I am way more worried he doesn't know China has nuclear weapons.Originally Posted by KaiserD2
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Posts
- 998
I am way more worried he doesn't know China has nuclear weapons.
I wonder what advantage Obama would gain by moving Hillary on the ticket, like FDR did with Wallace (although Garner didn't leave him much choice)?
I rrally don't think that he would gain any. After all, the partisans are going o vote for him regardless and there is no documented evidence that swing voters decide which party to swing to based on who the veep is.
The only thing putting Hillary on the ticket would likely do IMHO is look like an attempt to keep the beltway establishment types in control of the Democratic Party after 2016. The move alienate the kind of people that the Occupy Movement is attracting.
Two anonymous sources and no details, yet you and Odin are prepared to call Cain a sociopath. I guess it doesn't take much to convince you when it is a Republican.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
I think John Edward may be one too, FWIW.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I think so too. I think many politicians on both the left and the right are sociopaths, actually. Not all, but an abnormally high percentage.
"My truck has 170,000 miles on it and the MPG is so bad that every time I start it, the ghost of an Indian appears in the passenger seat and cries."
--John Cheese
*INFJ Joneser*
Please join my Facebook group, Fans of the Fourth Turning.
I don't know about Cain, in fact I doubt it, but Edwards is a sociopath, or has extreme narcissism in the very least.
He certainly has the superficial charm part down pat, and it had me fooled until he was caught cheating on his cancer-striken wife
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
This time we have a surfeit of information in the form of polls on the approval of the President. The opinion polls are bouncing around. We have seen some in the upper thirties and some near 50%. Which way is the wind blowing?
In the 1990s, people around Bill Clinton could say "It's the economy, stupid!" Today it is the stupid economy. We are 4T, and the sort of economic bubble possible in the 3T can no more be revived than one can put the fizz back into flat champagne. The generational cycle suggests that this decade has more parallels to the 1930s than to any decade since then, and the political rules that applied seven years ago might not apply today. Had Dubya had something other than the robust (if shaky) economic activity of 2004 then he would have lost his re-election bid.
If there were an easy solution for the economic distress that we now endure, then we would have it. The Republicans who got us into the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 successfully exploited Americans' impatience in 2010 and offered more of the same 3T stuff that got us into the mess. They have nothing to offer but more of the same, more intensely, with perhaps more one-sided sacrifices on behalf of our economic elite.
I recall the late Milton Friedman suggesting that the political norm is that elected governments invariably pump the money supply in the approach to their re-election bids to get the economy moving but overshoot... only to cause inflation from an overheated economy that the central bankers suppress with a severe withdrawal of much of the money supply. Because the Republicans want political failure of the President even if it means a depression, fiscal policy is off the table. Say what you want about Friedman, but our President has become a pure monetarist by default since January of this year.Silver notes, to begin with, that the record of economic forecasting 12 months out is absolutely terrible, much worse, for instance, than trying to predict who is going to win next year's pennant. He also has some interesting comments about people who manage to find some obscure microeconomic indicator that has correlated well with the election results. That, he argues convincingly, is luck, the kind of luck out of which academic careers are made.
Obscure microeconomic indicator? One might as well correlate the likelihood of the President's re-election to which league wins the 2012 World Series, which film studio gets the Oscar for best Picture, whether the Dow-Jones index ends in an even or odd number, or which zodiacal constellation Mars is in on Election Day.
Nate Silver is usually right, and he will be right unless the rules have changed. Unfortunately the rules that have applied since 1945 are no longer in effect. We are back to the times before 1945, when people had no choice except to show patience with a bad situation that could easily be far worse. Except for the performance of the economy, President Obama is doing well. But there is the horrible economy. The President may have no quick fix, but the GOP has available only measures that can create greater hardships without any certainty of economic growth that will allow people to recover from the hardships for perhaps 40 years. Basically people could get work, but only with a travesty of pay.Basically, he thinks the economic variable is the most important. If the economy has a surprisingly good year--say 4% growth--Obama will almost surely beat any Republican candidate, including Romney. If the economy grows modestly--2% --Romney is a major favorite, but Obama would probably beat Cain or Perry. If the economy tanks, even Cain or Perry would probably beat Obama. (In an interesting footnote, he thinks John Huntsman would be by far the strongest Republican candidate but of course he has no chance.)
