GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-07-2011, 12:24 PM   #136
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But does it really count when he's insulting someone that by forum rules shouldn't be posting in here?
Speculation aside, yes it does count.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 12:31 PM   #137
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 07:32 AM
It was a joke, like if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

If you insult someone who's been banned several times and shouldn't be here, is it really an insult?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-07-2011, 03:34 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,448
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Hm. That's interesting. I'll take your word for it on that, then-I've never been to Wisconsin, but I'd just always heard they tended to not be very conservative. Maybe it depends on the area of the state or something, too, who knows.
From experience, I can say that Wisconsin's liberal reputation is almost completely derived from Milwaukee and especially Madison. The rest of the state is quite conservative. The new governor, for instance, is a hard, hard-line conservative.
__________________
iron yuppie is online now  
Old 01-07-2011, 03:39 PM   #139
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 05:32 AM
This native Wisconsonian says "Yes, I do believe you're right."
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 04:46 PM   #140
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I wonder how much of our prognistication is more about what we want to be true and less about what actually is true. Not a lot of conservative posters suggesting Obama can win, not a lot of liberal posters suggesting Obama could lose (though this group is somewhat more open to that possiblity). Conicidence? I think not.
I think this is one of the more insightful posts in this thread. It seems many are posting in the direction they want things to go.

I will go on the record and say I expect to vote for Obama again in 2012, I voted for him in Nov 2008.
I suppose that could change, but I disagree more with many things the current GOP are doing and want to do.

With that said, I expect Obama to have a much more difficult road to re-election than he had to success in 2008. Looking at the mid-term elections in 2006 things were trending strongly in the Dems favor. There was strong Bush/ Cheney fatigue. Also, the economy was in a complete free fall from Sept 2008 on through election day.

Looking at 2012, from the 2010 mid-term elections, things are trending towards the GOP. Reapportionment leans to GOP advantage. The GOP took over Ohio in 2010. They did great in FL, too. Unless Obama is blessed with a strong economy in 2012, like Clinton was in 1996, he will have a difficult time. Bush 1 was not successful, with a 7.5 unemployment rate.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 05:26 PM   #141
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Nate Silver's take:

Quote:
Optimism for Obama Should Come With Caution
By NATE SILVER

For as poorly as President Obama’s Democrats performed on Nov. 2, you can find several assessments of his re-election chances that seem doggone optimistic.

The Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone, in a careful analysis, suggests that Mr. Obama won’t be easy to defeat. Karl Rove, meanwhile, recently made comments to Fox News about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s electoral future, which seemed to imply that he expected Mr. Obama would still be president in 2016.

There are a lot of things that casual attempts at political science tend to get wrong, but one thing that observers seem to understand relatively well is that a poor performance by the president’s party at his first midterm election hardly dooms him. That is no doubt because of the recent experience with Bill Clinton as well as Ronald Reagan, both of whom witnessed their parties lose badly at the midterms and both of whom eventually won re-election by wide margins. Mr. Obama’s Democrats lost a few more seats in Congress than Mr. Clinton’s Democrats did — and more than twice as many as Mr. Reagan’s Republicans. On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are slightly better than Mr. Clinton’s or Mr. Reagan’s were at a comparable point in time, being in the mid-to-high 40s rather than in the low 40s.

There may be some risk in over-learning these lessons, however: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Reagan, though they are two recent examples, are nevertheless just two examples, and they were both once-in-a-generation political talents.

Still, it’s worth reflecting on what, if anything, we might have learned about Mr. Obama’s re-election chances during the past couple of months — both based on what happened on Nov. 2 and what has happened since.

Has the public taken on a more favorable view of Mr. Obama since the Democrats’ defeat? The evidence here is mixed, but for the time being points toward “no.” Mr. Obama’s Gallup approval rating reached 49 percent late last week — the highest it had been since July — but other surveys show it about flat, and the overall trend shows little change.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s approval rating had already been “stuck” at about 45 or 46 percent several months ahead of the midterms and had not been declining; most of the damage to Mr. Obama and the Democrats had come in 2009. Given how hardened partisan attitudes have become, it may be that Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are liable to fluctuate within a relatively narrow range.

Perhaps the question should be, then, whether Mr. Obama would win re-election if an election were held tomorrow. His approval ratings right now are quite similar to where George W. Bush’s were at the end of 2004. Mr. Bush won re-election, albeit very narrowly and against a relatively weak Democratic nominee.

Then again, the set of prospective Republican nominees is also perhaps rather weak. An average of polls conducted since Nov. 2 show Mr. Obama leading Mitt Romney by an average of 2 or 3 points, and Mike Huckabee by 3 or 4 points. Some people aren’t fond of looking at head-to-head matchups so far in advance of an election, and indeed, they are very rough gauges. With that said, both Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee are quite well known to the public, so these results might be more meaningful than they would be for a candidate who is not yet identifiable to the public at large, like a John Thune or a Tim Pawlenty.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama continues to enjoy a very large advantage — about 14 points, on average — over Sarah Palin. However likely Ms. Palin is to win the Republican nomination — and I can’t help but think that, if her numbers remain this poor, it will eventually become less likely — this essentially represents pure upside for Mr. Obama: what poker players would term a freeroll.

So if an election were held tomorrow, Mr. Obama would be a clear favorite against Ms. Palin, and probably about even money (although perhaps a very slight favorite) against a less divisive Republican nominee.

Fortunately — because I could really use the rest — an election won’t be held tomorrow. Do we have any inkling yet about whether Mr. Obama’s standing with the public is likely to improve or decline by 2012?

The state of the economy, undoubtedly, will be a huge part of the equation. The vast majority of economists expect it to continue to grow through 2012; the forecasts, in fact, have become slightly more optimistic over the past several weeks. The bad news for Mr. Obama is that the forecasts are more optimistic about G.D.P. growth than they are about unemployment: economists also expect the employment picture to improve, but at a sluggish pace, with the unemployment rate most likely being in the low 8 percentage point range at the time voters go to the polls in 2012. How voters might react to this situation — one in which the employment picture has improved, but is still rather poor in an absolute sense — is an open question, and one for which the historical evidence is of relatively little use.

How about the Democrats’ performance during the lame-duck session of Congress, when they were able to pass several important bills like the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, to the surprise of many observers?

One needs to be careful not to unintentionally damn Mr. Obama and the Democrats with faint praise; yes, they got a lot done, but all of the measures they passed were quite popular. Once the Republicans take over in the House, Mr. Obama will be engaged in some big showdowns with them over issues like the budget and his health care plan. Mr. Obama will be fighting from a defensive posture on health care, which remains unpopular with the public. How the public feels about the budget, where it has little faith in either party, is less clear.

Ultimately, however, Mr. Obama is more popular than the Republican Congress — an advantage that Bill Clinton did not have after 1994, nor Ronald Reagan after 1982. With the equally unpopular Democratic Congress largely being marginalized, that may work to his advantage. And — although I hesitate to endorse such a wishy-washy concept — the Democrats’ successes during the lame-duck session may provide him with some “momentum” headed into these battles, which will begin very early in the new Congress.

The political futures market Intrade puts Mr. Obama’s re-election chances at about 58 percent, which seems about as reasonable an assessment as any. Until we get a better sense for how the dynamics between Mr. Obama and the Republicans will play out — or in which direction the economy is headed — I would be skeptical of analyses that seem to express a significant amount of confidence on either side of that figure.

Optimism for Obama Should Come With Caution - NYTimes.com
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:13 PM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Just as a heads up to GOP supporters, your party has tried to estimate your average intelligence and has decided to name their health care repeal effort the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act".

House Moves Toward Vote on Health Care Repeal - NYTimes.com
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:24 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Oh, my good lord, are you kidding me *Puts head in hands*?

Quote:
But actually repealing the health care law that Mr. Obama signed last March has no chance of taking effect. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said on Thursday that he would not bring up the bill. And Mr. Obama, of course, would veto any such act.
Which, of course, then begs the question: WHY ARE THEY EVEN BOTHERING TO DO THIS, THEN?

Try not to waste any more of our time and taxpayer money, Republicans, please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
From experience, I can say that Wisconsin's liberal reputation is almost completely derived from Milwaukee and especially Madison. The rest of the state is quite conservative. The new governor, for instance, is a hard, hard-line conservative.
Huh. I stand corrected, then.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:27 PM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:32 AM
^

The Republicans are not serious leaders, they are petty children. That goes without saying. No serious, responsible adult would name a bill any such thing. It's absurd and befitting of junior high kids.

As for unemployment and the election, there is an excellent article, of which I'll post excerpts. It outlines very important facts that I think are not being stated outloud because it sounds "bad" politically.

