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

28 Oct 2011 13:43

Bala Verde wrote:Do you think fundraising totals for both candidates will be lower than last election, given the depressed economy?


Absolutely not. Today it's more important than ever to own a piece of Washington DC.

Anybody with money knows this.
Scott SoCal
 

28 Oct 2011 14:43

Cobblestones wrote:I believe this is precisely how it works. How on earth that should be revenue neutral is beyond me if everybody can chose either pay the current rates or the new ones (whichever is less I suppose). And if it's not revenue neutral, how is it balanced in the budget? And if it's not balanced in the budget, is Perry still a TP darling?

Also the opt-out of SS would be a disaster in the making. Of course a LOT of particularly younger people will opt out. And of course they will then not make deposits of a similar magnitude into a 401k or similar. What should become of them once they're nearing ~60-65 years of age is anybody's guess. Perry will of course be long gone by then.


For those who "opt out" and when they are old have nothing to live on, I propose putting a 20' tall electric fence around a couple thousand square miles in west Texas and dump their azz in it. Toss daily garbage from the back of restaurants over the fence and let them rummage for food. Send a front end loader in daily to scoop up the dead. If that is the accountability for choosing this plan, then I am all for it.

The problem with this country is there is no accountability for being useful idiots.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

28 Oct 2011 17:38

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Came across this AP article today showing how in certain Obama strong holds in 2008 where he received millions of dollars, he isn't getting the same support, and some if it is going to Romney.

This lends credence why I think it's 50/50 at this point in an Obama/Romney race, and I imagine why Scott seems as confident as hopeful that Romney will win.


Romney is also raising less than 4 years ago. I feel much more of the money goes to the superpacs etc. than to the individual candidates. The DNC is apparently doing pretty well.
User avatar Cobblestones
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,042
Joined: 12 May 2009 23:22
Location: Ohio

29 Oct 2011 00:50

Somehow totally missed this: two polls on Oct 10th, one by Reuters and the other by NBC/Wall Street Journal, show "the Democratic candidate" ahead of "the Republican candidate" in generic head-to-head Congressional match-ups, by margins of 48% to 40% and 45% to 41%, respectively (not sure what states were included in the polls, though). Granted that's not a huge lead, but considering how fed up people are with Congress (I think the last number I saw was something like a 9% approval rating?), it's very possible that the Republicans might get steamrolled by the same anti-incumbent wave that gave them House majority in 2010.

What irony it would be if Romney were elected but the Ds regained control of the House - Ds can sit on their hands and say "no" just as well as Rs currently do. Even better would be if Obama is re-elected along with Ds regaining the House (and maybe picking up seats in the Senate as well).
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

29 Oct 2011 03:22

I don't think the Dems will have as large of gains as the Repubs did in 2010, but I do expect a heavy turnover, especially in the House, but potentially in the Senate as well. This will include several Democrats losing their seats as well as Republicans. Saw one poll, can't recall where, that had the approval at 6%. That's almost within the margin of error.
CBS News did a report today saying that Cain continues to hold the lead in the polls, which surprised me, and that he can't be ignored. I thought for the last several weeks he would do what Bachman, Perry and others have done and jump to the front, and fade, leaving Romney the only marathon runner so to speak. But CBS pointed out that Romney has had a hard time getting more than 25% for not only months, but going back to 2008. It's like he just isn't embraced by the right, and many people there seeking dramatic change as well have accepted that Romney simply isn't going to bring that, but Cain might.

Problem is, I don't see any way Cain beats Obama. But it sure would be an interesting election.

Perhaps more interesting is that in polls Hillary trounces the GOP candidates. Of course she's not running, and won't. Maybe in 2016.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

29 Oct 2011 03:29

Alpe d'Huez wrote:I don't think the Dems will have as large of gains as the Repubs did in 2010, but I do expect a heavy turnover, especially in the House, but potentially in the Senate as well. This will include several Democrats losing their seats as well as Republicans. Saw one poll, can't recall where, that had the approval at 6%. That's almost within the margin of error.
CBS News did a report today saying that Cain continues to hold the lead in the polls, which surprised me, and that he can't be ignored. I thought for the last several weeks he would do what Bachman, Perry and others have done and jump to the front, and fade, leaving Romney the only marathon runner so to speak. But CBS pointed out that Romney has had a hard time getting more than 25% for not only months, but going back to 2008. It's like he just isn't embraced by the right, and many people there seeking dramatic change as well have accepted that Romney simply isn't going to bring that, but Cain might.

