"Republican candidate" will always do better. Once you put a name down things get worse for the candidates. People like the idea of voting for someone else (myself included) but I'm not convinced that any of the people likely to get the nomination can get those votes.

I Wear Pants;830278 wrote:"Republican candidate" will always do better. Once you put a name down things get worse for the candidates. People like the idea of voting for someone else (myself included) but I'm not convinced that any of the people likely to get the nomination can get those votes.

Granted that it is difficult to unseat an incumbent POTUS unless he or she is as incompetent as someone like - say - Jimmy Carter. *hint*

Of course the challenger in that case was Ronald Reagan who was a slam dunk to boot Carter's inept arss to the curb. Considering Obama is basically Carter: The Next Generation, you would think the Repubs could nominate Lady Gaga and beat the Bammer by a landslide.

Unfortunately much of the American electorate days bases its political decisions on Hollyweird sex appeal, Internet hype, and the adulation of a fawning leftist mainstream media as opposed to finding the candidate best suited to lead us in the right direction.

believer;830344 wrote:Granted that it is difficult to unseat an incumbent POTUS unless he or she is as incompetent as someone like - say - Jimmy Carter.

3 of the last 6 Presidents have been one term. It's far from difficult.

2kool4skool;830530 wrote:3 of the last 6 Presidents have been one term. It's far from difficult.

Interesting point to learn from this history. In stable economic times and absent any major negative events during a first term the incumbent president will be difficult to beat. What we learn from the 3 one term presidents you are referring to is they had economic or major clouds over their 1st term.

Ford's name was never on a presidential ticket until his bid for president in 1976. He was never elected to either the VP or presidential office. So he was not up for re-election, rather election. He was nominated by Nixon to the office of VP and confirmed by congress following the resignation of VP Spiro Agnew who was later convicted on political corruption charges for taking bribes as Governor of Maryland. Ford takes office following the resignation of Nixon resulting from the political corruption surrounding the Watergate break in. Then after Ford assumes the office of president he pardons Nixon. It all stinks to high heaven. Ford was toast. The only reason the 1976 presidential election was close is because the Democrat party nominated a buffoon.

Carter ineptly presided over the worst economic situation the nation faced since the great depression. He looked like a pussy during the Iran hostage crisis. Carter was shellacked by Reagan in 1980.

George H.W. Bush appeared at first to be cruising to victory. An economic recession, a broken promise to not raise taxes, and a strong 3rd party candidate that appealed to many fiscal conservatives sealed the deal.

Applying this brief history to Obama I would conclude that he is on very shaky ground. Right now he is counting on voters to believe that although the economy is not in good shape, he saved us from assured depression. A big stretch for voters to buy. As it stands now it will depend on who the Republican nominee is. No viable candidate is talking 3rd party. The current debt ceiling issue will have implications depending on how it pans out. One thing is for certain if economic numbers dip between now and the election the republicans could run a circus chimp and Obama would be a 1term president.

I Wear Pants;830278 wrote:"Republican candidate" will always do better. Once you put a name down things get worse for the candidates. People like the idea of voting for someone else (myself included) but I'm not convinced that any of the people likely to get the nomination can get those votes.

Obama is a failure. I will vote for ANYONE else the name won't matter to me. Even if its someone like, god forbid, Palin I'll roll the dice on her putting together a good team and hope she listens to them. No budget in over 2 years and a $1.7trillion deficit is a MASSIVE failure of economic policy. If Obama were CEO of any corporation with that track record of performance he would already be out on his ass, if said corporation wasn't already bankrupt.

gut;830618 wrote:Obama is a failure. I will vote for ANYONE else the name won't matter to me. Even if its someone like, god forbid, Palin I'll roll the dice on her putting together a good team and hope she listens to them. No budget in over 2 years and a $1.7trillion deficit is a MASSIVE failure of economic policy. If Obama were CEO of any corporation with that track record of performance he would already be out on his ass, if said corporation wasn't already bankrupt.

Boom.

It's looking like Bachman is going to roll in Iowa.

majorspark;830604 wrote:Interesting point to learn from this history. In stable economic times and absent any major negative events during a first term the incumbent president will be difficult to beat. What we learn from the 3 one term presidents you are referring to is they had economic or major clouds over their 1st term.

Ford's name was never on a presidential ticket until his bid for president in 1976. He was never elected to either the VP or presidential office. So he was not up for re-election, rather election. He was nominated by Nixon to the office of VP and confirmed by congress following the resignation of VP Spiro Agnew who was later convicted on political corruption charges for taking bribes as Governor of Maryland. Ford takes office following the resignation of Nixon resulting from the political corruption surrounding the Watergate break in. Then after Ford assumes the office of president he pardons Nixon. It all stinks to high heaven. Ford was toast. The only reason the 1976 presidential election was close is because the Democrat party nominated a buffoon.

