U.S. Politics

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
ImmaculateKadence said:
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.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
ImmaculateKadence said:
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.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
The Hitch said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
ImmaculateKadence said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Hitch said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
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.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
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?
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
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.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,878
0
0
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).
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
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.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
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.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,325
0
0
ramjambunath said:
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.
 
ImmaculateKadence said:
...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.
 
Jul 2, 2009
5,504
0
0
ramjambunath said:
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.
 
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
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.

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.
http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/securities-investment/0af3f418f426497e8bbf916bfc074ebc

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html?_r=1

From your posted Washington Post article that you clearly didn't read;

As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago.

Obama’s fundraising advantage is clear in the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private-equity firm that was co-founded by Romney, and where the Republican made his fortune. Not surprisingly, Romney has strong support at the firm, raking in $34,000 from 18 Bain employees, according to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September — and he needed only three donors to do it
.
So, Obama is going to paint Romney as too close to Wall St when Obama even has more support than Romney from the VC firm that Romney founded.

Yeah, I'm sure this won't come up at all:rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
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.
Romney may not get it.

The take away here is that there's nothing domestically Obama can run on. Even Obamacare is in disarray (not to mention unpopular).

Unemployment will be his undoing. He's toast.
 
Oct 8, 2011
199
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
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.
Strictly speaking you are not forced to vote, you just need to get your name crossed off the list. Also you don't have to vote if you have religious beliefs against voting.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
VeloCity said:
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.
Why do you say he's trying to distance himself from healthcare? I haven't got that impression at all. In each debate, he's owned up to it and even said he wouldn't take it to the federal level. If anything he is proud of what he accomplished in Mass. I would absolutely put that and his business record against Obama's presidency.

The dems can hammer all those messages all they want, but think about how the GOP can fire back. Last election, they tried to tell you what would happen, if you elected Obama. Obviously the message didn't sink in. This election they can say, "LOOK what happened." That's far more powerful.

rhubroma said:
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'd rather be voting in Tunisia today, where there would at least be something actually worth voting for.
I wish the election was about more than the economy. Ultimately, that's what it will come down to though, so all I can do is vote for who I perceive as the most viable and effective candidate. I wouldn't say that personally I'm to the highlighted point, but it is depressing.
 
The interesting thing about that is the President has the most amount of autonomous control not over the economy, but foreign policy. Any laws, tax, spending, otherwise come from Congress. The President can submit plans to Congress, and he can veto what they send him, but it's Congress that writes and passes the bills (or doesn't).

And yet, every election we concentrate so much on the President and the economy as if he - no matter whom he is - has some sort of super powers to implement sweeping budget, taxes, spending legislation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
The interesting thing about that is the President has the most amount of autonomous control not over the economy, but foreign policy. Any laws, tax, spending, otherwise come from Congress. The President can submit plans to Congress, and he can veto what they send him, but it's Congress that writes and passes the bills (or doesn't).

And yet, every election we concentrate so much on the President and the economy as if he - no matter whom he is - has some sort of super powers to implement sweeping budget, taxes, spending legislation.
While technically true... take a look at what the EPA is doing by executive fiat.

Obama likes his czars and to some degree they go right around congress.

The ecomomy will be on Obama. There's no way around that.

And yet, every election we concentrate so much on the President and the economy as if he - no matter whom he is - has some sort of super powers to implement sweeping budget, taxes, spending legislation.
And this is a big reason Obama's jobs bill and the fight over the debt ceiling are so divisive. Promised spending cuts never happen. The spending happens and the cuts don't.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
While technically true... take a look at what the EPA is doing by executive fiat.

Obama likes his czars and to some degree they go right around congress.

The ecomomy will be on Obama. There's no way around that.



And this is a big reason Obama's jobs bill and the fight over the debt ceiling are so divisive. Promised spending cuts never happen. The spending happens and the cuts don't.
""According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/voters-blame-bush-more-obama-economy-143014602.html

Bush... That guy you voted for..TWICE
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
From the Washington Post article that you clearly didn't read:

Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.
In other words, most of that cash is being given to the DNC, not to the Obama campaign. Which you would've picked up on if you'd bothered to look at the breakdown chart:

Contributions from the financial sector:

Romney: $7.5 million
Obama: $3.9 million

So, Obama is going to paint Romney as too close to Wall St when Obama even has more support than Romney from the VC firm that Romney founded.
You really didn't read that article very closely, did you? 18 Bain employees contributed to Romney, 3 contributed to Obama. Not sure how that constitutes "more support".

Then there's this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-16/goldman-favors-romney-over-obama-in-race-for-wall-street-funds.html

Never mind Goldman Sachs, that bit about the lobbyists is interesting.

And boy, I hope this comes up again at some point:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,0,3457481.story
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Romney may not get it.

The take away here is that there's nothing domestically Obama can run on. Even Obamacare is in disarray (not to mention unpopular).

Unemployment will be his undoing. He's toast.
Yet despite the state of the economy, the frustration with Washington, unemployment, and despite the Republicans being in the spotlight, etc, Obama still leads every one of them in the polls. Only Romney is even close. Why do you suppose that is? You'd think that the Republican candidates would be outpolling Obama by a long shot at the moment.

In some ways I almost hope Romney does win and you guys got everything you wish for, economically and socially.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY