is in excellent position.


Wait until the Dems start painting Romney as a blow dried hedge fund manager with seven houses, the exact type of guy that wrecked the economy. At the same time the religious right will be using the back channels to toss cold water on the presidential bid of a cult member who wears magic underwear. Romney will be taking fire from both sides.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

23 Oct 2011 03:18

The Hitch wrote: All presidents recover in their last year. The economy probably will improve and so will Obamas approval ratings. The reality of election is also different from approval ratings. Obama has most of the advantages.

What are you basing that on? Approval ratings at this point and beyond are historically excellent indicators of how a president will do in the next election. Isn't this the lowest approval rating for any president at this point in their term? I think so, at least since '38. Interesting fact, at this point in W's term, he was at 86%.

VeloCity wrote:None of the Republicans lead Obama. Romney and Obama are essentially even, but none of the others are even close to Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html



Good source. It contradicts much of what I have been seeing from Rassmussen and others that show Cain and Romney almost neck and neck while leading Obama by about 2 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/17/surging_cain_leads_obama_in_national_poll_111708.html

BroDeal wrote: Wait until the Dems start painting Romney as a blow dried hedge fund manager with seven houses, the exact type of guy that wrecked the economy. At the same time the religious right will be using the back channels to toss cold water on the presidential bid of a cult member who wears magic underwear. Romney will be taking fire from both sides.


I don't see any of it being successful. If there is anything Romney will be able to school dems on, it's the economy.
User avatar ImmaculateKadence
Member
 
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 16:33

23 Oct 2011 03:55

ImmaculateKadence wrote:Good source. It contradicts much of what I have been seeing from Rassmussen and others that show Cain and Romney almost neck and neck while leading Obama by about 2 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/17/surging_cain_leads_obama_in_national_poll_111708.html
It's a good summary source for tracking a number of polls.
I don't see any of it being successful. If there is anything Romney will be able to school dems on, it's the economy.
Romney's got two problems: first, he has no real record to run on. His economic record while gov of Massachusetts is mixed at best - a balanced budget, but only because corporate and property taxes were raised, while the state was something like 46th or 47th in terms of job creation during his years as governor. Public job growth - ie the government - in Mass grew twice as fast as private job growth did during Romney's term. And his one big accomplishment - health care - he's trying to distance himself from.

(Oh the irony: the Republican candidate is most likely going to be a tall, awkward, French-speaking guy from Massachusetts who while governor raised taxes, increased the size of government, and introduced public health care.)

Second is that he's tied himself to Wall St and the bankers. Actually, he's tied himself big-time to Wall St and the bankers. And while a lot of people may not be happy with Obama, no one is happy with Wall St and the bankers these days.

Once Romney is settled as the Republican candidate, the Dems will start hammering all those messages home.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

23 Oct 2011 04:36

The Hitch wrote:All presidents recover in their last year.


Not this one. Unemployment alone... just that one issue will sink him. More Americans on food stamps, standard of living... you name it, domestically it is worse now that when BO took office.

There are two ways he might win. Both are longshots. The economy recovers substantially and the trends are moving in a very positive direction come election time. The other is he is successful getting the American public to buy the idea the only reason the domestic situation isn't better is because the republicans didn't allow him to govern. Both are unlikely.

When the repubs select a nominee (it doesn't matter who it is), when the presidental debates start Obama will get destroyed. There is nothing domestically he can point to that's positive. Nothing.
Scott SoCal
 

23 Oct 2011 04:39

VeloCity wrote:It's a good summary source for tracking a number of polls.
Romney's got two problems: first, he has no real record to run on. His economic record while gov of Massachusetts is mixed at best - a balanced budget, but only because corporate and property taxes were raised, while the state was something like 46th or 47th in terms of job creation during his years as governor. Public job growth - ie the government - in Mass grew twice as fast as private job growth did during Romney's term. And his one big accomplishment - health care - he's trying to distance himself from.

(Oh the irony: the Republican candidate is most likely going to be a tall, awkward, French-speaking guy from Massachusetts who while governor raised taxes, increased the size of government, and introduced public health care.)

Second is that he's tied himself to Wall St and the bankers. Actually, he's tied himself big-time to Wall St and the bankers. And while a lot of people may not be happy with Obama, no one is happy with Wall St and the bankers these days.

Once Romney is settled as the Republican candidate, the Dems will start hammering all those messages home.


Obama is in bed with Wall st in every way imaginable. They won't go there unless they want their *** handed to them.
Scott SoCal
 

23 Oct 2011 05:09

This is a little off topic but why doesn't the US make it compulsory to vote? It seems silly to me from someone who lives in a country where it is compulsory to vote to be able to vote in an election one year and for the next to not vote. Can someone explain why voting is not compulsory in the US?
diggercuz wrote:second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
User avatar auscyclefan94
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,325
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 02:37
Location: Australia

23 Oct 2011 05:23

auscyclefan94 wrote:This is a little off topic but why doesn't the US make it compulsory to vote? It seems silly to me from someone who lives in a country where it is compulsory to vote to be able to vote in an election one year and for the next to not vote. Can someone explain why voting is not compulsory in the US?


We already have enough idiots who vote. We don't need to force more to do so.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

23 Oct 2011 05:45

I don't think it is mandatory to vote anywhere. It is advised that a person should exercise Universal Adult Franchise. To increase turnout, some countries have holidays on the day of the election (any form of public service in mine).
ramjambunath
Member
 
Posts: 1,878
Joined: 04 Jul 2011 20:22
Location: Pune

23 Oct 2011 06:53

Scott SoCal wrote:Obama is in bed with Wall st in every way imaginable.
Not really.
http://wpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html

He's not too popular on Wall St these days.

They won't go there unless they want their *** handed to them.
You're not keeping up. They already started a while ago (actually they started last April with that "Mitt Romney: Wall Streets Best Friend" ad).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html

http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=141804

Even some on your side are a bit concerned with Romney's coziness with the big bankers et al.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/10/cozy-relationship-wall-street-hurts-romney

Besides, it's Romney himself who keeps saying things like "Wall St is connected to Main St" and of course the infamous "Corporations are people too". Not to mention that Romney has received almost 25% of his campaign funding from "the finance sector", far more than any other candidate.

All the Dems have to do is package it all up and let Mitt and the campaign contribution numbers speak for themselves.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

23 Oct 2011 07:07

Scott SoCal wrote:When the repubs select a nominee (it doesn't matter who it is), when the presidental debates start Obama will get destroyed.
Sorry, I must have missed something - when did debates become about anything of substance?

Put Obama and Romney together on stage and people will remember why they voted for Obama in the first place, and why they've never really warmed up to Romney.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

23 Oct 2011 10:17

ramjambunath wrote:I don't think it is mandatory to vote anywhere. It is advised that a person should exercise Universal Adult Franchise. To increase turnout, some countries have holidays on the day of the election (any form of public service in mine).


Certainly is in Australia. You get a hefty fine if you don't vote, vote more than once or don't enrol with the electoral commission.

BroDeal, I was more saying that because it seems a little odd that you could have a large variation in the people who are voting in elections which causes inconsistencies with the number of people voting and could make it a nightmare to for political analysts to predict results.
diggercuz wrote:second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
User avatar auscyclefan94
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,325
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 02:37
Location: Australia

23 Oct 2011 10:35

ImmaculateKadence wrote:...I don't see any of it being successful. If there is anything Romney will be able to school dems on, it's the economy.



This is precisely why the nation and the world is in such chaos. Everything is in chaos.

Because political considerations have actually nothing to do with anything about this election, or at any rate anything other than economic political considerations.

For this reason, the entire business of democracy these days is totally wearisome and depressing to me.

I'm sorry that I have nothing to contribute to the analysis of the election under discussion, but this is why.

I'd rather be voting in Tunisia today, where there would at least be something actually worth voting for.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,534
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

23 Oct 2011 12:47

ramjambunath wrote:I don't think it is mandatory to vote anywhere. It is advised that a person should exercise Universal Adult Franchise. To increase turnout, some countries have holidays on the day of the election (any form of public service in mine).


Besides Australia (as ACF mentioned) Belgium also has the mandatory vote... Although I don't think Belgium is a particularly good example of how to organize a political system at the moment.
Moondance
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,504
Joined: 02 Jul 2009 00:53
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

23 Oct 2011 12:48

You know, I've seen a few of the debates, and followed Romney for a while, I'm not entirely certain why some have faith in his economic plans, nor am I convinced that what I have heard from his mouth gives me much of any confidence that his plans are going to lead to much of an economic recovery, let alone any sort of boom. I mean, here's an analysis by the WSJ, a generally favorable paper to conservatives, and the article is I think far from harshly critical, let alone bias. But I read it, and I don't really see anything new there. There are mostly subtle differences with Obama, undefined areas, and he would let health care take it's own path with the uninsured. Much of his arguments have been stated before, or even tried before, mostly during the Bush years, and are rooted in the same supply-side economics we've seen for the last few decades. And some of his ideas, if passed, are likely to leave budget holes that have to be filled, either by even larger deficits, or cuts, most likely in social programs, like the big three, and I don't know how he's going to defend that beyond claiming that his plan will somehow lead to enough growth to compensate for that. But I just don't see it.

Not that Obama's legislative suggestions have done much of anything either, and as Scott says, he won't be able to run much on that as many people think they've made things worse. Though many of his plans have been rooted in supply-side economics as well, including tax breaks many seem to not think actually happened. So he'll either have to flip on that, or spin it as best he can. He will have the benefit of blaming a very unpopular and obstructionist Congress that Romney will have to walk a fine line with supporting. But he's not running for Congress, so that will only go so far, and they'll be taken to the woodshed on their own I think, with more heavy turnover (though not necessarily for the Dems).

As my my mother used to say, pick your poison.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,061
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BullsFan22 and 10 guests

Back to top