Poll

10 votes (58.82%)
7 votes (41.17%)

17 members have voted

pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
September 15th, 2011 at 4:26:47 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

The economy is bad news for Obama. Despite all the bitching and complaining about him, I don't think Obama's poll numbers have been hurt enough on any other issue that would have affected a reelection bid.



I am actually very fond of Obama. However, the term "any other issue" is a little misleading. There basically is one big issue, and a lot of incidental issues.

The last Budget that President Bush signed predicted a deficit of -$274 billion for the fiscal years 2009 - 2012 . The last budget that President Obama signed predicted a deficit of -$5,453 billion for the same four fiscal year 2009-2012. That's a multiplier of 20 .

I think that says a lot more about the complete unreliability of budget predictions, but in any event only the hardcore faithful will still be blaming GW Bush for all of our fiscal problems in 2012. President Obama has been president for 2 years, 8 months.
cclub79
cclub79
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
September 15th, 2011 at 4:42:47 PM permalink
Couple of odds and ends...

-The statement about Obama's "personal popularity" and "job performance" is outdated. Newer polls have the numbers beginning to sync up, as they almost always do after some time in office.

-NV-3 isn't the super Republican seat. Over the last decade, NV-1 was Dem, NV-2 was GOP, and NV-3 was swing. in NV-3, Republican John Porter lost it to Democrat Dina Titus, who in turn lost it to Republican Joe Heck. The 2nd has never elected a Democrat, so it is the more Republican seat. NV-4 will be born in the coming months shifting much of the calculus.

-NY-9 can't EASILY be absorbed into the surrounding districts because of some VRA issues with Majority Minority seats. It all depends what Speaker Silver (D), Majority Leader Skelos (R), and Governor Cuomo (D) want to do. Literally. Those three men are almost certainly going to make the map. But the irony is with NY losing two districts, the conventional wisdom early this year was the Republicans would lose an upstate seat, and the Dems would lose a NYC seat. Turner's win coupled with Democrat Rep. Kathy Hochul's win in the special to replace Rep. Chris Lee means that it could be a DEMOCRAT upstate seat and a REPUBLICAN NYC seat that get axed. Lee and Weiner, the NY Congressmen that effectively Russian Rouletted their seats out of existence....
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9968
September 15th, 2011 at 4:52:58 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Harry Reid won based on his last-minute ability to get his supporters to the polls, he was behind until the end.



Reid has said his internal polling never agreed with the external polls. Maybe he says that every time and its just hype. Although he wasn't acting like someone working from behind either as he wasn't running around trying to call Angle out in the last few weeks like they do with real front runners.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
cclub79
cclub79
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
September 15th, 2011 at 4:55:39 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Reid has said his internal polling never agreed with the external polls. Maybe he says that every time and its just hype. Although he wasn't acting like someone working from behind either as he wasn't running around trying to call Angle out in the last few weeks like they do with real front runners.



I agree. Angle may have gotten close at one point in the race (within a point or so), but, as a Republican, I had little faith in her ability to win, even in 2010. I made some decent change on intrade when Reid was around 30% re-elect. John Ralston had internals that never had Reid closer than up 3. And these weren't the typical "leaked" internals that are only put out to make a candidate look better. Reid was more than happy for all the public polls to say he was going to lose.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3477
September 15th, 2011 at 5:01:19 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Jewish percentage
8.40% New York (solid Democrat)
5.51% New Jersey
5.09% District of Columbia (solid Democrat)
4.30% Massachusetts (solid Democrat)
4.20% Maryland
3.67% Florida
3.31% California (solid Democrat)
3.19% Connecticut (solid Democrat)
2.88% Nevada
2.29% Pennsylvania
2.18% Illinois (solid Democrat)


If that's percentage of populations, a far more interesting number would be the percentage of actual voters.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 427
  • Posts: 24621
September 15th, 2011 at 5:37:27 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I am actually very fond of Obama. H