Quote:
"The story runs as follows. Before the financial crash, there were lots of not-so-useful workers holding not-so-useful jobs. Employers didn't so much bother to figure out who they were. Demand was high and revenue was booming, so rooting out the less productive workers would have involved a lot of time and trouble -- plus it would have involved some morale costs with the more productive workers, who don't like being measured and spied on. So firms simply let the problem lie.

Then came the 2008 recession, and it was no longer possible to keep so many people on payroll. A lot of businesses were then forced to face the music: Bosses had to make tough calls about who could be let go and who was worth saving. (Note that unemployment is low for workers with a college degree, only 5 percent compared with 16 percent for less educated workers with no high school degree. This is consistent with the reality that less-productive individuals, who tend to have less education, have been laid off.)

In essence, we have seen the rise of a large class of "zero marginal product workers," to coin a term. Their productivity may not be literally zero, but it is lower than the cost of training, employing, and insuring them. That is why labor is hurting but capital is doing fine; dumping these employees is tough for the workers themselves -- and arguably bad for society at large -- but it simply doesn't damage profits much. It's a cold, hard reality, and one that we will have to deal with, one way or another."
Rest here:

10 Percent Unemployment Forever? - By Tyler Cowen and Jayme Lemke | Foreign Policy
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:31 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,594
Local Time: 01:32 PM
are you kidding me? Is the gop's handbook 1984? "Job Killing Heath Care". They'll say it enough to where idiots will think it's true.

Fact: The bill will create more jobs, even if it's in the evil healthcare industry
Fact: Repealing the healthcare bill will run up the deficit, but gop states this shouldn't count....Much like the wars overseas
Fact: Repealing this bill will take coverage away from 30 million people, and potentially killing some of those whose coverage could have prevented such incident.

I think democracy is done
__________________
BEAL is online now  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:33 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 02:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Try not to waste any more of our time and taxpayer money, Republicans, please?
only the democrats do that.



although, won't repealing the health care act buy another three weeks in iraq? let's do it!
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 06:41 PM   #147
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Today there was an interesting segment on NPR.

When polled close to 50% of the population wanted "Obamacare" repealed.

When polled about specific sections like pre-existing conditions, children up to age 26, so on and so on an overwhelming majority supported it.

Republicans have done a good job with branding. They know the intelligence level they are aiming for...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-07-2011, 07:14 PM   #148
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 38
Local Time: 08:32 AM
I just hope Michael Steele doesn't make a run for any position. Did you see him at the RNC conference the other day? ("My favorite book is War and Peace...It was the best of times it was the worst of times)
__________________
streets1987 is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 07:44 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Ugh, yes, I saw clips of that on TV. That was truly pitiful.

My favorite part was the girl who got confused about the book question and started talking about her favorite bar instead ('cause, you know, hearing the person before her list a book apparently didn't tip her off...). And then later she mentioned having 16 guns. What a great combination !

(And naturally, of course, your ability to run things properly is determined by the amount of guns you have)

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
only the democrats do that.



although, won't repealing the health care act buy another three weeks in iraq? let's do it!
Bingo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
The Republicans are not serious leaders, they are petty children. That goes without saying. No serious, responsible adult would name a bill any such thing. It's absurd and befitting of junior high kids.
Oh, absolutely. It just amazes me that more people don't seem to realize that. How can anybody watch that aforementioned RNC conference and still think, after all that, "Yeah, these people look like pretty good potential leaders"?

That article you shared is pretty well spot on, my mom's said the same thing, in essence. I still think it kind of sucks, though, that those with only a high school education are more likely to be let go from jobs. Sure, there are some whose lack of continued education hurts them job-wise, but I've only got a high school degree and I can be just as productive as somebody with a college degree.

I know it's not always easy or affordable to train and educate new employees on the tasks at hand, but if that's the case, then businesses need to quit whining that they have a hard time keeping people on the payroll-if they're not willing to do that, then don't be surprised if some people decide to go elsewhere. Or they need to start changing their attitudes and decide that training people is worth the effort if it means they'll have employees for a longer period of time. Everyone has to start somewhere, and how are you going to learn the tasks if nobody teaches them to you?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-07-2011, 09:56 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 09:32 AM
A college degree, even an associate degree, is the new high school degree. Not too surprising considering some of the community colleges out there. They're like holding pens for high schoolers who scraped by to remain in arrested development for another six years to get that general studies degree.
__________________

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com