73 replies to this topic

[weatherbowl]

The economy will make or break a Presidency and this economy is bad. Europe is in financial trouble, unemployment is not improving in this country and the overall feeling by most people is the country is headed in the wrong direction. Mr Obama has about 1 year to turn things around or at least make people believe we are headed in the right direction. I hope he succeeds at turning things around but if the election was this November, I would bet on a new President or at the very least, a very close race.

[robbbs]

weatherbowl, on Jun 22 2011, 09:41 PM, said:

The economy will make or break a Presidency and this economy is bad. Europe is in financial trouble, unemployment is not improving in this country and the overall feeling by most people is the country is headed in the wrong direction. Mr Obama has about 1 year to turn things around or at least make people believe we are headed in the right direction. I hope he succeeds at turning things around but if the election was this November, I would bet on a new President or at the very least, a very close race.

Incumbents have a phenomenal edge in elections, the Republican party is splintered, and Obama has a staunch following that will vote for him regardless of circumstances. IMO, barring some huge unexpected event, Obama will almost certainly be re-elected. I agree, however, that the economy is the one and only issue which will matter to voters. A new economic meltdown would be a game-changer but I think it has to get to that level for Obama to get booted. I'm also pessimistic about anyone from any party having answers to get us out of this economic mess (at least I haven't heard anyone say anything substantive, other than the usual non-specific bs). This recession has deep roots which go well beyond any cyclical downturn. The global economy is as much responsible for our problems as anything else and as China's fortunes increase and the global playing field is leveled, our fortunes decrease, perhaps for the long term. The US economy no longer produces anything and it's near impossible to buy goods of any kind made here, ceo's only care about the next quarter's bottom line and their bonus instead of the long haul, and Wall Street is now more casino than anything else. We're in a very sorry state.

[Ehop]

robbbs, on Jun 22 2011, 06:35 PM, said:

Incumbents have a phenomenal edge in elections, the Republican party is splintered, and Obama has a staunch following that will vote for him regardless of circumstances. IMO, barring some huge unexpected event, Obama will almost certainly be re-elected. I agree, however, that the economy is the one and only issue which will matter to voters. A new economic meltdown would be a game-changer but I think it has to get to that level for Obama to get booted. I'm also pessimistic about anyone from any party having answers to get us out of this economic mess (at least I haven't heard anyone say anything substantive, other than the usual non-specific bs). This recession has deep roots which go well beyond any cyclical downturn. The global economy is as much responsible for our problems as anything else and as China's fortunes increase and the global playing field is leveled, our fortunes decrease, perhaps for the long term. The US economy no longer produces anything and it's near impossible to buy goods of any kind made here, ceo's only care about the next quarter's bottom line and their bonus instead of the long haul, and Wall Street is now more casino than anything else. We're in a very sorry state.

Depends on who runs against him. A good candiadte beats Obama. He ran on change and fixing things, yet they are not fixed. Reagan won because people had hope and Mondale was a buffoon. Today people do not have much optimism. The idea that we dont make anything is a cop-out. In1800, 90% of Americans worked in farming. A decade later it was around 40%, today is low single digits. Maybe if we all went back to farming we would be better off. Its like Obama complaining about ATM's.

Freeing up capital and time to be more efficient creates jobs. This does not happen when you have a Government controlling and regulating everything. If we were all farming, the comuter industry would not have been created. The problem is not one party, its both, they love to point fingers, complain about the other and in the end nothing happens, but more control and power for them.

CEO's care about profits today, unlike those generous guys in 1900's who really cared about people. Wall St has always been a casino, they just have created more exotic bets and people and companies invest in products they do not understand.

[robbbs]

Ehop, on Jun 23 2011, 02:02 PM, said:

Depends on who runs against him. A good candiadte beats Obama. He ran on change and fixing things, yet they are not fixed. Reagan won because people had hope and Mondale was a buffoon. Today people do not have much optimism. The idea that we dont make anything is a cop-out. In1800, 90% of Americans worked in farming. A decade later it was around 40%, today is low single digits. Maybe if we all went back to farming we would be better off. Its like Obama complaining about ATM's.

Freeing up capital and time to be more efficient creates jobs. This does not happen when you have a Government controlling and regulating everything. If we were all farming, the comuter industry would not have been created. The problem is not one party, its both, they love to point fingers, complain about the other and in the end nothing happens, but more control and power for them.

CEO's care about profits today, unlike those generous guys in 1900's who really cared about people. Wall St has always been a casino, they just have created more exotic bets and people and companies invest in products they do not understand.

Based on what and who's a "good" candidate? People are grossly under-estimating Obama's support and staying power. If the election were held today (and that's the only way to measure this as future events are unknown), there isn't a candidate on the planet that would beat him. This has nothing to do with whether I'm for or against him, just a realistic assessment of Obama and the political landscape.