I have to admit, Obama is more entertaining
than Bush. Obama is always out there, stepping
in one form of dog crap or another, whereas we
rarely saw Bush. Obama gives speeches every
other week, Bush stayed in the WH. Now we've
got the green jobs fiasco and that was Obama's
big jobs project. Once they start investigating
where all the money went, and we see Obama's
little sphincter pucker up even more than it is
already, the real fun entertainment will begin.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
cclub79
cclub79
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
September 15th, 2011 at 6:54:48 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Libs are confused that conservatives knowing and feeling the economy will keep getting bad is wanting it to get bad. We see what Obama is doing and know it won't work yet they get upset when it doesn't..



Do you remember when the market was going down in the early '00s and Dick Gephardt and high level Dem operatives were going around saying things like "We need to pump up these Wall Street Scandals until the election!" and "Every 100 points down is another seat we pick up in the House!"

Look, I'm old enough to remember the Economy coming back strong in late 1992 BEFORE Bush1 was booted for the economy. I sincerely hope the economy starts turning around AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. But I also hope that the President pays for his poor policies that have continued the economic stagnation longer than GHWBush ever did (and lost for).
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
September 15th, 2011 at 8:14:12 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

You didn't prove I have a sinister motive, sorry. Proving motive is pretty hard actually, you either need a lawyer and trial, or at least an explicit statement of my "sinister motive" which I didn't give you.

And if I did, quote it.



I'm not convicting you. I'm accusing you. And here's why ...

Quote: rxwine

The economy is bad news for Obama. Although it's sad that a Republican is likely going to benefit from essentially the same conditions as a Republican president left us with. Unless things are even worse than I think they are, Jimmy Carter could get credit in the next four years for improvement in the economy if he was reelected.



Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

* that he actually believes that ANYONE benefits from a bad economy
* that, in stating that Republicans can "benefit" from a bad economy, that he sees things primarily from a political opportunist perspective, and thereby puts politics above the good of the nation



Pretty effing damning. I'm sure you'll try to weasel out of saying it by saying you were saying something other than what you were saying, but you said it, so there it is.

You would probably serve yourself better if you just own up and try to do better going forward. But my guess is, you won't do that. Instead, you'll double-down in Obama-esque fashion and, in the process, only make yourself look as stupid. But that's just a guess. What you decide to do is your call.

EDIT: Oh, and just to nail down that benefit is exactly what you meant, here's another little gem from this same thread ...

Quote: rxwine

I'm curious , if Bush was still President for the last two years, would we reelect him (were he able to run). Would he have made a difference. Would the Rebublicans benefit in elections?



My point is, sane, normal, rational people don't make this calculation. Sinister people do.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
September 15th, 2011 at 9:14:38 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Why anyone would read your words to figure out what I'm saying is its own mystery.



Again, an intentional introduction of confusion. FWIW, I think that intentionally introducing confusion is also sinister.

I doubt anyone needs me to interpret what you're saying. Your words speak for themselves and don't really require interpretation.

But I'm not interpreting them. Taking you at your word, I'm calling you out for being sinister, which you are again being in trying to introduce confusion.

I've already tried to give you your out by just saying you should own up and try to do better going forward, but it appears that that's not something you're capable of. Nothing would make me happier than to see you exhibit maturity and sanity in this.

I can't make you do anything, though. You choose your own path: classiness and maturity, or sinister-ness and obfuscation. Nobody needs me to interpret anything; your decision will manifest itself.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9968
September 15th, 2011 at 9:25:07 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I've already tried to give you your out by just saying you should own up and try to do better going forward, but it appears that that's not something you're capable of.



Maybe you can learn from your mistake then, if that's what you think.

Quote:

Nothing would make me happier than to see you exhibit maturity and sanity in this.



Thanks for the laugh. Who's the one who chose to pontificate on my post? I didn't even have to answer your post in the first place, and I certainly didn't agree to some rules of engagement. So, declare whatever you want in your own mind.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?

  • Jump to: