Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think I was unclear again. I only bought a lottery ticket, basically. Odds are way against me actually showing up there.

Well, there is always that one in a million shot. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. I hope you get something in return for your $50. So tell me, David, did you send the money because Michelle is cuter than Barack? ...Just wondering why she able to get you to pull out your checkbook.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Well, there is always that one in a million shot. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. I hope you get something in return for your $50. So tell me, David, did you send the money because Michelle is cuter than Barack? ...Just wondering why she able to get you to pull out your checkbook.

Amy, I am in a very reflective mood after my retreat, and I suddenly realized that for your sake, my sake, my kids' sake and your kids' sake, etc., etc., etc., I had to do what little I could to keep one of the elephants out of the White House, no matter how little enthusiasm I felt about the incumbent. It was partly that I had seen one of the stories about how small donors like myself hadn't been coming through. So I did it, and I hope others will do the same.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Amy, I am in a very reflective mood after my retreat, and I suddenly realized that for your sake, my sake, my kids' sake and your kids' sake, etc., etc., etc., I had to do what little I could to keep one of the elephants out of the White House, no matter how little enthusiasm I felt about the incumbent. It was partly that I had seen one of the stories about how small donors like myself hadn't been coming through. So I did it, and I hope others will do the same.

I will, for one.

I hate that with all the things we need the government to be doing, our elected officials are pretty well focused on their reelections at this point.

My modest suggestion is to increase the term of the President to one six year term. Surely with the speed of society now, six years is at least as equivalent to the founders four years. You get one six year term as executive, and don't need to spend a single day worrying about whether you will have another term -- you won't.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I hate that with all the things we need the government to be doing, our elected officials are pretty well focused on their reelections at this point.

My modest suggestion is to increase the term of the President to one six year term. Surely with the speed of society now, six years is at least as equivalent to the founders four years. You get one six year term as executive, and don't need to spend a single day worrying about whether you will have another term -- you won't.

This is one Confederate idea that I actually liked when I first read it.

~Chas'88

Possible expose on the Koch Brothers has them doing some preemptive spinning.

Originally Posted by Salon.com

Here's a rule of thumb about public relations: When P.R. pros begin furiously spinning a story before it has even come out, there's a pretty good chance the story is going to be damaging to the reputation of said P.R. pros' bosses.

And that's exactly what we're seeing right now, as an anonymous person or persons in the orbit of the billionaire conservative donors Charles and David Koch try to discredit a forthcoming story in Bloomberg Markets magazine.

Based on the prebuttal items appearing this week in the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller, and U.S. News and World Report, the Bloomberg story focuses on alleged malfeasance and/or fraud and/or bad behavior by the conglomerate Koch Industries.

One of those episodes apparently involves bribery by a Koch subsidiary in France, according to the piece by Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott. He reports that "Bloomberg reporters have been trolling among former Koch employees overseas in search of disaffected voices willing to talk," but Tapscott suspects the story may be animated by bias against the Tea Party. And he notes that, "Koch USA officials say they were as surprised and angered as anybody else when they were first apprised of the bribery allegations, and moved as quickly as possible to get to the bottom of the situation and fix it."


*****

Clearly, the Kochs are nervous about what Bloomberg has coming. And as it turns out, they've used the prebuttal strategy before.

In April 2010 I got an unsolicited email from Koch Industries' spokeswoman offering to "reiterate some important facts." She said that Koch Industries and the Koch brothers had never funded the Tea Party, in case I was wondering. That, of course, was not true. And a few months later, Jane Mayer's now famous expose on the Kochs and the Tea Party was published in the New Yorker.

Americans are slowly learning that too much Koch isn't good for the body politic.

Today's New York Times has a disturbing piece about the Presidential election quoting Obama strategists. It seems that they are resigned to losing a good many rust belt states, including Indiana (for sure), possibly Ohio and Pennsylvania, or even Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota. They apparently are relying on the Carville demographic theory and they think they can win anyway by holding on in Colorado and the Far West and--get this--retaining North Carolina and Virginia. (I gather they are not too hopeful about Florida.) Axelrod acknowledges that if they are going to win, it's going to be close.

Of course, without knowing who the elephant of the year will be, predictions must be very tentative, but this isn't an encouraging picture.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's New York Times has a disturbing piece about the Presidential election quoting Obama strategists. It seems that they are resigned to losing a good many rust belt states, including Indiana (for sure), possibly Ohio and Pennsylvania, or even Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota. They apparently are relying on the Carville demographic theory and they think they can win anyway by holding on in Colorado and the Far West and--get this--retaining North Carolina and Virginia. (I gather they are not too hopeful about Florida.) Axelrod acknowledges that if they are going to win, it's going to be close.

Of course, without knowing who the elephant of the year will be, predictions must be very tentative, but this isn't an encouraging picture.

Yes it is a long way to next November.
Still, it's interesting, and somewhat disappointing that these so called stratgists don't see the unpopularity of those GOP governors in the midwest and Florida as an opportunity. It sounds like they are falling for the old failed Democratic strategy of trying to win 270 electorial votes with the fewest number of states possible. That worked real well for president Kerry in 2004.