It has been higher -- much higher -- for an even longer time... the 1930s, and President Roosevelt won a landslide in 1936 against someone probably less extreme and more rational than all but one of the imaginable GOP nominees and far more consistent than the other one. Again we are unambiguously in a 4T, and the 3T solutions that the GOP offers have so far failed catastrophically.It occurs to me that Silver may have missed one important point. With respect to the economy he focused on what happened in the year before the election (although even that didn't save Bush I.) But unemployment has never been so high for so long in the entire period he is basing his predictions on. That could change the calculus, and not in Obama's favor.
Let us hope that it doesn't boil down to that.There are, of course, wild cards, including potential shock headlines (the one I liked was, "Romney affair with Filipina maid--illegal immigrant received Romneycare.") Another is a Tea Party third-party effort if Romney is nominated. But in general, the message is clear: Obama needs some luck to win.
On the average, an incumbent Senator or Governor typically gains 6% from early approval polls to the raw vote. The idea that an incumbent running for a Governorship or a Senate seat needs a 50% approval rating early in the campaign season to have a good chance of winning is a myth according to a study that Nate Silver made in 2009 encompassing some elections in 2006, 2008, and 2009. Those are all 4T elections, so it is not as if the pattern includes elections from the 2T or 3T. Before the campaign begins, the challengers can carp at will and exploit whatever discontent that people have in the incumbent having made polarizing choices in votes or in the budgetary processes. Such shows the values of the incumbent, and no incumbent can please everyone. (So far as I can tell, Nate Silver says nothing of 4T theory... but the selection is good). In 2010 one could have easily figured that Governor Ted Strickland was in trouble, as were incumbent Senators Feingold of Wisconsin and Lincoln of Arkansas.
A year from the election the challenger has the edge; the incumbent isn't campaigning yet; the challengers can get away with colorful proposals for dramatic change without much challenge from the media which prefer excitement in the news to a plodding story; challengers can get away with demagoguery while incumbents have to deal with undramatic policy; challengers can get away with saying one thing in public in San Francisco and something diametrically opposite to that in some private session at a fundraiser in Anaheim. Once the campaign gets underway one just can't get away with that; challengers who try that get caught as either liars or 'flip-floppers'.
But the initial 6% advantage for the challenger has over an incumbent who barely wins at the end of the electoral season evaporates over most campaign seasons. The incumbent usually did win an election to get the office; inept campaigners rarely end up in a position in which to get re-elected. (Persons appointed to complete the term of an incumbent rarely show great competence as campaigners, and they probably gain much less than does an incumbent between an early approval and election time). We see only occasional samples of how President Obama campaigned in 2008, and the electoral machine that he won with is now in mothballs. I think that we all can trust that he will campaign much as he did in 2008, that he will get out the well-oiled campaign machine from 2008, and that if something has changed, then he will adapt. This President is the strongest campaigner since Ronald Reagan even if huge parts of the United States will reject him decisively.
OK -- why Senators and Governors? This is my opinion, and not that of Silver. Every Presidential campaign is now effectively fifty statewide races won or lost as if one were running for statewide office, one mayoral race (Washington, DC), and five Congressional races (for the two Congressional seats of Maine and the three of Nebraska). Almost all Presidents were either Governors or Senators before becoming President. Tellingly, of the four most recent Presidents who never had won a statewide office, three were one-term presidents (Hoover, Ford, and the elder Bush). The other is Eisenhower.
Obviously the President has a cap of 62% of the popular vote because no President has ever won that much of the popular vote in the twentieth or twentieth century.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
The GOP usually simply nominates the heir apparent defined as a a recent running mate or runner-up to the nomination. This would mean Palin or Romney. Palin chose not to run so Romney is the heir apparent. Romney is a problem for many Republicans because he comes from the old moderate wing of the GOP which is largely defunct, he is clearly not of the Taft-Goldwater-Reagan-Bush II line. Their problem was caused by Bush II who selected no heir as running mate (Cheney's health even at the time precluded any future runs).
