Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

streamdragon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

streamdragon wrote:You honestly think there's a republican candidate that will oust him?

Any of them, assuming Hillary doesn't bite and challange herself (I doubt it but one can hope).
The election is not about the Republican. Its a referendum on Obama's job performance.

It should be about the Republican though. This is the highest office in the country, one of extreme importance. Being "not the current guy" isn't a requirement, being fitted to the position is.

Why? The current boss is the issue. He can't hack it. He's done. Mmm. read it and weep.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Just think with a pending S&P downgrade, this would have happened with Johnson? With Nixon? With Clinton? (Bill to S&P President "Yes, after Hillary gets through with you, I will feel your pain."). Argue anything you want about wars and the economy, but no President except Carter would have permitted S&P to do that.

Would the economy be rocketing towards a double dip under Kennedy? Under Truman?

Oh c'mon, talking about S&P?

The same guys who said all those toxic mortgage derivatives were AAA!

feth those guys!

Here's the thing. The best guy for the nation in the Republican side would be Romney. However people in this country, especially many of those in the Repub heavy states will not vote for him. Why? He is not of the same religion. Amazing that perhaps the best candidate for the job won't get a sniff due to his religion. Don't believe it? Look at Huckabee. Guy released a rapist because the guy said he found god. Rapist gets out and does it again....including murder I think. He did better than Romney last time around......due to religion. So much for separation of church and state. Brings back statements of G-dub consulting a "higher father."

That all said, I don't care who won the last election they were stepping into one of the worst periods in American history. This was coming and it happened to be on Obama's watch and make no mistake he inherited a crap storm from the last administration. Anyone who says otherwise is as insane as those people who said that we should let businesses fail. We did that during the great depression and the backlash made the siutation much worse.

This talk of no taxes is worrying, because the jargon has been, "If we give them tax breaks they will create jobs." Really? Is that why many of these big corps are stashing $$ overseas and NOT hiring in the US? Don't believe me? Check the Cisco CEO interview that was on 60 minutes. They are saying the tax breaks are still not enough. They want to make the $$ here, but not pay taxes or hire people. It's disgusting.

At the end of the day the majority of these politicians have no clue what it is to be middle class. You almost need to be a Millionaire to enter into politics these days. These people are clueless to the plight of the common American. I get some sense that Obama understands it a little, but the middle class is still struggling while the gap between the wealthy and the middle class grows.

Frazzled wrote:
Why? The current boss is the issue. He can't hack it. He's done. Mmm. read it and weep.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

That is 8 points above the incumbency threshold of 35% approval. The last President to lose a reelection bid, GHW, had to trend below 35% (and dipped below 30, briefly), consistently, before his loss.

It certainly won't be an easy election for the Democrats, but calling it at this point, when the Republican field hasn't even been finalized, is foolish, and likely trolling.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which at least was better than the last eight years of republican presidency, which happened to have caused our economic collapse which Obama is struggling to try to reverse.

its good you think that, although I didn't know Barney franks was a Republican. Its also blindingly irrelevant.

No, I was talking about Bush. Be in denial all ya want, but Obama's still doing a better job, despite facing harder challenges.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which at least was better than the last eight years of republican presidency, which happened to have caused our economic collapse which Obama is struggling to try to reverse.

its good you think that, although I didn't know Barney franks was a Republican. Its also blindingly irrelevant.

No, I was talking about Bush. Be in denial all ya want, but Obama's still doing a better job, despite facing harder challenges.

Mmm...yea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops I was wrong, Gallup's disapproval just went up 1%. 41/51. This is not good as its not even likely voters, just random mouth breathers.
Wow only Carter had lower ratings at this point of any President since FDR - the Gallup Presidential Approval Center is a fun toy.

In light of Congress' low ratings it would be ideal if we engendered a republican President and Senate, and democratic House. You don't want one party controlling everything and thats against historical norms.

Frazzled wrote:
Oops I was wrong, Gallup's disapproval just went up 1%. 41/51. This is not good as its not even likely voters, just random mouth breathers.

Actually, it is quite good for the Administration. As I pointed out earlier, and have for several months now, incumbents generally need to trend below 35% leading into an election in order to lose. That's what is took for Bush 1, and that's what it took for Carter.

Its also worth noting that "likely voters" is a label for a metric regarding those voters the polling agency believes are likely to vote, which is generally based on participation in past polls by that agency, voting behavior as reported by the respondent, and the likelihood of turnout as given by an in-house metric; usually derived from demographic information regarding age, sex, race, income level, etc.

There is no particular reason to believe that polls using likely voter metrics are more accurate than those that do not, and in fact they often diverge wildly from one another (Pew and Rasmussen, for example, tend to skew in opposite directions). The most reliable of true approval is an average of polls taking similar samples, whether adjusted or not.