Carter ineptly presided over the worst economic situation the nation faced since the great depression. He looked like a pussy during the Iran hostage crisis. Carter was shellacked by Reagan in 1980.

George H.W. Bush appeared at first to be cruising to victory. An economic recession, a broken promise to not raise taxes, and a strong 3rd party candidate that appealed to many fiscal conservatives sealed the deal.

Applying this brief history to Obama I would conclude that he is on very shaky ground. Right now he is counting on voters to believe that although the economy is not in good shape, he saved us from assured depression. A big stretch for voters to buy. As it stands now it will depend on who the Republican nominee is. No viable candidate is talking 3rd party. The current debt ceiling issue will have implications depending on how it pans out. One thing is for certain if economic numbers dip between now and the election the republicans could run a circus chimp and Obama would be a 1term president.

Pretty much the same response I would have made.

Con_Alma;830644 wrote:It's looking like Bachman is going to roll in Iowa.

And the leftist media will eat her for lunch. Like Palin she's the right sex, but wrong party.

I'd easily vote for Palin over Obama but she has no chance in this country now.

bigdaddy2003;830797 wrote:I'd easily vote for Palin over Obama but she has no chance in this country now.

Without a doubt but the media has painted a vastly distorted picture of Palin to help insure the re-election of their Appointed One. You can bet they'll scrutinize, disparage, and distort the image of all of the Republican candidates going into November 2012.

Bachman's screwball views on gays make her an easy target for the media. Now, every misstep is being focused on, even minor incidents where she misspeaks -- you know, like saying there are 57 states. NBC ran a hit piece on her last night.

Writerbuckeye;830828 wrote:Bachman's screwball views on gays make her an easy target for the media. Now, every misstep is being focused on, even minor incidents where she misspeaks -- you know, like saying there are 57 states. NBC ran a hit piece on her last night.

The Bammer has PLENTY of misspeaks but "journalists" in the leftist media will ignore every single one of them. Bachman and Palin are easy targets. Why? Not necessarily because they are also as fallible is the media's Butt Buddy, but because these are WOMEN from the eeeevil side of the political aisle. We cannot possibly have the prospect of having this nation's first female POTUS be a conservative. This must be stopped at all costs. Only the enlightened and open-minded Democrats are ordained to have the first black, first female, and first black female POTUS in American history.

gut;830618 wrote:Obama is a failure. I will vote for ANYONE else the name won't matter to me. Even if its someone like, god forbid, Palin I'll roll the dice on her putting together a good team and hope she listens to them. No budget in over 2 years and a $1.7trillion deficit is a MASSIVE failure of economic policy. If Obama were CEO of any corporation with that track record of performance he would already be out on his ass, if said corporation wasn't already bankrupt.

A 1.7 trillion dollar deficit in a depressed economy where private investment has no hope of substituting for a removal of those outlays because private balance sheets are hindered with depreciating assets, too much debt or awash in capacity with ineffective demand is a massive failure in that it is way too small and that even persons who are sophisticated investors and business oriented such as yourself don't know this.

believer;830693 wrote:Pretty much the same response I would have made.



And the leftist media will eat her for lunch. Like Palin she's the right sex, but wrong party.

Or she's just a loon. This woman has an LL.M in tax from William and Mary and yet she cannot even articulate what a tax expenditure is and doesn't get that a cut of such a provision is near equivalent to a cut in government appropriations spending nor understand the consequences of what will happen if the debt ceiling is reached. People who want it to happen say, "Oh the Treasury Secretary could pay what is necessary like S.S., medicare and Debt payments" but that is not the point....they would have to stop all of those other federal outlays and such immediate cessation of that spending, which are not zero-sum transactions would cause a massive fiscal contraction at an alarming rate of speed to which no private capital could replace Even if it were sitting on the sideline waiting to meet effective demand (which is not existent and will only decrease further!)

And Obama is standing on the sideline bickering with the pubs about which way they should contract the economy further! This is where we're at in politics now...Pubs and Dems can't agree on the way in which we should ensure the continued depression of our economic outlook.

BoatShoes;831081 wrote:...they would have to stop all of those other federal outlays and such immediate cessation of that spending, which are not zero-sum transactions would cause a massive fiscal contraction at an alarming rate of speed to which no private capital could replace ...

Which is precisely why 9 decades of rapid unchecked growth of Big Government spending has been a disaster for this nation.

believer;830693 wrote:...

And the leftist media will eat her for lunch. Like Palin she's the right sex, but wrong party.

How sad are Romney's numbers there after all the cash he's spending. Yikes!

Bachman would never win a general election. We need some principled pragmatism from the GOP in the primaries. If we nominate Bachman we reelect Obama. I freaking hope Iowans realize that.

