Originally Posted by Brian Rush

LOL that didn't even make any sense. Or perhaps you're thinking in categories, and can't distinguish me from anyone else you categorize as a liberal, so that if anyone has posted polls showing a big Obama lead I must have done it, 'cause we're all really just one person with a collective mind. Or something.

Or maybe it just made no sense at all and I'm trying too hard to squeeze sense out of it.

Whatever -- you still protest too much.

The point is that I could make the same silly accusation about you that you really dont believe what you post otherwise you wouldnt post it.....

I'll tell you what I do believe

Obama got a small and diminishing bounce from the convention.

Most major polls skew left and are undersampling Republicans and oversampling Democrats.

Some of this is just error, some of it by design to try to shape opinion towards Obama.

People here wildly optimistic about Obama's chances in this election considering the state of the country and the economy....

Romney has a better chance than most challengers in a Presidential election, at least as good a chance as Clinton in 92 (with a much less challenging economic environment) and Reagan in 1980.

The media is the only thing keeping this from becoming a Romney rout at this point by the non critical softball coverage of Obama. Can anybody tell me with a straight face that if Obama was Republican the coverage would be this easy on his record....Review the coverage of Papa Bush in 92 in a much, much better economy. I remember quite vividly the media decribing the economy in 92 "as the worst since the great depression" a canard that was patently false considering the 79-82 recessions...in fact the 3rd qtr of 92 was over 4% growth...

These are the things I believe

Originally Posted by Weave

The point is that I could make the same silly accusation about you that you really dont believe what you post otherwise you wouldnt post it.....

I'll tell you what I do believe

Obama got a small and diminishing bounce from the convention.

Most major polls skew left and are undersampling Republicans and oversampling Democrats.

Some of this is just error, some of it by design to try to shape opinion towards Obama.

People here wildly optimistic about Obama's chances in this election considering the state of the country and the economy....

Romney has a better chance than most challengers in a Presidential election, at least as good a chance as Clinton in 92 (with a much less challenging economic environment) and Reagan in 1980.

The media is the only thing keeping this from becoming a Romney rout at this point by the non critical softball coverage of Obama. Can anybody tell me with a straight face that if Obama was Republican the coverage would be this easy on his record....Review the coverage of Papa Bush in 92 in a much, much better economy. I remember quite vividly the media decribing the economy in 92 "as the worst since the great depression" a canard that was patently false considering the 79-82 recessions...in fact the 3rd qtr of 92 was over 4% growth...

These are the things I believe

Think about how these things were covered: the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina. Now compare it to the way the media has covered the economy for the last four years. It's a thought exercise that's at least good for a chuckle.

Originally Posted by Weave

The point is that I could make the same silly accusation about you that you really dont believe what you post otherwise you wouldnt post it.....

Yeah, if you were observing the same behavior from me that I observe in you, namely whistling-past-the-graveyard desperate denial, then you might make that observation. Since you don't, though . . .

I'll tell you what I do believe

Do that. I'll tell you whether you really do.

Obama got a small and diminishing bounce from the convention.

This you do believe, and it's also true and a no-brainer; however, we don't yet know how big a bounce it was.

Most major polls skew left and are undersampling Republicans and oversampling Democrats.

This, you don't believe.

Some of this is just error, some of it by design to try to shape opinion towards Obama.

This likewise.

People here wildly optimistic about Obama's chances in this election considering the state of the country and the economy....

Nor do you believe this.

Romney has a better chance than most challengers in a Presidential election, at least as good a chance as Clinton in 92 (with a much less challenging economic environment) and Reagan in 1980.

Man, if I said you believed this, I'd be calling you a total moron. So I won't say that.

Here's the reality.

1) The direction the economy is moving is more important than the place it's in at the moment. The economy has gotten better by most measures since Obama took office.

2) The election should be a slam-dunk for him even against a good opponent, which he doesn't face; however, he has disappointed his base, and that means enthusiasm for him is lower than it was in 2008.

3) However, to say that this year is "more like 2010 than 2008" is ridiculous. It's still a presidential election year, and conservative voters are nowhere NEAR as enthused this year as they were two years ago.

4) Finally, his opponent this year is actually WORSE than the one he faced in 2008 by almost every conceivable measure. Romney raises more hackles with the Republican base than McCain, comes across as phoney, irritates moderates even though he actually is one, and presents as a clueless elitist in a year when class divisions are more important than in any election since 1936. The only thing going for him compared to McCain is that he's younger and doesn't have serious health issues. His VP pick is less vapid but at least as polarizing. And on top of everything else he's a Mormon. (I know that probably doesn't bother you much, but it bothers a key constituent of the GOP base.)

Barring a double-dip recession this month or next month, Obama will win easily. I also see signs of real trouble for Republicans in Congress; even Michelle Bachman polls like she's in trouble. Democrats will keep the presidency, probably will retake the House, and I'd give them about even odds of keeping the Senate although I won't bet that way.