In 2008 they were faced with no choice, the heir McCain and his competitor Romney, neither of whom represented the conservative wing, which is the now the base of the party. Out of practicality and tradition they went with McCain and this got them exactly nowhere. Right now conventional wisdom would hold its Romney in a walk.
What I don't get is why the base dumped Perry. The GOP today a white Southern Protestant party. Both Romney and Cain are disqualified on this basis alone. Can't the base forgive Perry for not hating Mexicans enough? He's a Texan after all and they have always had a different relationship with Mexicans. Why won't his conservative credentials, his inarticulateness (which proves he's not educated man--i.e. a closet liberal) and his enthusiasm for executions offset this flaw? I think they can, but right now they are enjoying a fling with Cain, who having never held office, has no record showing stuff the base doesn't like.
I think after the fling ends, the base is going to have to reconsider Perry in the face of the reality of Romney.
Otherwise its Romney, as the last man standing.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-07-2011 at 09:01 AM.
I don't think there would be any benefit to Obama of a war threat. In fact it would probably help the opposition.
Since none of the external "threats" the US has been faced with since the fall of the USSR has been a serious threat (remember how Iraq was played up as this big scarry power before the Gulf War, and now there is all this hyperventilation about Iran) unless the Right exagerates the threat (which they won't do if it's Obama's war) there will be no fear and thus no need to rally around the leader. Instead, the right would call it wag the dog, a sign of Obama's desperate attempt to stay in office by distracting the electorate from his piss-poor job of managing the economy. And I expect such a meme would gain traction.
Just because it works for a Republican doesn't mean it will for a Democrat. The pubic looks to Democrats for effective policy, not chest-thumping bloviation. When the pubic wants chest thumpers they will elect a Republican. If they want effective policy to solve problems they put in Democrats. They did just that in 2008, not only elected a Democrat president but gave his party a 60 seat majority in the Senate. And did he use that majority to rein in Wall Street excess? Did he address the economic crisis in an effective manner? No, he governed as a moderate Republican, taking baby steps to address the problems.
And this is the problem. All we have are the Republican policy options, which won't work any better for Democrats who use them than they did for Hoover. There are no Democratic options because they all were discredited by the Right long ago, and which has since become the conventional wisdom. Hence their is a need for an external movement like OWS to remind folks that other options exist, and to spread ideas, some of which might catch on and stimulate debate.
I have just seen Cain's new accuser give her statement, and her lawyer, Gloria Allred, is answering questions. Both are extremely convincing. The account she gave was very serious. I do not think he will survive. This is way beyond Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, believe me.
Last edited by KaiserD2; 11-07-2011 at 03:14 PM.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
We have details now. And Sharon Bialek is a registered Republican.
Thanks for the info. Its does sound bad.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
Yeah, sounds more like Bill Clinton. Although an incident of the Kathleen Willey variety, not the ones where Clinton exposed himself or received actual favors from an intern. But since he's not a Democrat with the requisite backing of the media, could be bad for Cain if true.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 11-07-2011 at 06:19 PM.
Some fresh data from Gallup, for those interested in keeping an eye on reality:
Republicans Nationwide Are Similar in Composition to 2008
Democrats More Liberal, Less White Than in 2008
And their most recent report on political views:
Conservatives Continue to Outnumber Moderates in 2010
Keep in mind that these are all polls of "national adults" with no screen for registered voters or likely voters. Polls with those screens are even more favorable to Republicans/conservatives.
PBrower2 is trying to put a good face on a serious problem with Silver's analysis: I think that the extent and duration of our current unemployment is unique since 1945. (I don't think 1981-3 was as bad.) And because he blames the Republicans for it he expects it to rebound to Obama's advantage. However, I first would remark that it is not entirely the Republicans' fault (although our failure to get out of it now is); and secondly, I am afraid it is much more likely to rebound to the disadvantage of the incumbent, as in 1932.