Romney would destroy Obama in the election. He's getting my vote regardless. He gives the GOP a much better shot to snag Michigan and even Massachusetts.

Bachman's got a little bit of that Nancy Pelosi crazy to her...but conservative.

BoatShoes;831077 wrote:A 1.7 trillion dollar deficit in a depressed economy where private investment has no hope of substituting for a removal of those outlays because private balance sheets are hindered with depreciating assets, too much debt or awash in capacity with ineffective demand is a massive failure in that it is way too small and that even persons who are sophisticated investors and business oriented such as yourself don't know this.

Yeah, well get the govt deficit under control and take the threat of default and excessive taxes off the table and you create a much better environment for business investment. Your claim is little more than propaganda spewed by liberals desperately clinging to their precious entitlements. How much lower was the budget under Clinton? Are you trying to tell me less than 15 years later we need to spend nearly DOUBLE what we were in the Clinton years to have a strong economy? Yeah, I've got a bridge to sell ya...

gut;831221 wrote:Yeah, well get the govt deficit under control and take the threat of default and excessive taxes off the table and you create a much better environment for business investment. Your claim is little more than propaganda spewed by liberals desperately clinging to their precious entitlements. How much lower was the budget under Clinton? Are you trying to tell me less than 15 years later we need to spend nearly DOUBLE what we were in the Clinton years to have a strong economy? Yeah, I've got a bridge to sell ya...

There is no threat of excessive taxes on the table from anyone in power and there would be zero threat of default if it weren't for a party who raised the debt ceiling something like 5 times over the last 10 years using the threat of default as a political football...and either way with the continuing downward spiral of demand and depreciating houses even if there's entrepreneurs with great ideas and capitalists with lots of capital to invest it does not matter if there is not effective demand.

Even if in principle the government is too big (and I can be with you on this point) you don't cut during a depressed economy especially in a liquidity trap because it won't be replaced and the long run picture gets worse. Where were you from 2003 to 2008 asking for cuts? Where was the Tea Party looking to cut the size of government when they should have been doing it! All I remember people talking about was the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. George W. Bush went public trying to privatize social security and the big government hating Tea Party was nowhere to be found supporting him.

BoatShoes;831225 wrote:...

Where were you from 2003 to 2008 asking for cuts? Where was the Tea Party looking to cut the size of government when they should have been doing it! All I remember people talking about was the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. George W. Bush went public trying to privatize social security and the big government hating Tea Party was nowhere to be found supporting him.

Here's the concessions in my negotiations. It's all the Republicans and Tea Partiers fault the debt is so high.

Now, I expect them to fix it. A plan must exist to show how the budget will be balanced and there will be no more debt limit increases.

If you don't want to "cut" now because the economy is depressed I need a plan telling me when you will cut, what you will cut and you need to spend now based only on what is coming in now.

BoatShoes;831225 wrote: Even if in principle the government is too big (and I can be with you on this point) you don't cut during a depressed economy especially in a liquidity trap because it won't be replaced and the long run picture gets worse.

Do you even understand what a liquidity trap is and what the implications are, or are you just regurgitating something you got in some leftnut blog? Do you understand how things like deficit spending and higher taxes crowd out investment? And if traditional monetary policy isn't working, what makes you so sure govt spending is doing any propping up of the economy?

I'll make it real simple for you to understand: $1.7 trillion deficits provide investors/business with 0 confidence.

Con_Alma;831188 wrote:How sad are Romney's numbers there after all the cash he's spending. Yikes!

No question. Romney certainly has the cash but the fact that he turns off a lot of conservative voters will likely be his undoing. So much so that Bachmann has been able to come from behind to lead by a few points. Crazy. I honestly do not envision him receiving the Repub nomination.

And here we go. Bachmann leads in Iowa so now the media targets Bachmann's religious choices. I have no issues with the media scrutinizing any POTUS candidate. I just wish they had done the same with their Appointed One.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/michele-bachmann-officially-leaves-her-church/?hpt=hp_t2

I'm no fan of Bachman, but it's not the scrutiny, per se, that anyone objects to. All presidential candidates should be thoroughly vetted by media digging through every aspect of their professional and educational backgrounds.

What we're seeing with Bachman, and will continue to see, will be a portrayal that makes her look as "fringe" and "out there" as possible, in an effort to effectively kill her campaign.

If any candidate provides even the least bit of threat to Obama, you'll see a full scale assault on that candidate by the media. It won't be the usual vetting, either. It will go much further.

Of course, when it comes time to do the same kind of vetting of Obama's first term in office, you won't see much of anything too negative. And what they do portray, will be couched with excuses such as "he inherited a horrible economy" and similar statements. They'll do their best to insulate him from too much criticism -- even though he's arguably the worst president this country has had in the last half century.