Here's the thing, though. In terms of Crisis dynamics, this year isn't 1936, it's 1932. And so it's next year -- Obama's second term -- that will really test whether major reform will happen that can give us something usable in the coming High. I'm much less confident about that than I am about the election. That's where Obama having disappointed people may bear bitter fruit. It isn't going to cost him his election, but it may well cost his chance at greatness. I hope not, but I fear so.

Well, since I posted the Biden with biker chick photo, I thought I'd make it up with this -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

The Other Side Of Joe Biden

David Kurtz September 11, 2012, 1:09 PM 15003

Rarely do I watch Joe Biden give a speech or an interview without looking for some evidence, in his eyes or the lines of his face, of the fact that he lost half of his young family when he was 30 years old. It is inconceivable to me, always has been, but especially in the years since I became a father. For all his goofballism, Biden has gone through a crucible that I cannot imagine. And he did so when he was 30, an adult, already deeply invested in the life he was building.


That’s not to diminish the tragedies that children endure. But at 30 years old to lose your wife and baby daughter, to almost lose your two toddler sons, and to somehow carry on? It truly baffles me. I know everyone says you do what you have to do. But that’s not really true. You don’t. You could curl up in the fetal position, if not literally then emotionally, and shrivel up. I’m more certain that that’s what I would do than I am confident I would find a way to persevere. But Biden has been through it. He’s seen hell and been back.

That he served his entire 36-year Senate career after that searing experience in December 1972, shortly after winning election, and then went on to become vice president, adds some drama to the story, I suppose. But for me the emotional highlight is just him getting out of bed the next day, and the day after that, and the one after that.

Which brings me to Joe Biden’s speech today in Shanksville, Penn., commemorating the victims of Sept. 11, 2001. The speech is marvelously and sensitively written. But rendered by Biden, drawing on his own life experience, in rhetorical ways that are not ostentatious and which don’t try to elevate his own story above those of the victims’ families, it packs a wallop that still makes me cut him a lot of slack for his sometime inexplicable goofiness.

From the transcript provided by the White House:

10:30 A.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Superintendent — Jeff, you’ve done a remarkable job here. And the thing I notice when I speak to you about is you’re invested in this place. It sort of has a — sort of stolen a piece of your heart. And that’s why I’m confident that all that you plan will happen.

Patrick, you’re keeping the flame alive, and keeping the families together is — from my experience, I imagine you all find solace in seeing one another. There’s nothing like being able to talk with someone who you know understands.

And it’s an honor — it’s a genuine honor to be back here today. But like all of the families, we wish we weren’t here. We wish we didn’t have to be here. We wish we didn’t have to commemorate any of this. And it’s a bittersweet moment for the entire nation, for all of the country, but particularly for those family members gathered here today.

Last year, the nation and all of your family members that are here commemorated the 10th anniversary of the heroic acts that gave definition to what has made America such a truly exceptional place — the individual acts of heroism of ordinary people in moments that could not have been contemplated, but yet were initiated.

I also know from my own experience that today is just as momentous a day for all of you, just as momentous a day in your life, for each of your families, as every September 11th has been, regardless of the anniversary. For no matter how many anniversaries you experience, for at least an instant, the terror of that moment returns; the lingering echo of that phone call; that sense of total disbelief that envelops you, where you feel like you’re being sucked into a black hole in the middle of your chest.

My hope for you all is that as every year passes, the depth of your pain recedes and you find comfort, as I have, genuine comfort in recalling his smile, her laugh, their touch. And I hope you’re as certain as I am that she can see what a wonderful man her son has turned out to be, grown up to be; that he knows everything that your daughter has achieved, and that he can hear, and she can hear how her mom still talks about her, the day he scored the winning touchdown, how bright and beautiful she was on that graduation day, and know that he knows what a beautiful child the daughter he never got to see has turned out to be, and how much she reminds you of him. For I know you see your wife every time you see her smile on your child’s face. You remember your daughter every time you hear laughter coming from her brother’s lips. And you remember your husband every time your son just touches your hand.

I also hope — I also hope it continues to give you some solace knowing that this nation, all these people gathered here today, who are not family members, all your neighbors, that they’ve not forgotten. They’ve not forgotten the heroism of your husbands, wives, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers. And that what they did for this country is still etched in the minds of not only you, but millions of Americans, forever. That’s why it’s so important that this memorial be preserved and go on for our children and our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren, and our great-great-grandchildren — because it is what makes it so exceptional. And I think they all appreciate, as I do, more than they can tell you, the incredible bravery your family members showed on that day.

I said last year my mom used to have an expression. She’d say, Joey, bravery resides in every heart, and someday it will be summoned. It’s remarkable — remarkable — how it was not only summoned, but acted on.

Today we stand on this hallowed ground, a place made sacred by the heroism and sacrifice of the passengers and the crew of Flight 93. And it’s as if the flowers, as I walked here, as if the flowers were giving testament to how sacred this ground is.