[devilsfan0405]

I don't see any current GOP candidate defeating Obama. The field is very weak IMHO. I can't take Bachman or Palin seriously, Romney will have his Massachusetts health care mandate flip-flop hanging over him and a lot of the others don't have enough name recognition. I tend to agree with Robbs that barring another economic catastrophe, Obama will probably get re-elected. There is JUST enough improvement (albiet extremely little) in the economy compared to late 2008 and 2009 to save him. Things haven't gotten worse; I know that's lowering the bar, but that's probably the best we can hope for in the near-term anyway. We're going to tread water for a long time, I'm afraid. That's regardless of who the President is.

[vascudave]

we need a new congress, not president!!

[Mike_The_Golfer]

vascudave, on Jun 23 2011, 11:26 AM, said:

we need a new congress, not president!!

True. We got rid of one weiner...we need to get rid of a few hundred more. There's no desire to compromise and/or find any kind of common ground at all with these two parties. It's all nothing but more and more divisive rhetoric. If there was a magical bill out there that would instantly fix the economy, eliminate the deficit, and improve the lives of EVERY American...but its passage would be seen as a clear victory for (and the credit would go to) one party, you can be sure the other party wouldn't vote for it. That's where we are at with these people.

[devilsfan0405]

Mike_The_Golfer, on Jun 23 2011, 11:35 AM, said:

True. We got rid of one weiner...we need to get rid of a few hundred more. There's no desire to compromise and/or find any kind of common ground at all with these two parties. It's all nothing but more and more divisive rhetoric. If there was a magical bill out there that would instantly fix the economy, eliminate the deficit, and improve the lives of EVERY American...but its passage would be seen as a clear victory for (and the credit would go to) one party, you can be sure the other party wouldn't vote for it. That's where we are at with these people.

Exactly. We're basically dealing with people who have the mentality of toddlers.

[Ehop]

vascudave, on Jun 23 2011, 11:26 AM, said:

we need a new congress, not president!!

We need both.
As for no GOP candidate, while I agree the field appears soft, remember four years ago today, you would have given me nice odds that Obama would have been President. At this point Hillary had a double digit lead on Obama.
As for who the GOP candidate will be, it will not be Palin (she is not running), Bachmann has no chance, and Mitt will lose. Not sure who steps up, but think it could be a dark horse unknown/not declared.
End of the day, will most likely vote third party.
The establishment is broken.

[devilsfan0405]

Ehop, on Jun 23 2011, 04:46 PM, said:

We need both.
As for no GOP candidate, while I agree the field appears soft, remember four years ago today, you would have given me nice odds that Obama would have been President. At this point Hillary had a double digit lead on Obama.
As for who the GOP candidate will be, it will not be Palin (she is not running), Bachmann has no chance, and Mitt will lose. Not sure who steps up, but think it could be a dark horse unknown/not declared.
End of the day, will most likely vote third party.
The establishment is broken.

The only problem with a 3rd-party is that it would be hard to rally around a single person. The opposition support would most likely be fractured amongst a plethora of candidates.

I think a major problem Hillary had is that she didn't take Obama seriously at the beginning, which allowed him to gain momentum early in the primary season.

[weatherbowl]

I saw an interesting analogy the other day in regards to the recent budget presented by the President, and our national debt. In the analogy many zeros were taken off the numbers involving the budget and the debt and this is what resulted. It would be the same as a family making $29,000 per year but spending $38,000 per year. And that same family already in debt by $150,000. Of course the family would be bankrupt in no time. I guess what gives the government more time is their ability to print money. But even that ability will have its day of reckoning.

[Gary]

I seldom get into political discussions since facts and ideas seldom sway voters one way or another. Four years ago this country elected a junior senator with no executive experience to hold the highest office in the land. It wasn't based on his record because he didn't have a record. People wanted hope and change. Now he has a record to run on. I don't know about anyone else, but $4 gas, over 8% unemployment, Obamacare, and rising debt are enough for me to cast my vote elsewhere in November. No, I do not think any one man can change this country, but I cannot in good conscience re-elect the man who held the office while these things happened. I agree that the political system is bigger than one man, but that man wields a fair amount of influence and power. I still will never understand why he killed the pipeline from Canada.

I think it's sad what has happened to this country. Even though I do not agree with most of his policies, my prayers are lifted up regularly for the president, our nationally elected leaders, and our military. My hope goes well beyond the men and women in Washington. I hope yours does also.

[NittanyLion]

Reached the magical 13000 on the Dow yesterday. That's a 63% rise in it since he took office, 5th best growth for a President since taking office.

[FreezingDrizzle]

Gary, on 21 February 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

I seldom get into political discussions since facts and ideas seldom sway voters one way or another. Four years ago this country elected a junior senator with no executive experience to hold the highest office in the land. It wasn't based on his record because he didn't have a record. People wanted hope and change. Now he has a record to run on. I don't know about anyone else, but $4 gas, over 8% unemployment, Obamacare, and rising debt are enough for me to cast my vote elsewhere in November. No, I do not think any one man can change this country, but I cannot in good conscience re-elect the man who held the office while these things happened. I agree that the political system is bigger than one man, but that man wields a fair amount of influence and power. I still will never understand why he killed the pipeline from Canada.

