Perhaps I am too pessimistic. Obama leads Romney by four points in Ohio according to Time.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Perhaps I am too pessimistic. Obama leads Romney by four points in Ohio according to Time.

Herman Cain is also leading Romney by 4 points.

Congressional approval is now in the single digits.


Obama is likely to run a Trumanesque campiagn. And he may well do so with the 99% Movement active natiowide.
It could be interesting.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Perhaps I am too pessimistic. Obama leads Romney by four points in Ohio according to Time.

Barack Obama won the state by a 4% margin in 2008. If the election were to be held today he would probably win again. The Republicans cannot win the Presidency without winning Ohio.

For now, the mechanics of elections and the methods of campaigning look as if they will decide who wins the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. So far it seems as if there is no political Regeneracy manifesting itself in US elections -- yet. Such a regeneracy would show margins tightening toward the average. So far, I see the Presidential election of 2012 looking like a variation on a theme set in 2000. when America was undeniably 3T.

Originally Posted by James50

Some reasons:

1. It does not affect enough people. Only managers are affected. Employees don't care particularly unless there is something obviously unsafe in a workplace. (Despite what you might think, most managers are very concerned about workplace safety even though they hate OSHA.) It is hard for employees to make the connection that OSHA may be taking money out of their pockets due to higher costs for the company. In large corporations, the people at the top spend no time on it at all unless there is a disaster. Compliance is the job of the middle manager.
2. Yesterday's punching bag - Massey Coal. There are always enough bad actors that someone will "wave the bloody shirt".
3. Its another barrier to entry. Scares off the competition.

Incidentally, you speak about political influence. I think one feature of today's world is that everyone feels impotent. I don't feel influential at all. I am just another cog in the great machine, another bug scurrying across the carpet looking for a place to hide. There is no one in authority who particularly cares what I think or do.

James50

I guess you're not part of the 1%. Someone has a lot of influence, and that influence has generally brought fewer regulations and lower taxes on business. K Street is paid by somebody. Don't you belong to some kind of association that has a lobby? Many employers do.

There are plenty of bad actors. Massey Coal is the tip of the iceberg.

OSHA is very necessary; the story of what happened in SC in 1988 is another example. And the horrible pollution of our rivers and oceans. Workplace safety cannot be left to the employers, obviously. Managers care, but they don't call the shots. I generally disagree that regulations cost companies and their workers a lot of money, obviously, but it depends on the situation though, and the size of the company. There need to be regulations, but the regulators need to be fair too. I don't see why it can't be done. A lobby to make regulators fair would seem to be an answer. In the meantime, compliance is not a bad thing.

I agree about Colorado+Nevada voting together, but I would also throw in New Mexico.

Colorado+Nevada+New Mexico = 20.

Facts about the Republican Tea Party 2010 Election in Colorado...
Senate win by Democrats (Michael Bennet)
Governor win by Democrats (John Hickenlooper)
Democrats control the State Senate by 1 seat and lost State House by 1 seat.

This was during arguably the best offensive by the Republican Party in an off year.

If Colorado goes Obama and Democrats, so do Nevada and New Mexico.

Obama will run against Congress, like Truman in 1948.

Don't know about you, but I would derive a whole lot of schadenfreude from seeing Romney win the Republican nomination, then lose a few Southern states because of his Mormon faith - in the same way Alfred E. Smith lost five such states due to his Catholic faith in 1928 - and it costs him the election.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In the meantime, compliance is not a bad thing.

Curious whether you have ever been a manager in a manufacturing company?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Curious whether you have ever been a manager in a manufacturing company?

James50

I have been an assistant foreman ("assistant to the lead," they called it) in one. I don't know if that counts.

I hope things work better for you as the economy improves. I think we all have run-ins with government. I don't think our personal experiences should be the only basis of our vote or our ideology. When we vote, we need to be able to take a look at what is best for our country, not just ourselves or the people we know.

Tea Party group encourages Bachmann to drop out of the race:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...idential-race/



Kinda funny.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

I agree about Colorado+Nevada voting together, but I would also throw in New Mexico.

Colorado+Nevada+New Mexico = 20.

Facts about the Republican Tea Party 2010 Election in Colorado...
Senate win by Democrats (Michael Bennet)
Governor win by Democrats (John Hickenlooper)
Democrats control the State Senate by 1 seat and lost State House by 1 seat.

This was during arguably the best offensive by the Republican Party in an off year.

If Colorado goes Obama and Democrats, so do Nevada and New Mexico.

Obama will run against Congress, like Truman in 1948.

President Obama won Nevada largely because of the votes of construction workers (housing boom), hotel and casino employees in Reno and Las Vegas. The economic meltdown of 2008 ravaged the construction and hospitality industries in Nevada, and I figure that multitudes of such people left Nevada for other places. The most recent poll in Nevada shows Obama and Romney dead-even in Nevada, which means that the state will probably be won by the candidate with the best get-out-the-vote drive. That looks like an advantage for the President. In 2008 the Obama campaign had Nevada swarming with paid staff, largely Californians (many of whom surely took up legal residence in Nevada and voted there). Can Mitt Romney do anything like that?

Those construction workers and hospitality employees did not disappear off the globe. They went elsewhere, and I figure that Arizona was one such place. Arizona stands to entice Democrats in 2012 because of an open Senate seat, because elected Republicans are losing their popularity, and because the Republican nominee won the state by less than one would expect by a Favorite Son. Take away 10% of the vote from the Republicans that John McCain won (the 10% is an estimate, and I have seen plenty of evidence that that is about the advantage that a Favorite Son has in any state in which he is well respected and not in a max-out situation like Kerry in Massachusetts in 2004), and Arizona is really close.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The most recent poll in Nevada shows Obama and Romney dead-even in Nevada, which means that the state will probably be won by the candidate with the best get-out-the-vote drive. That looks like an advantage for the President. In 2008 the Obama campaign had Nevada swarming with paid staff, largely Californians (many of whom surely took up legal residence in Nevada and voted there). Can Mitt Romney do anything like that?