My guess — and obviously it’s only a guess; no two losses are the same. But my guess is you’re living this moment that Yeats only wrote about, when he wrote, pray I will and sing I must, but yet I weep. Pray I will, sing I must, but yet I weep.

My personal prayer for all of you is that in every succeeding year, you’re able to sing more than you weep. And may God truly bless you and bless the souls of those 40 incredible people who rest in this ground.

Amen

- and maybe we can be a little less snarky to one another on this day?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yeah, if you were observing the same behavior from me that I observe in you, namely whistling-past-the-graveyard desperate denial, then you might make that observation. Since you don't, though . . .



Do that. I'll tell you whether you really do.



This you do believe, and it's also true and a no-brainer; however, we don't yet know how big a bounce it was.



This, you don't believe.



This likewise.



Nor do you believe this.



Man, if I said you believed this, I'd be calling you a total moron. So I won't say that.

Here's the reality.

1) The direction the economy is moving is more important than the place it's in at the moment. The economy has gotten better by most measures since Obama took office.

2) The election should be a slam-dunk for him even against a good opponent, which he doesn't face; however, he has disappointed his base, and that means enthusiasm for him is lower than it was in 2008.

3) However, to say that this year is "more like 2010 than 2008" is ridiculous. It's still a presidential election year, and conservative voters are nowhere NEAR as enthused this year as they were two years ago.

4) Finally, his opponent this year is actually WORSE than the one he faced in 2008 by almost every conceivable measure. Romney raises more hackles with the Republican base than McCain, comes across as phoney, irritates moderates even though he actually is one, and presents as a clueless elitist in a year when class divisions are more important than in any election since 1936. The only thing going for him compared to McCain is that he's younger and doesn't have serious health issues. His VP pick is less vapid but at least as polarizing. And on top of everything else he's a Mormon. (I know that probably doesn't bother you much, but it bothers a key constituent of the GOP base.)

Barring a double-dip recession this month or next month, Obama will win easily. I also see signs of real trouble for Republicans in Congress; even Michelle Bachman polls like she's in trouble. Democrats will keep the presidency, probably will retake the House, and I'd give them about even odds of keeping the Senate although I won't bet that way.

Here's the thing, though. In terms of Crisis dynamics, this year isn't 1936, it's 1932. And so it's next year -- Obama's second term -- that will really test whether major reform will happen that can give us something usable in the coming High. I'm much less confident about that than I am about the election. That's where Obama having disappointed people may bear bitter fruit. It isn't going to cost him his election, but it may well cost his chance at greatness. I hope not, but I fear so.

1. The economy flat stinks, 1.7% GDP, higher unemployment than when he took office. And thats the official rate. The REAL rate using the same work force rates of 08, its over 11%. Millions have simply given up or graduated HS/College and not gotten job. Gas prices are higher, GDP is bouncing along at less than 2% and over 5 TRILLION has been aded to the national debt with annual trillion dollar deficits. Harldy a record worthy of re-election.

2. Obama has no enthusiam among the young and serious enthusiam gap with the Boomer/Silents..you know, those people who actually turn out. Its hard for a millie to get excited about Hope and Change when your idling your life away in mom's basement...

3. As a conservative I can assure you we are fired up to vote, at least as much as 2010. Tis true Im not an evangelical but you overestimate their disdain for Romney's mormonism. Compared to 4 more years of Obama, they're gonna vote and in HUGE numbers. Just like '10. Many of those and other conservatives sat on their hands in 08.

4. See above...



I seem to remember you predicting a loss for Repubs in 2010...your record isnt exactly steller in predicting who is going to show up and who isn't....

The House stays Repub, and the senate is in balance depending on how the Pres. election goes with the Repubs picking up 2-7 seats.

Obama may win but it wont be "easy" it will be an ugly win, if he does...and considering his personal attacks and bitter campaign style, it wont endear him to the American people for term 2.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...Here's the thing, though. In terms of Crisis dynamics, this year isn't 1936, it's 1932. And so it's next year -- Obama's second term -- that will really test whether major reform will happen that can give us something usable in the coming High. I'm much less confident about that than I am about the election. That's where Obama having disappointed people may bear bitter fruit. It isn't going to cost him his election, but it may well cost his chance at greatness. I hope not, but I fear so.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more.

I want to start a thread on what a 2nd term could mean and probable will mean. I think it would be a very interesting discussion, but I just don't want to count the chickens until they hatch.

Also, by Christmas, we'll probable be sick of the speculation.

Originally Posted by Weave

1. The economy flat stinks, 1.7% GDP, higher unemployment than when he took office. And thats the official rate. The REAL rate using the same work force rates of 08, its over 11%. Millions have simply given up or graduated HS/College and not gotten job. Gas prices are higher, GDP is bouncing along at less than 2% and over 5 TRILLION has been aded to the national debt with annual trillion dollar deficits. Harldy a record worthy of re-election.

2. Obama has no enthusiam among the young and serious enthusiam gap with the Boomer/Silents..you know, those people who actually turn out. Its hard for a millie to get excited about Hope and Change when your idling your life away in mom's basement...

3. As a conservative I can assure you we are fired up to vote, at least as much as 2010. Tis true Im not an evangelical but you overestimate their disdain for Romney's mormonism. Compared to 4 more years of Obama, they're gonna vote and in HUGE numbers. Just like '10. Many of those and other conservatives sat on their hands in 08.

4. See above...



I seem to remember you predicting a loss for Repubs in 2010...your record isnt exactly steller in predicting who is going to show up and who isn't....

The House stays Repub, and the senate is in balance depending on how the Pres. election goes with the Repubs picking up 2-7 seats.

Obama may win but it wont be "easy" it will be an ugly win, if he does...and considering his personal attacks and bitter campaign style, it wont endear him to the American people for term 2.

I understand your desperation to hold onto whatever straw you can. Because with an Obama win, comes the other speculation that is already being kicked off in conservative circles -

http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan...-gop-if-you-ca

INGRAHAM: And I've said this time and again. If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people. Because this is a 'gimme' election, or at least it should be. And the millions of dollars, I keep going back to the millions and millions and millions of dollars that are paid to these political consultants. Election after election, we hire people who've lost previous campaigns. Who've run campaigns that have failed. Who have messaged campaigns where the message fell flat and they keep getting rehired. I don't understand that.

and George Will -

"[I]f the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics and find another business."

And as I said before, 2012, if not 2010, may have been your "high water mark" with the relentless march of demographics - more minorities, more urbanization, more Progressives. Just like two 4Ts ago when the South forever receded back from Gettysburg.

"My eyes have seen the glory..."

And just like times past, you might be able to draw it out with voter suppression.

http://99problems.org/wp-content/upl...-Progress1.png

Wow, how patriotic is that?!

Ryan prepares backup plan -

http://tinyurl.com/bqarg3s

GOP running mate Ryan to hit Wisconsin’s airwaves with ads defending his seat in Congress

Hey, Pickett, you're suppose to charge the other way!

Originally Posted by Weave

1. The economy flat stinks

Not as badly as it did in 2008, which is what's important; also, bear in mind that voters also have to decide if replacing Obama will make it better. They have no reason to believe that, especially when the proposal is to replace him with Bush Term III. Doesn't matter how many times you say that Obama created the current mess, people won't believe it 'cause it's too obviously untrue.

2. Obama has no enthusiam among the young

You're vastly overstating the case. He has less support than he did four years ago. He's still got quite a lot.

As a conservative I can assure you we are fired up to vote, at least as much as 2010.

Forgive me if I don't take your word for that. The polls say otherwise.

I seem to remember you predicting a loss for Repubs in 2010

That will teach you not to trust your memory. I predicted nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's the thing, though. In terms of Crisis dynamics, this year isn't 1936, it's 1932. And so it's next year -- Obama's second term -- that will really test whether major reform will happen that can give us something usable in the coming High. I'm much less confident about that than I am about the election. That's where Obama having disappointed people may bear bitter fruit. It isn't going to cost him his election, but it may well cost his chance at greatness. I hope not, but I fear so.

If Obama wins, I don't see that this is 1932. The transition from Hoover to FDR, as exemplified by FDR's first hundred days, produced a profound change in policy. Re electing Obama will result in no change. Re electing Obama with a Republican house and a non-filibuster proof senate will result in no change.

On the other hand, electing Romney might be equivalent to electing Buchanan or Hover. The nation has elected conservatives immediately prior to electing grey champions. In fact, that might be the best way to get a grey champion elected, to undo a true mess created by a conservative stubbornly resisting necessary change. After Bush 43, a lot of us were hoping Obama might be grey champion material.

But without Congress to back him up, Obama is going nowhere. He's apt to be remembered for good intentions and nothing getting done.

Originally Posted by Weave

I hate to burst your bubble here but among LIKELY voters ...

Here is how a major pollster explains how they move from surveying "register voters" to surveying "likely voters"

We're going to switch to likely voters for our polls this week. Here's what that entails. Right now when we call people for a poll the introduction is: "This is a short survey about some important Florida issues. We appreciate your participation. If you're not a registered voter, please hang up now." Now the introduction will be: "This is a short survey about the Presidential election in Florida this fall. If you don't plan to vote in the Presidential election, please hang up now." That's the entire shift.

Not so sure that's alot to hang one's hat on.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If Obama wins, I don't see that this is 1932. The transition from Hoover to FDR, as exemplified by FDR's first hundred days, produced a profound change in policy. Re electing Obama will result in no change. Re electing Obama with a Republican house and a non-filibuster proof senate will result in no change.

On the other hand, electing Romney might be equivalent to electing Buchanan or Hover. The nation has elected conservatives immediately prior to electing grey champions. In fact, that might be the best way to get a grey champion elected, to undo a true mess created by a conservative stubbornly resisting necessary change. After Bush 43, a lot of us were hoping Obama might be grey champion material.

But without Congress to back him up, Obama is going nowhere. He's apt to be remembered for good intentions and nothing getting done.