The question of why the Republican base would prefer Cain to Perry is a curious one. But, Perry has been an utter bomb, and Cain has (or had until today) a certain charm. Now they need another "great Right hope."
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Newt.
I think the sanest of the bunch is Huntsman, but he's way too rational. He even believes in science for God's sake. That won't do.
Without question, Democrats have some culpability for the speculative boom out of a desire to get as many people into occupant-owned housing as possible. Such has been an objective of almost all politicians since the Second World War. Construction unions, which I presume have Democratic majorities, obviously went along with the boom. We need to remember that what constitutes "adequate" housing has escalated from 2-BR, 1-bath, bungalows with single-car garages to McMansions. Maybe we should have stuck to the 2-BR, 1-bath bungalows with one-car garages.
It may in part be a nostalgia for Ross Perot, the last successful entrepreneur to run for President. The Right is far more respectful and trusting of entrepreneurs than is the Left, and the Right has been faster to reject the idea of conventional "professional politicians". The Right also tends to be more anti-intellectual, which shows in the ability of the Right to attract undereducated white people whose economic circumstances are closer to those of poor blacks and Hispanics.The question of why the Republican base would prefer Cain to Perry is a curious one. But, Perry has been an utter bomb, and Cain has (or had until today) a certain charm. Now they need another "great Right hope."
...Again, back to the partisan reality of this "Lesser Depression". The Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006 because of scandals and abuse of power involving the Republican President. before the economy tanked. President Obama won the Presidency while the economy was tanking. In essence the Democrats won Congress in the equivalent of 1928 and the Presidency in the equivalent of 1930 instead of in 1930 and 1932, respectively. Remember: Calvin Coolidge may have been a flawed politician, but at least he didn't get us into any war and had a scandal-free administration. It is hard to think of any 4T that is not politically awkward. This is not a replay of the last 4T.
Add to this -- the Republican Party is no longer a democratic party. I now see the GOP as a cadre party in which its top leaders have no independence from some Party leadership.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I don't even know that "going back" to 2-bed, 1-bath bungalows (we live in a 2/1 ourselves, built in 1944) is necessary. What's necessary is for government to stop pushing certain activities as "the right thing to do" and distort market forces with carrots and sticks as they did with pushing home ownership. I think we're repeating the same sort of thing in the current environment that claims everyone needs to go to college -- and with legislators pushing for as many carrots as possible to see to it that everyone goes to college.
Ziggy, the government made the 1950s happen as well by making it easier for veterans to get cheap mortgages and encouraging home building. It wasn't just market forces by any means. Alas, folks your age can't even imagine that the government could do the right thing. . .
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
I am rethinking my prior comment about Cain. What a difference a day can make.
If he sexual harassed 3 women, and now we have a 4th woman who turned him down when he tried to get her to have sex with him for a job, I just wonder how many woman he coerced into having sex with him to get a job or keep a job but can't speak out about it be considered consensual. Kind of makes you rethink this whole idea of "consensual sex" between a boss and employee.
Yep, he is pig. But I feel sorry for his wife and kids. But then men of his ilk generally only think about themselves anyway. So I stand by my original statement. You can usually figure out a person's character by the way he treats people around him in personal life...Sorry, but these things are the public's business when selecting a president. I don't want a man who has so little respect for women as my president.
PS: This comment is not directed at you, Teddy. But at other people who say a president's sex life is his personal business.
Assuming today's allegations are true, this moved from harassment to outright sexual assualt.
Well, yes assuming the allegations are true. But since 2 women were paid off and another one accused him of the same thing, along with this new revelation it kind of sounds like all these women weren't making it up. Where there is smoke there is usually fire.
And whether a man merely sexually harasses a woman or actually makes unwanted sexual advances and touches her, I don't see how one is worse than the other. As a women I can assure you that both are equally upsetting. I've been in both these situations and neither one is pleasant.