I think it's sad what has happened to this country. Even though I do not agree with most of his policies, my prayers are lifted up regularly for the president, our nationally elected leaders, and our military. My hope goes well beyond the men and women in Washington. I hope yours does also.

Gary, I believe that historians, decades in the future, will rate Obama as one of our worst presidents, down there just above Harding, Grant, and Carter. He was woefully inexperienced and unprepared for office, having weak managerial skills/experience. He was in the right place at the right time in 2008 and said the right things. He actually ran a great campaign. Hillary Clinton peaked too late (recall that she won many of the later primaries). I never thought I would say this, but I would take Hillary over him.

I'm an independent, but lean fiscally conservative. I can live with a competent, pragmatic liberal, but not an ideologue like him.

He has to go; but don't be surprised if he wins. The Democrats have some large and strong voting blocs on their side. FD

ps - Weren't we sold on the point that Obamacare would save money? No one even dares to say that anymore.

[NittanyLion]

Gary, on 21 February 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

I seldom get into political discussions since facts and ideas seldom sway voters one way or another. Four years ago this country elected a junior senator with no executive experience to hold the highest office in the land. It wasn't based on his record because he didn't have a record. People wanted hope and change. Now he has a record to run on. I don't know about anyone else, but $4 gas, over 8% unemployment, Obamacare, and rising debt are enough for me to cast my vote elsewhere in November. No, I do not think any one man can change this country, but I cannot in good conscience re-elect the man who held the office while these things happened. I agree that the political system is bigger than one man, but that man wields a fair amount of influence and power. I still will never understand why he killed the pipeline from Canada.

I think it's sad what has happened to this country. Even though I do not agree with most of his policies, my prayers are lifted up regularly for the president, our nationally elected leaders, and our military. My hope goes well beyond the men and women in Washington. I hope yours does also.

[NittanyLion]

FreezingDrizzle, on 22 February 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

Gary, I believe that historians, decades in the future, will rate Obama as one of our worst presidents, down there just above Harding, Grant, and Carter. He was woefully inexperienced and unprepared for office, having weak managerial skills/experience. He was in the right place at the right time in 2008 and said the right things. He actually ran a great campaign. Hillary Clinton peaked too late (recall that she won many of the later primaries). I never thought I would say this, but I would take Hillary over him.

I'm an independent, but lean fiscally conservative. I can live with a competent, pragmatic liberal, but not an ideologue like him.

He has to go; but don't be surprised if he wins. The Democrats have some large and strong voting blocs on their side. FD

ps - Weren't we sold on the point that Obamacare would save money? No one even dares to say that anymore.

Not saying I love what this President has done, because I don't agree with a lot of it. But the economy is turning around now. All of the Republican candidates are awful. Most Republicans I'm acquainted with won't even vote for them... Do you really think Romney or especially Santorum would do anything better? And if Santorum wins the nomination it will be a landslide victory for Obama.

[FreezingDrizzle]

Nit, left-leaning sites put out bunches of graphs and statistics. They are almost always misleading, in some way.

Look at this one. The downslope is noted as Republican Policies. You can accurately say "Republic president in office" but to say that period only consisted of Republican Policies is extremely misleading. Some of the causes of the recession go way back. They are not only Republican Policies. FD

[FreezingDrizzle]

NittanyLion, on 22 February 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Not saying I love what this President has done, because I don't agree with a lot of it. But the economy is turning around now. All of the Republican candidates are awful. Most Republicans I'm acquainted with won't even vote for them... Do you really think Romney or especially Santorum would do anything better? And if Santorum wins the nomination it will be a landslide victory for Obama.

Dems saying that Republican candidates are awful makes it true? I think Romney would be a very competent president.

Even if the GOP only halts deficit spending (as is in Obama's budget) and appoints strict constructionist Supreme Court it would be better.

[NittanyLion]

FreezingDrizzle, on 22 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Nit, left-leaning sites put out bunches of graphs and statistics. They are almost always misleading, in some way.

Look at this one. The downslope is noted as Republican Policies. You can accurately say "Republic president in office" but to say that period only consisted of Republican Policies is extremely misleading. Some of the causes of the recession go way back. They are not only Republican Policies. FD

That was just one graph. I've seen many of the same graphs on all types of sites (including CNN, FOX, MSNBC). This was just one that I was able to access quickly.

[NittanyLion]

FreezingDrizzle, on 22 February 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Dems saying that Republican candidates are awful makes it true? I think Romney would be a very competent president.

Even if the GOP only halts deficit spending (as is in Obama's budget) and appoints strict constructionist Supreme Court it would be better.

Actually I don't know about Romney considering I don't know which Romney is running, the Moderate Republican from Massachusetts who I would agree would be competent at least, or the one who he is morphing into now (pulling John Kerry-esque flip flopping left and right). He is so out of touch with anything and everything right now.