I'm nervous about counting the chickens; don't want to jinx this. But maybe just a little peek ahead to a POSSIBLE (please notice that, jinx gods!) future.

Obama would be holding some strong cards at the beginning with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring and Defense cuts taking place automatically. Before the campaigning got really underway and drowned it out or shut it off, there was considerable push by the Congressional Dems to let these things happen and then deal from a very strengthen hand. I'm sure GOP donors would be willing to live with the consequences for a year or two, but certainly not for 4 or 5 years with only the possibility of doing something say in 2017, if not waiting until 2018 even with a 2016 GOP win that due to demographics is going to be even tougher for them to pull off.

The need for the GOP to get something for their elites on taxes and for the Defense industry gives Obama a few big chips to deal with. Could be campaign reform or maybe immigration. He also will likely have one, maybe two, SCOTUS slots to fill - one can only hope that at least one will come from the conservative side that would essentially end the culture wars.

Also, Obamacare will be completely taken out of any legislative discussion. Some issues maybe for the courts, but the real action will be at the state level. I have little doubt that by 2016 we’ll see Tea Baggers holding signs, “Keep the Govt’s Socialist Hands Off My Obamacare!!!” That will clear the runway for something big.

Then there is maybe a new Obama who doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected but about his legacy as a change-maker. He should no longer be under any illusion any more that what that means is that he's The One for bipartisanship. I think he was showing the realization in the last year or so after the 2010 election.

Hopefully, instead, he'll pick a real issue as big as healthcare (immigration?) and this time ram it down the Congressional GOPs throats. He also owes Hillary some things to run against the GOP in 2016. So even if in the end he isn’t successful, he sets them up for 2016 bashing by Bubba for his woman. Have no doubt that Big Bill would relish being the first First Gentleman of the WH. And I think a lot of GOP women will cross over to vote for her – a landslide in 2016 would put the final nail in the GOP’s coffin. They may not be conscious of why, but this might be why the GOP is so desperate in 2012 - last chance of a cornered animal.

But, I’m getting way ahead of myself – please forgive me jinx gods!!!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That confirms my suspicion that a lot of the polls are now basically being faked. In this case, CNN didn't mind sacrificing its credibility (knowing that it would likely go relatively unreported) for the goal of pretending Obama got a big bounce out of his convention. What I sense among all the people I have encountered recently (I live in a swing area of a swing state) is a massive backlash against the Democrats. I've even seen signs of it online, where you mostly run into crackpot internet nerd liberals.

It's not my imagination, which leads me to believe that something fishy (more so than usual) is going on with the media.

CNN goes as the wind blows. Conservatives commonly smeared it as the "Clinton News Network". Then it outdid FoX Propaganda Channel when Dubya was riding high. As Dubya became massively unpopular it got a D bias in politics. Then it praised Obama to the skies. Then it recognized the Tea Party as the wave of the future. CNN reliably goes with the apparent winner. Opportunistic? Sure.

If there is such a backlash against liberals, then why is the approval of Congress just slightly higher than that of Charles Manson, tornadoes, rattlesnakes, and drug traffickers?

Originally Posted by Odin

JPT is living in his own reality, again.

Maybe he ought to play Age of Empires.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not as badly as it did in 2008, which is what's important; also, bear in mind that voters also have to decide if replacing Obama will make it better. They have no reason to believe that, especially when the proposal is to replace him with Bush Term III. Doesn't matter how many times you say that Obama created the current mess, people won't believe it 'cause it's too obviously untrue.



You're vastly overstating the case. He has less support than he did four years ago. He's still got quite a lot.



Forgive me if I don't take your word for that. The polls say otherwise.



That will teach you not to trust your memory. I predicted nothing of the sort.

Brian several times in 2010 you predicted that not only will the Dem losses be limited, they probably pick up a few seats.....

As far as voter intensity you can peruse this fox news poll about it....59% Republican and to 47% Dem (among the Tea party which includes alot of evangelicals its 71% intensity far from being a drag on his ticket), this was before each convention. Romney has 92% Repub support, obama 88% Dem.

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2...tly-good-news/

Originally Posted by Weave

The point is that I could make the same silly accusation about you that you really dont believe what you post otherwise you wouldnt post it.....

I'll tell you what I do believe

Obama got a small and diminishing bounce from the convention.

The "diminution" has yet to make itself apparent. Four days are not enough to allow anyone to derive such a conclusion.

Most major polls skew left and are undersampling Republicans and oversampling Democrats.

Some do the opposite. It may be easier to get older stay-at-home adults (especially retirees) who now tend more R than the general public.

Some of this is just error, some of it by design to try to shape opinion towards Obama.

Did you see the Democratic Convention? It was far more impressive in the production values and the quality of speeches. More people watched the Democratic Convention than watched the Republican Convention. Speeches by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan seem quite lame (and forgettable) in contrast to several of those of Democrats. I am satisfied that the American electorate is not interested in change from Barack Obama -- or it would have tuned in Romney instead of tuning him out.