Problem is, I don't see any way Cain beats Obama. But it sure would be an interesting election.

Perhaps more interesting is that in polls Hillary trounces the GOP candidates. Of course she's not running, and won't. Maybe in 2016.


Has there been a poll Hillary v. Obama? She'd trounce him too.

Dems effed up bad in 2008.
Scott SoCal
 

29 Oct 2011 03:37

VeloCity wrote:Somehow totally missed this: two polls on Oct 10th, one by Reuters and the other by NBC/Wall Street Journal, show "the Democratic candidate" ahead of "the Republican candidate" in generic head-to-head Congressional match-ups, by margins of 48% to 40% and 45% to 41%, respectively (not sure what states were included in the polls, though). Granted that's not a huge lead, but considering how fed up people are with Congress (I think the last number I saw was something like a 9% approval rating?), it's very possible that the Republicans might get steamrolled by the same anti-incumbent wave that gave them House majority in 2010.

What irony it would be if Romney were elected but the Ds regained control of the House - Ds can sit on their hands and say "no" just as well as Rs currently do. Even better would be if Obama is re-elected along with Ds regaining the House (and maybe picking up seats in the Senate as well).


Obama had total control until the mid-terms. What did he do? Complain about Republican obstructionists. No way GOP could stop Obamacare yet it was a nailbiter with Pelosi twisting arms to the point of breaking them.

I think Obama has be neutered and by some strange twist if he were to win in '12 he will be extremely ineffectual.
Scott SoCal
 

29 Oct 2011 03:55

Scott SoCal wrote:Has there been a poll Hillary v. Obama? She'd trounce him too.

Agree.

I think a huge mistake Obama made compared to Bush, is that if you look back at Bush, he was able to get some very conservative legislation through a mixed Congress. He was effective at cajoling votes and steering swing voters and moderate Democrats his way from time to time. Not just him, but his administration. They were surprisingly deft in retrospect; agree or disagree with the legislation. Even if you look at 2006 when the Dems ran entirely on getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan as loud as they could, after that election they gave Bush nearly every single thing he wanted for war funding, all of it.

When Obama came into power he had the House, and 60 votes in the Senate. What happened? He spent all his time trying to work with the Senate to make sure they got 60 votes. Hardly any time at all working with swing voters or moderate Republicans. He shut out about 30 or so votes, period, and alienated another 10-15 or so, including some in his own party, making it very difficult to get any legislation through. And the two biggest pieces of legislation he did get through: stimulus and "Obamacare" were not that popular with many Democrats, and very unpopular with most Republicans.

I just can't see Hillary having made the same mistake, no way. No possible way.

I also don't think Romney would make such a mistake. I think the guy is too smart for that. Cain, I don't know. He would be up against a very difficult time with Congress, and would have to have a very strong carrot/stick approach to getting his plans through.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

29 Oct 2011 04:36

Scott SoCal wrote:I think Obama has be neutered and by some strange twist if he were to win in '12 he will be extremely ineffectual.
And if Romney becomes pres, I think he will have to be neutered before - a la Bush - he manages to do irreparable damage (though he may neuter himself by spending all his time trying to figure out what he's actually for). But more to the point, so probably will the Dems, if they manage to regain enough seats in the House - what incentive would they have now to work with a Republican president, Romney or otherwise, after Republicans sat on their hands and did absolutely nothing for 2 years? (Oh wait they did defund Sesame Street.) And then Romney becomes ineffectual and little gets done while the two parties stalemate and people will get more and more frustrated and they'll "throw the bums out" and every 2 years we start all over again. Lovely system we have going.