More to the point with the Tea Party at about 20% popularity they should go on the offense.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think I was unclear again. I only bought a lottery ticket, basically. Odds are way against me actually showing up there.

I recall that. But congrats to being one step closer.

By all means, be proud to have the opportunity to bask in His Regal Presence. This is no mere man -- this is someone who not only murders Americans*, but positively glories in it. Openly.

*To be fair, this is totally different from all the other people (monsters to the last) who murdered Americans and bragged about it themselves. Obama murdered that one person because Obama said he was a bad guy and Obama speaks only pure Truth. Pretty open and shut. All Hail.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's New York Times has a disturbing piece about the Presidential election quoting Obama strategists. It seems that they are resigned to losing a good many rust belt states, including Indiana (for sure), possibly Ohio and Pennsylvania, or even Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota. They apparently are relying on the Carville demographic theory and they think they can win anyway by holding on in Colorado and the Far West and--get this--retaining North Carolina and Virginia. (I gather they are not too hopeful about Florida.) Axelrod acknowledges that if they are going to win, it's going to be close.

Of course, without knowing who the elephant of the year will be, predictions must be very tentative, but this isn't an encouraging picture.

I still say that President Obama has yet to show his 2012 strategy... he may be setting a trap for the eventual Republican nominee.

You are right about Florida; Rick Scott seems likely to do anything to protect himself and his cronies, and that includes electoral fraud. He is that amoral, and one way to avoid trouble is to do everything possible to defeat President Obama even if that means making a travesty of a statewide election. If the Republican nominee unseats President Obama then it will almost surely be by a margin less than the 29 electoral votes of Florida, and it would be very embarrassing for a Republican President to do anything against someone who made his election possible.

For lack of corroboration, Indiana looks like a one-time fluke for the President. The Obama campaign invested heavily in Indiana in 2008 and got relatively little for it. Indiana becomes a Democratic target, though, if the Teabaggers unseat Senator Dick Lugar in the Senate primary (all too likely). Arizona has an open Senate seat, and that Senate seat would be a nice pick-up for the Democrats -- and worth an effort by the President -- because Dick Lugar will be almost impossible to defeat in the general election in Indiana. President Obama can win easily without Indiana and Arizona, but the open and potentially-open Senate seats will be worth some Presidential visits.

Recent polls (August and September, when the President's approval ratings were at their nadir) showed or show the President ahead, if less than the margin of error, in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I see no polls for Indiana or Minnesota. He is behind by less than the margin of error in Missouri, and Virginia has been swinging wildly all summer. Which way is the wind blowing?

I look at the situation in September 2008, when nominee Barack Obama had apparently sown up 264 electoral votes with Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia up in the air (Indiana was not going to go for him unless he also won Ohio, and North Carolina was not going to go for him unless he also won Virginia). With all such states basically as 50/50 chances as 'independent events', the future President had 31 chances in 32 of winning. (Nevada wasn't polled often enough, but it would have given the President 269 votes with a tie to be decided in Congress or to depend upon an independently-counted district in Nebraska, and either way would have been a win for the President).

Holding onto the Senate and winning back the House of Representatives matter as much to Democrats as does winning the re-election of the President. In view of the absence of adult behavior by Republicans in the 113rd Congress, President Obama has concerns other than re-election.

Looks like at this moment more voters trust Republicans with both international affairs and fixing the economy. Just a snapshot, but telling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149783/Am...-Problems.aspx

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's New York Times has a disturbing piece about the Presidential election quoting Obama strategists. It seems that they are resigned to losing a good many rust belt states, including Indiana (for sure), possibly Ohio and Pennsylvania, or even Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota. They apparently are relying on the Carville demographic theory and they think they can win anyway by holding on in Colorado and the Far West and--get this--retaining North Carolina and Virginia. (I gather they are not too hopeful about Florida.) Axelrod acknowledges that if they are going to win, it's going to be close.

Of course, without knowing who the elephant of the year will be, predictions must be very tentative, but this isn't an encouraging picture.

I would like to see the electoral math showing Obama winning without Pennsylvania. If he can't win PA, so many other states will also be in play. Seems very unlikely Obama can win without PA.

James50

Originally Posted by Weave

Looks like at this moment more voters trust Republicans with both international affairs and fixing the economy. Just a snapshot, but telling.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149783/Am...-Problems.aspx

Also says a majority of Americans could support a third party.

Originally Posted by James50

I would like to see the electoral math showing Obama winning without Pennsylvania. If he can't win PA, so many other states will also be in play. Seems very unlikely Obama can win without PA.

James50

I don't like to brag about my state (obvious lie of course :rolls eye smiley goes here: ) but we were an indication that McCain would loose in the last election.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by James50

I would like to see the electoral math showing Obama winning without Pennsylvania. If he can't win PA, so many other states will also be in play. Seems very unlikely Obama can win without PA.

James50

The premise of the story seemed to be that they were more hopeful about VA and NC than about PA. I agree that's rather dubious.