People here wildly optimistic about Obama's chances in this election considering the state of the country and the economy....

A quick multiple-choice test:

1. The American economy between September 2007 and March 2009 is most analogous to:

a. September 1946 and March 1948
b. September 1963 and March 1965
c. September 1929 and March 1931
d. September 1973 and March 1975

2. Barack Obama has taken a role in history in his first term more like:

a. Jimmy Carter
b. Herbert Hoover
c. Franklin Roosevelt
d. George W. Bush

3. The economy is in

a. A severe and seemingly irreversible free-fall
b. Hyperinflation
c. Slow, steady economic growth
d. A speculative boom about to go bust

4. The Obama administration is:

a. Corrupt, reckless, and disloyal -- criminal and deserving impeachment
b. Self-contradictory and confused
c. Above average in achievements
d. Aloof, unattentive, and unimaginative

5. President Obama has a foreign policy most analogous to:

a. Dubya
b. Jimmy Carter
c. Bush I/Clinton
d. James Knox Polk

6. In view of the theories of Howe and Strauss, the Presidential-election year most analogous to this year is:

a. 1980
b. 1928
c. 1936
d. 2004

7. Bonus question (do check the link):

Refer to this, please (the Lichtman test) the Lichtman Test of likely Presidential winners and answer the following question:

How many of the keys to decide the likelihood of an Obama win favor him?

a. under 5
b. 6 to 9
c. 10 to 12
d. 13 or more

I chose to make the grading simple. All correct answers are "c".

Romney has a better chance than most challengers in a Presidential election, at least as good a chance as Clinton in 92 (with a much less challenging economic environment) and Reagan in 1980.

Refer to question #6 and the bonus question. The American economy is in a recovery -- maybe not to our satisfaction, but it is not in decline, overheated, or on the brink of a collapse. FDR won re-election in a landslide in 1936 in bad times -- but better times than those of four years earlier when people were full of fear.

The media is the only thing keeping this from becoming a Romney rout at this point by the non critical softball coverage of Obama. Can anybody tell me with a straight face that if Obama was Republican the coverage would be this easy on his record....Review the coverage of Papa Bush in 92 in a much, much better economy. I remember quite vividly the media describing the economy in 92 "as the worst since the great depression" a canard that was patently false considering the 79-82 recessions...in fact the 3rd qtr of 92 was over 4% growth...

GOP Pravda (a/k/a FoX Newspeak Channel) has consistently bashed President Obama and Democrats in general while praising even the most thuggish behavior of Republicans. Had a Republican been elected in 2008 and made major reforms of the political order (even if they were right-wing measures like abolishing the minimum wage and the overtime premium, outlawed collective bargaining, and imposed a near ban of abortion), put an end to the worst economic downturn in nearly 80 years, gotten an exemption of the income of the super-rich with the imposition of a federal sales tax, gotten US troops out of Iraq, and whacked Osama bin Laden... then he would be in good shape for re-election. (There would likely be strikes and riots, but that would leave plenty of room for doing well on the Lichtman test).

These are the things I believe

The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, unicorns, and fire-breathing dragons make more sense.

Originally Posted by Weave

Brian several times in 2010 you predicted that not only will the Dem losses be limited, they probably pick up a few seats.....

Wrong. Not once. I stated that people who were predicting disaster shouldn't be so SURE that the Democrats would lose. I cited several reasons why the polls might be wrong, and might be based on faulty assumptions. I pointed out what Nate Silver said about the predicted margins of Republican victory being paper-thin in a lot of races, and a very slight shift -- one or two percentage points -- across the board could result in the Democrats keeping the house. And I stand by all of that. It was and remains valid reasoning.

But not once, never, ever, nada, zip, did I say with any confidence that they would win. And that's what I mean about trusting your memory (or perhaps, trusting David Kaiser's lies -- because he said the same thing you just did, only where for you it's an honest mistake, for him it was a petty, vindictive, nasty little fib).

You're just plain wrong. What you say happened, didn't.

As far as voter intensity you can peruse this fox news poll about it....59% Republican and to 47% Dem

A Fox poll should be taken with a small salt mine, frankly. Not as bad as a Rasmussen poll at this point, but still problematic. (Rasmussen becomes reliable about a week before the election, so we have a while of properly ignoring him to go yet.) I haven't been able to find new polling information on voter enthusiasm since the convention, but some pre-convention information pretty much reversed that spread you reported from Fox. Whatever.

As for "likely voters," bear in mind that these are not determined in any objective way. Much depends on exactly how pollsters construct their likely voter screens, and that's reflected in something Nate Silver said today: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...s-bounce-hold/

Originally Posted by Nate Silver

National polls out on Monday from CNN and ABC News/The Washington Post told somewhat contradictory stories.


In the CNN survey, Mr. Obama moved into a six-point lead among likely voters (and an eight-point lead when the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson was included in the poll) — up from a tie previously. But he made fewer gains in the survey among the broader universe of registered voters, with whom his lead expanded to eight points from seven.