Frazzled wrote:
In light of Congress' low ratings it would be ideal if we engendered a republican President and Senate, and democratic House. You don't want one party controlling everything and thats against historical norms.

That might matter if partisanship meant the same thing in history as it does today. Since that isn't the case, it may be more favorable for one party to control government.

Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.

I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.

Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.

Frazzled wrote:Why? The current boss is the issue. He can't hack it. He's done. Mmm. read it and weep.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Well, if we're looking at RCP, lets see what else they have to say, shall we?

Obama vs Bachmann: Obama wins by 11 points
Obama vs Romney: Obama wins by 3 points
Obama vs Perry: Obama wins by 11 points
Obama vs Palin: Obama wins by 18 points
Obama vs Cain: Obama wins by 15 points
Obama vs Pawlenty: Obama wins by 11 points
Obama vs Gingrich: Obama wins by 15 points
Obama vs Huntsman: Obama wins by 14 points
Obama vs Paul: Obama wins by 11 points

I understand that Obama's numbers are quite poor, and are on the low end of what would normally win an election. Do you understand that, while Obama is tied with Generic Republican, that Generic Republican is not running, and that it will be a choice between Obama and one of the specific people above?

Happygrunt wrote:Seeing as I have been able to live through only three presidents (Clinton, Bush and now Obama), I don't think Obama is doing that bad. He is simply playing with the cards he was dealt, which is something like a 2 of spades and a one card from uno.

I think the problem is the "Tea Party" who throw tantrums unless they get their way.

Anyone up for reviving Teddy Roosevelt? I liked that guy.

Teddy would have seriously punched those guys in the face, on the house/senate floor, for the kind of gak they talk.

He would have then used his bully-pulpit to enact the change he thought was necessary through executive order, at least as much as it could have been. Of course if Obama did anything like that, Fox News and the conservative blogs would meltdown claiming the Third Reich had taken over 'Merica.

Of course he has higher polls numbers than one of the 8-15 people running. Duh! They just started running. There hasn't even been a primary yet and he's the incumbent.

Hey pal, you brought up the poll numbers, not me. If you open a can of worms, you can't call shenanigans when one crawls towards you.

/not your pal, friend
/not your friend, guy
/etc

dogma wrote:That might matter if partisanship meant the same thing in history as it does today. Since that isn't the case, it may be more favorable for one party to control government.

Let's hope it's not Tea Party, because we want competent people in the government...

Bipartisanship, a thing of the past.

Now its, "GO TEAM!"

Ouze wrote:Hey pal, you brought up the poll numbers, not me. If you open a can of worms, you can't call shenanigans when one crawls towards you.

/not your pal, friend
/not your friend, guy
/etc

What? You're not my pal, friend, guy? I'm saddened. Oh wait did you just have a conversation with yourself there?

daedalus-templarius wrote:Bipartisanship, a thing of the past.

Now its, "GO TEAM!"

Is it bipartisanship when Democrats side with Republicans (like in the debt deal), or does that only apply when Republicans side with Democrats?

Good God.

The trolls and the Bad Grammar Political Action Committee really did a job on this thread, didn't they?

As to the debate, I think I liked Ron Paul's statements the most. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

biccat wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Bipartisanship, a thing of the past.

Now its, "GO TEAM!"

Is it bipartisanship when Democrats side with Republicans (like in the debt deal), or does that only apply when Republicans side with Democrats?

Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.

As much as I'd prefer the political process to be open and transparent, it just seems to lead to showboating and pointless political votes on nothing, especially when they know something isn't going to pass. Perhaps behind closed doors, WITHOUT LOBBYISTS, would be the best way for them to hammer out deals.

Of course, publicly funded elections I think would be the first step, as I'd love the huge donations and subsequent indebtedness to be gone from the political process. Good luck to that ever happening, hah.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Bipartisanship, a thing of the past.

Now its, "GO TEAM!"

Is it bipartisanship when Democrats side with Republicans (like in the debt deal), or does that only apply when Republicans side with Democrats?

Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground.

Except of course on the stimulus bill, and the deficit growth reduction bill just passed.
Since the House has passed multiple budgets, had passed multiple bills cncerning the debt and none of them were approved by the Senate, since the Senate hasn't put forth a budget, since the President hasn't put forth a budget passable by his own party, who's the one with no middle ground?

daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.

Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?

biccat wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.

Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?

Yea you're right, gridlock and doing nothing are much better than the alternative.

Our healthcare system isn't in dire need of reform or anything.

Also Frazz, I'm pretty sure the bills that passed the house didn't do so with "bipartisan" support, other than the one they voted for the day before the default. And even then, the tea party contingent voted no to a great degree.

Besides, I said they aren't ALL against making deals, especially out of the spotlight.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.

Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?

Yea you're right, gridlock and doing nothing are much better than the alternative.

Our healthcare system isn't in dire need of reform or anything.

Also Frazz, I'm pretty sure the bills that passed the house didn't do so with "bipartisan" support, other than the one they voted for the day before the default.

You're right. But being that the Senate didn't take them up, didn't pass anything. and Obama didn't proposeanything. its defenders need to seriously STFU.

Oh I didn't realize I was defending their actions during this whole debt debacle... because I wasn't. I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by it at every turn; especially considering we've raised the debt ceiling 100+ times in the past without this kind of wild spectacle.

However, you realize that these funding bills are supposed to originate from the House, not the Senate or the Executive branch. They should have just raised the debt ceiling clean, and then worked on the budget separately rather than the Armadebton that we had to hyperbole through.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Oh I didn't realize I was defending their actions during this whole debt debacle... because I wasn't. I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by it at every turn; especially considering we've raised the debt ceiling 100+ times in the past without this kind of wild spectacle.

However, you realize that these funding bills are supposed to originate from the House, not the Senate or the Executive branch. They should have just raised the debt ceiling clean, and then worked on the budget separately rather than the Armadebton that we had to hyperbole through.

They tried that in 1st Qtr 2011. Both houses voted down. In the Senate it was 97-0 I think.

At that point Captain React S..l..o..l..w..l..y Obama proposed nothing.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Its both, but I hope you aren't insinuating that the republicans(some) are lining up to make bipartisan deals with anyone. Usually it is their way, or the highway; there is no middle ground. Obviously that is not the case with ALL of them, but it would be nice if they were more open to deal-making rather than placating the base.

Is this any different than the Democrats "going it alone" on the Healthcare bill? Were the Democrats lining up to make a bipartisan deal and meet the Republicans in the middle, or did they say it was "their way or the highway"?

Yea you're right, gridlock and doing nothing are much better than the alternative.

Our healthcare system isn't in dire need of reform or anything.

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?

biccat wrote:
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?

Debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962; almost exclusively without the drama we witnessed unfold before us recently.

Healthcare bill has happened 1 times since ever.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?

Debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962; almost exclusively without the drama we witnessed unfold before us recently.

Healthcare bill has happened 1 times since ever.

So as long as it's something novel, refusing to negotiate with the other side is OK? So if Republicans proposed a "reducing federal expenses in 2011" bill, bipartisanship would be a bad thing?

Also, there have been hundreds of bills that have passed Congress that have addressed health care.

biccat wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

biccat wrote:
Assuming bipartisanship is a positive, how is "going it alone" and sticking to your principles a good thing on the Healthcare bill, but a bad thing on the debt ceiling?

Debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962; almost exclusively without the drama we witnessed unfold before us recently.

Healthcare bill has happened 1 times since ever.

So as long as it's something novel, refusing to negotiate with the other side is OK? So if Republicans proposed a "reducing federal expenses in 2011" bill, bipartisanship would be a bad thing?

Also, there have been hundreds of bills that have passed Congress that have addressed health care.

Yea, sure, its "novel". They just figured, "y'know, 2011, we should stop just passing these debt ceiling raises. Even though Bush raised it 8 times, but now? no way!" Sure, I can get behind that... yea.

I'm sure there is plenty of room for improvement in the fed, and tons of waste, but debating it during the debt ceiling isn't really the place.

As for the previous health-care bills, they obviously hadn't done enough, since the Healthcare industry have been content to ride us raw for the past several years. Will this new one fix everything? probably not, but its better than it was. Removing pre-existing conditions bs was enough to get me onboard.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

ineptus astartes wrote:wow, the country is going down the tubes.

understatement. just watch,were going to get invaded within 10-20 years. that or are economy is going to completely collapse and were gonna be forced to split into smaller countries...wait,id be ok with that.

Is this before or after the apes rise up claim the earth? Will Jesus come riding back on a dinosaur to save us? So much crazy, so little time...

daedalus-templarius wrote:Yea, sure, its "novel". They just figured, "y'know, 2011, we should stop just passing these debt ceiling raises. Even though Bush raised it 8 times, but now? no way!" Sure, I can get behind that... yea.

Actually, it is a bill to immediately reduce year-to-year expenses. Given how rare it is, I think that would qualify as 'novel.'

daedalus-templarius wrote:As for the previous health-care bills, they obviously hadn't done enough, since the Healthcare industry have been content to ride us raw for the past several years. Will this new one fix everything? probably not, but its better than it was. Removing pre-existing conditions bs was enough to get me onboard.

Wait, so the health care bill isn't novel enough? It's simply an improvement over what existed before? (and, I'll note while I'm here, unconstitutional).

You're picking sides and declaring which side should 'compromise' in order to get your preferred result. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming that Republicans are wrong because they refuse to compromise while Democrats are right because they refused to compromise smacks of hypocricy.