An example of a "devil" would be Iran. Another possibility would be a post-Castro Cuba.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's New York Times has a disturbing piece about the Presidential election quoting Obama strategists. It seems that they are resigned to losing a good many rust belt states, including Indiana (for sure), possibly Ohio and Pennsylvania, or even Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota. They apparently are relying on the Carville demographic theory and they think they can win anyway by holding on in Colorado and the Far West and--get this--retaining North Carolina and Virginia. (I gather they are not too hopeful about Florida.) Axelrod acknowledges that if they are going to win, it's going to be close.

Of course, without knowing who the elephant of the year will be, predictions must be very tentative, but this isn't an encouraging picture.

James Carville has the perfect strategy for Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. President Obama cannot win exactly the same demographics as Clinton could win with; he is not a Southern populist and can't act as one. He is very wrong for the southern white rural voters that Bill Clinton won reliably.

As it is, recent polls show the President ahead of Romney in the States that he won by 10% or more in 2008 by far less than the gaudy margins that he won by. But he is close in the states considered competitive in 2008 -- and being within the margin of error in a bunch of them, he gives any potential Republican nominee about a 50% chance in each. Multiply the chances of Colorado and Nevada together (easier than the others), Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, and Florida and the Republicans have about one chance in 64 of winning.

The President's approval numbers are poor, but so are those of Congress as a whole. That reflects the economy, and I can't see any Republican candidate offering people what they want. It is now a rehash of the appeal of 2010... and it is very clear that the republicans can't offer more jobs without such a catch as they will come with something objectionable -- like huge pay cuts that effectively transfer even more of the share of income to the upper classes who get the whole of the gain or even more, or a give-away of the public sector.

People are more willing in a 4T than in a 3T to make personal sacrifices, but they reasonably insist upon a reasonable promise of desirable results. This is no time for a zero-sum game in which the common man loses much for nothing; such is what the Republicans offer and demand simultaneously.

Approval ratings for the President are low because people are generally unhappy with economic realities. Those for Congress are even lower, which suggests other problems.

President Obama loses if the Republicans come up with a ringer -- someone of unusual strengths as a politician. They really need a Ronald Reagan, someone who has no particular identity by region and who can destroy the Obama advantage in a few northern states, who can exude optimism while making vague but appealing promises and avoiding the minefield of the 3T culture wars. It is too late for a newcomer.

Chris Christie not running -

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ss-conference/

Now is not my time

Smart guy.

May be a good sign that Obama is not beatable or a moderate Republican doesn't have a chance in the GOP nomination, or Romney fits that bill and is too far out to catch, or all of the above.

Hopefully, this gives GOP money-men and voters an excuse to loss next November and look forward to 2016.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I hate that with all the things we need the government to be doing, our elected officials are pretty well focused on their reelections at this point. My modest suggestion is to increase the term of the President to one six year term. Surely with the speed of society now, six years is at least as equivalent to the founders four years. You get one six year term as executive, and don't need to spend a single day worrying about whether you will have another term -- you won't.

I'd go one step further, and limit ALL elected Federal officials, the President, VP, Senators and Representatives, to one six year term. This would limit the effect of corporate money in another way, too- by making it less clear how corruptible, and by whom, a particular candidate may be.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Chris Christie not running -

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ss-conference/



Smart guy.

May be a good sign that Obama is not beatable or a moderate Republican doesn't have a chance in the GOP nomination, or Romney fits that bill and is too far out to catch, or all of the above.

Hopefully, this gives GOP money-men and voters an excuse to loss next November and look forward to 2016.

Yea, policy aside he instantly gained some respect from me when he said, "Now is not my time." When's the last time we had a president so smart?

I wonder if he knows we are in a 4T? In 2007, someone should had forced Obama to read S & H and say, "Look man...you're young and healthy so just wait 20 years until you run for president because you'd be perfect for the High."

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I'd go one step further, and limit ALL elected Federal officials, the President, VP, Senators and Representatives, to one six year term. This would limit the effect of corporate money in another way, too- by making it less clear how corruptible, and by whom, a particular candidate may be.

Well there is one small problem with any new scheme for electing politicians and was stated perfectly by George Carlin. The central problem is not term length, business, money, or even the politicians. It's the people.

No, because then the only people who knew anything in Washington would be the people unelected who worked there. This is well known. Best...

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I'd go one step further, and limit ALL elected Federal officials, the President, VP, Senators and Representatives, to one six year term. This would limit the effect of corporate money in another way, too- by making it less clear how corruptible, and by whom, a particular candidate may be.

I am watching the President's press conference this morning here. He is actually doing a very good job and making calm, sensible points in his natural voice. I hope that it's the start of something and that it isn't too late.

I am following the polls for the Presidential election based on margins

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...topic=140886.0

...and statewide approvals of State governors (very popular Governors might be of some assistance to politicians of their own parties, but very unpopular ones might do more harm than good. To be sure, President Obama is not going to win Kentucky or West Virginia, both of who have popular Democratic Governors but are horrible matches for the President because of the culture of the states, but such Republican Governors as Scott (Florida), Snyder (Michigan), Kasich (Ohio), and Walker (Wisconsin) are going to be albatrosses for Republican nominees in their states.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...topic=134515.0

The last post is of course the latest and (for then) the most relevant compilation of polls.