In the ABC News/Washington Post poll, just the opposite happened. Mr. Obama made substantial gains in that poll among registered voters, going from a one-point deficit to a six-point lead. But the ABC News/Washington Post poll has started to report likely-voter results, and this is where Mr. Obama’s gains were not all that substantial, going from a two-point deficit in its August poll to a one-point lead now.

A poll of registered voters is at this point entirely objective (subject to polling question mistakes) but one must take a likely voter poll with certain guarded skepticism, unless it's a Rasmussen poll once again in which case it should be tossed as deliberately misleading.

In short, I see no reason not to expect an easy Obama victory. However, I must also agree that he's unlikely to see a Congress as lopsided as it was in 2009, and he's shown that he can't be counted on to use it in the right way even if he did. He's going to have a pretty stormy second term.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The "diminution" has yet to make itself apparent. Four days are not enough to allow anyone to derive such a conclusion.


Some do the opposite. It may be easier to get older stay-at-home adults (especially retirees) who now tend more R than the general public.



Did you see the Democratic Convention? It was far more impressive in the production values and the quality of speeches. More people watched the Democratic Convention than watched the Republican Convention. Speeches by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan seem quite lame (and forgettable) in contrast to several of those of Democrats. I am satisfied that the American electorate is not interested in change from Barack Obama -- or it would have tuned in Romney instead of tuning him out.



A quick multiple-choice test:

1. The American economy between September 2007 and March 2009 is most analogous to:

a. September 1946 and March 1948
b. September 1963 and March 1965
c. September 1929 and March 1931
d. September 1973 and March 1975

2. Barack Obama has taken a role in history in his first term more like:

a. Jimmy Carter
b. Herbert Hoover
c. Franklin Roosevelt
d. George W. Bush

3. The economy is in

a. A severe and seemingly irreversible free-fall
b. Hyperinflation
c. Slow, steady economic growth
d. A speculative boom about to go bust

4. The Obama administration is:

a. Corrupt, reckless, and disloyal -- criminal and deserving impeachment
b. Self-contradictory and confused
c. Above average in achievements
d. Aloof, unattentive, and unimaginative

5. President Obama has a foreign policy most analogous to:

a. Dubya
b. Jimmy Carter
c. Bush I/Clinton
d. James Knox Polk

6. In view of the theories of Howe and Strauss, the Presidential-election year most analogous to this year is:

a. 1980
b. 1928
c. 1936
d. 2004

7. Bonus question (do check the link):

Refer to this, please (the Lichtman test) the Lichtman Test of likely Presidential winners and answer the following question:

How many of the keys to decide the likelihood of an Obama win favor him?

a. under 5
b. 6 to 9
c. 10 to 12
d. 13 or more

I chose to make the grading simple. All correct answers are "c".



Refer to question #6 and the bonus question. The American economy is in a recovery -- maybe not to our satisfaction, but it is not in decline, overheated, or on the brink of a collapse. FDR won re-election in a landslide in 1936 in bad times -- but better times than those of four years earlier when people were full of fear.



GOP Pravda (a/k/a FoX Newspeak Channel) has consistently bashed President Obama and Democrats in general while praising even the most thuggish behavior of Republicans. Had a Republican been elected in 2008 and made major reforms of the political order (even if they were right-wing measures like abolishing the minimum wage and the overtime premium, outlawed collective bargaining, and imposed a near ban of abortion), put an end to the worst economic downturn in nearly 80 years, gotten an exemption of the income of the super-rich with the imposition of a federal sales tax, gotten US troops out of Iraq, and whacked Osama bin Laden... then he would be in good shape for re-election. (There would likely be strikes and riots, but that would leave plenty of room for doing well on the Lichtman test).



The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, unicorns, and fire-breathing dragons make more sense.

I hate to break this to ya Pete but most people do no see the economy as in a slow and steady recovery. Perception is reality when it comes to politics. In '36, the Unemployment rate was 15%, down from 25% and at the time seemed to be improving. Now the rate is a little higher than in 2009. that is the "official numbers". The real numbers are over 11%, the official U-6 numbers are 15%. Look at any right track/wrong track poll, around 30% right track in most of them. The other answers to your quiz are quite laughable as well....

Originally Posted by Weave

I hate to break this to ya Pete but most people do no see the economy as in a slow and steady recovery. Perception is reality when it comes to politics. In '36, the Unemployment rate was 15%, down from 25% and at the time seemed to be improving. Now the rate is a little higher than in 2009. that is the "official numbers". The real numbers are over 11%, the official U-6 numbers are 15%. Look at any right track/wrong track poll, around 30% right track in most of them. The other answers to your quiz are quite laughable as well....

Do you feel it kind of odd that the stock market has about doubled since Obama's inauguration? It is nearly back to where it was before the 2008 meltdown.

That is a lot of retirees and near retirees that are breathing a big sight of relief with 401k and pensions made whole again.

I realize today's Republicans (who lie about everything all the time over and over again) use the trick of a 4-year comparison starting in the Summer of 2008 BEFORE the Bush meltdown, but most people who own stocks are too smart for that falsehood.