Nevada has a lot of Mormons. In addition, it is right next door to Utah. So Romney has a potent force working in his favor for Nevada.

That doesn't mean that Nevada is his. However, it is another factor in the equation.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Nevada has a lot of Mormons. In addition, it is right next door to Utah. So Romney has a potent force working in his favor for Nevada.

That doesn't mean that Nevada is his. However, it is another factor in the equation.

FWIW - Harry Reid is a Mormon whose sons have gone on mission.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

FWIW - Harry Reid is a Mormon whose sons have gone on mission.

James50

True. Not all Mormons will be campaigning for Romney. However, most Mormons are Republican and I'm sure that Republican Mormons (plus some moderate-to-conservative Democrats) will be campaigning for Romney in force.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

I agree about Colorado+Nevada voting together, but I would also throw in New Mexico.

Colorado+Nevada+New Mexico = 20.

Obama will run against Congress, like Truman in 1948.

I'd add us in AZ to that math:

Colorado+Nevada+New Mexico+AZ = 31

I don't think campaigning against Congress is a good strategy. It accentuates two things:
- When Obama had Dem control he didn't take advantage and get ahead of current problems
- That he can't work with the Congress, even if they are a miserable lot. Great leaders find a way to bend Congress to their will. Reminding people of his weakness and subordinate role to Mr. Speaker is a bad idea.

Much better for him to focus message on fixing the economy and offering solutions moderates can buy into. If he wins on this type of message, he can declare a mandate.

Hammer Wall Street and Big Business and talk about job creation. First step, and he doesn't seem to be taking my advice (imagine that, he doesn't spend hours a week in mental masturbation on this forum) is to announce an independent bipartisan panel (it needs to have teeth and not be some quasi-governmental bullshit) that will investigate and recommend prosecution for financial sector actions. He'd get -- 75% support from the electorate and at least take a step towards receiving some forgiveness for his accomplice-after-the-crime role. The downside is a loss of backing from Wall St., which in 2012 will be viewed positively. Wall St has already said he is dead (figuratively) to them anyway. He needs to do this before the end of the year. OWS demands it. The American people want it. It seems so obvious. Time to get it done.

You may have seen Herman Cain's new problems.

While I believe sexual harassment has been too broadly defined--I do not think, for instance, that what Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of should be actionable--this case is rather different, since Cain's employers (or Cain himself) evidently paid two women off to drop their allegations. I nominate Ann Coulter as the first person to revive the phrase, "high-tech lynching."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You may have seen Herman Cain's new problems.

While I believe sexual harassment has been too broadly defined--I do not think, for instance, that what Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of should be actionable--this case is rather different, since Cain's employers (or Cain himself) evidently paid two women off to drop their allegations. I nominate Ann Coulter as the first person to revive the phrase, "high-tech lynching."

I agree, mostly. Sexist a**hole behavior does not necessarily sexual harassment, it does make you an a**hole.

Originally Posted by Odin

I agree, mostly. Sexist a**hole behavior does not necessarily sexual harassment, it does make you an a**hole.

Exactly. Which is not a crime.

But with 50% of the electorate being female this is no asset for a wannabe president. Assuming that's what Cain is and that he's done what he's accused of...

I called it!.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I called it!.

That truly is hilarious. I didn't read the whole article because of my dislike of Coulter.

Originally Posted by annla899

That truly is hilarious. I didn't read the whole article because of my dislike of Coulter.

No doubt someone will put quarters in Cain's expired meter. There's got to be a "great right hope" in the GOP primary field until either a.) Perry becomes able to compose coherent sentences or b.) enough of the Christianist right can be convinced that voting for Romney is justifiable Biblically as a "cross that they have to bear" to get rid of the 'other' currently occupying the White House.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

No doubt someone will put quarters in Cain's expired meter. There's got to be a "great right hope" in the GOP primary field until either a.) Perry becomes able to compose coherent sentences or b.) enough of the Christianist right can be convinced that voting for Romney is justifiable Biblically as a "cross that they have to bear" to get rid of the 'other' currently occupying the White House.

Scudder and Gantry in 2012 - why settle for the lesser of two evils?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

No doubt someone will put quarters in Cain's expired meter. There's got to be a "great right hope" in the GOP primary field until either a.) Perry becomes able to compose coherent sentences or b.) enough of the Christianist right can be convinced that voting for Romney is justifiable Biblically as a "cross that they have to bear" to get rid of the 'other' currently occupying the White House.

Well said! "Great right hope" indeed!

Now I just watched Judy Woodruff interviewing Cain, not very aggressively, about the allegations. He claims the only thing he can remember doing is remarking that one of the women was exactly the height of his wife, five feet. (That happens to be the height of my wife as well.) He said that human resources investigated the complaint, found it without foundation, but reached an agreement with the two women that involved some money. He said he thought (but he carefully hedged) that he as CEO did not have to sign off on the agreement. I came away thinking that he is either innocent, or a very clever sociopath and a very dangerous man. There is no third possibility. Woodruff, alas, did not ask him to waive the non-disclosure agreement.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Scudder and Gantry in 2012 - why settle for the lesser of two evils?

Republicans for Voldermort!