Anyway, back to neutering:

24. Which of the following best describes why the economy is not doing better under Barack Obama's leadership?

52% total and 50% of independents agree with "His ideas are good, but he hasn't been able to get them implemented"

37% total and 35% of independents agree with "His ideas are bad, and too many of them are being implemented"

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2011/10/27/fox-news-poll-76-percent-dissatisfied-with-direction-country/ Scroll down to p9 for the breakdown.

Huh. It would appear that people don't agree that Obama should be neutered. And this is a FoxNews poll, where respondents hold favorable views of the TP that are almost twice the national average.

And ever so slowly but surely, the economy is starting to improve. If the economy starts to gain momentum Republicans are, to borrow your word, toast.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

29 Oct 2011 12:56

VeloCity wrote:And if Romney becomes pres, I think he will have to be neutered before - a la Bush - he manages to do irreparable damage (though he may neuter himself by spending all his time trying to figure out what he's actually for). But more to the point, so probably will the Dems, if they manage to regain enough seats in the House - what incentive would they have now to work with a Republican president, Romney or otherwise, after Republicans sat on their hands and did absolutely nothing for 2 years? (Oh wait they did defund Sesame Street.) And then Romney becomes ineffectual and little gets done while the two parties stalemate and people will get more and more frustrated and they'll "throw the bums out" and every 2 years we start all over again. Lovely system we have going.

Anyway, back to neutering:

24. Which of the following best describes why the economy is not doing better under Barack Obama's leadership?

52% total and 50% of independents agree with "His ideas are good, but he hasn't been able to get them implemented"

37% total and 35% of independents agree with "His ideas are bad, and too many of them are being implemented"

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2011/10/27/fox-news-poll-76-percent-dissatisfied-with-direction-country/ Scroll down to p9 for the breakdown.

Huh. It would appear that people don't agree that Obama should be neutered. And this is a FoxNews poll, where respondents hold favorable views of the TP that are almost twice the national average.

And ever so slowly but surely, the economy is starting to improve. If the economy starts to gain momentum Republicans are, to borrow your word, toast.


I've been drawing some comparisons between Romney and Clinton. The right used to moan about Clinton not having core values... that he got up in the morning and the first order of business was to figure out which way the wind was blowing.

I'm starting to think Romney may be something of a Republican version of Bill Clinton.

We need improvement economically so bad and right now. If the economy picks up serious momentum (which I hope it does, like, yesterday already) then that will make Obama very difficult to beat. Having said that it will take more than a good day on wall street. The more encouraging number was the GDP report (+2.5%). But don't get too excited just yet as those numbers will get revised in another 30 days or so.
Scott SoCal
 

29 Oct 2011 19:24

Interesting post and poll there VeloCity. I would not have guessed that.

As I said though, we have a year to go, and a lot could happen between now and then. An awful lot.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

30 Oct 2011 02:32

Scott SoCal wrote:I'm starting to think Romney may be something of a Republican version of Bill Clinton.
I dunno, I'd probably compare Romney to John Kerry more than to Clinton. Clinton was actually quite sure of his views, but he was so concerned with how they'd be received that he ended up being far too cautious in expressing them or acting on them. I think too with Clinton that part of his cautiousness was getting burned so early in his presidency by the health care fiasco - imo he was too naive about the political process up to that point and then overcompensated by becoming far too cautious. But I don't think he was really a waffler.

EDIT: forgot to add as well: much of the time I get the feeling that Romney doesn't really believe what he says but feels he has to say it to appease the base. It's the main reason if any R was going to win, I'd prefer Romney over someone like Perry or Bachmann who really do seem to believe what they say. And that's kinda scary.

We need improvement economically so bad and right now. If the economy picks up serious momentum (which I hope it does, like, yesterday already) then that will make Obama very difficult to beat. Having said that it will take more than a good day on wall street. The more encouraging number was the GDP report (+2.5%). But don't get too excited just yet as those numbers will get revised in another 30 days or so.
Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent and a rant, but this is one of the reasons that I think our system has become irrevocably broken - in terms of the presidential race at least, it's in the best interest of the Republicans that the economy not improve (and this is not a partisan thing, as it would be the same if the situation were reversed, but I'll use the current situation just for convenience). If the Rs worked to improve the economy, who's going to reap the benefit? Obama. So where's the incentive for the Rs to do anything, if it's just going to benefit their opponent? And let's say Romney wins but the Ds win back the Congress - where would be the incentive for the Ds to do anything, if it will just make Romney look good? (And an independent or third party candidate would be even worse, as there would be zero incentive for either Rs or Ds to do anything that would benefit a third party.)

IMO it's one reason parliamentary systems offer a big advantage over presidential systems.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

31 Oct 2011 23:49

Not pretty right now for Barry 'O.

Experts begin to doubt Obama’s re-electability

Where’s the evidence President Obama can win the 2012 election?

Where’s the evidence that swing voters even want to listen to him?

Barack Obama polls below 50 percent in every state that matters. The economy has stalled, unemployment is much higher than the official number of 9 percent, and Hispanics and African Americans are disappointed. The president’s approval ratings have tanked, and the right-track/wrong-track number fell of the cliff in the summer.


The public is even more pessimistic than during Carter’s final dive. In November 1979, just 19 percent of Americans said they were satisfied “with the way things are going in the country.” Today, that score is 11 percent.

“No president gets re-elected when 70 or 65 percent say the nation’s heading in the wrong direction — it just doesn’t happen,” Hill explained.



Hill, though, isn’t convinced. “He’s lost credibility on managing the economy of the nation,” he said. “I don’t know why people would have confidence in his critique of his opponent; ‘He’s telling me Mitt Romney is a moron?’ … it’s going to be very tough sale.”



http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/experts-begin-to-doubt-obamas-re-electability/


If Obama gets re-elected it will have been an epic turn-around.
Scott SoCal
 

01 Nov 2011 00:05

Scott SoCal wrote:Not pretty right now for Barry 'O.

Experts begin to doubt Obama’s re-electability









http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/experts-begin-to-doubt-obamas-re-electability/


If Obama gets re-elected it will have been an epic turn-around.


LOL.

Image

Would you expect a republican strategist to say anything else?
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

01 Nov 2011 00:09

Rip:30 wrote:LOL.

Image

Would you expect a republican strategist to say anything else?


You're right. What was I thinking.

Everything is bitchin' and BO won't even break a sweat. Smooth sailing. No worries. Piece of cake.
Scott SoCal
 

01 Nov 2011 00:16

Scott SoCal wrote:You're right. What was I thinking.

Everything is bitchin' and BO won't even break a sweat. Smooth sailing. No worries. Piece of cake.


Dude come on, elections aren't won a year out:

"With just over a year before Mr. Obama faces voters again for re-election, it should be noted that Mr. Obama's overall approval rating is similar to that of Bill Clinton's (43 percent) and Ronald Reagan's (46 percent) about a year before their presidential elections when they won re-election. Conversely, George H.W. Bush had a 70 percent approval rating about a year before the presidential election but then lost his bid for re-election."
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

01 Nov 2011 00:28

""CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report) – Rick Perry waded into the brouhaha over the sexual harassment charges against Republican presidential rival Herman Cain, telling reporters, “If it turns out he’s innocent, then he should be executed.”

Noting that the case against Mr. Cain was far from airtight, Gov. Perry said, “In Texas we’ve fried men for less than that.”

The Texas governor stopped short of saying that he would personally put Mr. Cain to death, but added, “I’ll tell you what, if I had to do it, I’d sleep like a baby that night.”""


This might be satire..but--------------
redtreviso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 23 May 2010 12:55

01 Nov 2011 00:35

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

01 Nov 2011 00:38

Rip:30 wrote:Image


Funny you didn't roll that scale back to 2001.

But, I think you are right. Hopefully BO will attempt to run on his jobs record. Maybe even make it a centerpiece of his campaign.
Scott SoCal
 

01 Nov 2011 00:44

Scott SoCal wrote:Funny you didn't roll that scale back to 2001.

But, I think you are right. Hopefully BO will attempt to run on his jobs record. Maybe even make it a centerpiece of his campaign.


Ok

Bush: worst in 75 years.

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

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: leftover pie and 2 guests

Back to top