Do you think there's like a silent majority that understands the crap that folks like you spout and just don't bother to say anything about it until they get in the voting booth? If so, do you think they're going to become less savvy later, say by the 2016 election? If you don't, do you all have a backup plan like maybe talking truthfully and coming up with some actual fact-based ideas for a change?

Originally Posted by playwrite

I understand your desperation to hold onto whatever straw you can. Because with an Obama win, comes the other speculation that is already being kicked off in conservative circles -

http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan...-gop-if-you-ca



and George Will -

That stuff is justified, but of course you're clueless about it. The Republican Party has won big five times in the last 32 years. In 1980, 1984 and 1988 at the presidential level, and in 1994 and 2010 at the congressional level. Each time it was because the party was led by the conservative movement (1988 was merely a third term for Reagan, which quickly ended once Bush 41 botched it, which led to Ross Perot). Bush 41, Bob Dole and John McCain's losses, and Bush 43's narrow victories (and loss of Congress) were all products of the "establishment", moderate/progressive, inside-the-beltway, left-over Hoover-ite crowd.

The Democrats have put up a long string of left wing candidates and lost. They put up one moderate (Clinton) and won (barely), and then they won in 2008 with a leftist who pretended to be a moderate, who benefited from Clinton's shadow and now needs it again to rescue his campaign. The Republicans have put up a long string of moderates who have had limited success and massive failure. The few times they've run on a genuinely conservative message, they've won big. You would think at some point they'd catch on.

The point of the statements you quoted is that the Republican Party establishment, as an organization, is a failure because it should be winning in a landslide. And that message is coming from conservatives, not moderates and independents. The conflict between the "Tea Party" and the Republican establishment is something that I would not expect you to understand or comprehend, and obviously you don't.

And as I said before, 2012, if not 2010, may have been your "high water mark" with the relentless march of demographics - more minorities, *{{more urbanization, more Progressives.}} Just like two 4Ts ago when the South forever receded back from Gettysburg.

"My eyes have seen the glory..."

And just like times past, you might be able to draw it out with voter suppression.

http://99problems.org/wp-content/upl...-Progress1.png

Wow, how patriotic is that?!

I don't know exactly how to characterize this particular point of view coming from white left-wingers. The picture that emerges is of the minority of whites who hold left wing views creating an army of non-whites to get rid of all the non-leftist white people. If you use racial resentment and eliminationist rhetoric to get rid of people who look like you, what exactly makes you think you'll be spared? Eventually (and that point has possibly arrived), whites will begin to disappear from the leadership and elected representation of the Democratic Party. The flip side is that whites will increasingly vote the way minority groups vote, more and more overwhelmingly for the Republicans (another phenomenon that is starting to materialize). That's enough to prevent the victory people like you are predicting in the short run.

In the long run, the flaw in the "getting rid of white people" formula for Democrat victory is that almost all of the "non-white" population increase the left is counting on are Hispanics, and over half of all Hispanics in the U.S. are white. Keeping white Hispanics from assimilating into the broader white population the way every immigrant group has in the past is an impossible task. So while Hispanics are growing as a percentage of the population, the Democrats' advantage with Hispanic voters is virtually guaranteed to be a short term phenomenon.

The U.S. population is 72.4% white according to the census. 16.3% are Hispanic or Latino. 53% of Hispanics or Latinos are white. Some of the wilder projections of recent years to show whites dipping below 50% of the population rely on an indefinite continuation of peak immigration levels (which have already dramatically declined), and treat all Hispanics as non-white, regardless of the fact that half of Hispanics seem to be under the impression that they are. In other words, it's not going to happen. And remember that George W. Bush already got over 40% of the Hispanic vote. At most, the white share of the population will decline from 3/4 to 2/3. Meaning that those pesky, evil white people will be around (and voting) for a long time to come. Having a major problem with a group that is the overwhelming majority of the population is a lot more electorally dangerous than having a problem with a minority group. If the Democrats aren't very careful (and you might want to consider the wisdom of your own rhetoric here), their open hostility to white people could doom them rather than securing a permanent majority for them.

You may not realize how widely known and understood your "hahaha, we're going to get rid of white people and rule forever" fantasy is becoming. You should think about what it really means for the Democrats if the average voter catches on to it (and they are catching on). To put it for you in numbers, there are increasingly estimates that show the Democrats' share of the white vote dipping below 40%. That means the Republicans' advantage among whites (by far the largest population group, and an even larger share of those who actually vote) is reaching the same level as the Democrats' advantage among Hispanics.

It is tragic that the Democrats are pursuing that kind of openly racist electoral strategy, which will result in parties that are race-based rather than idea-based. But if they succeed in creating that kind of environment, they will lose in the process.

*Neither of those statements is true. The population is not urbanizing, and there are not more progressives (unless you mean an increase in the use of the word "progressive" as a label, which has recently become a popular replacement for "liberal"). The number of people calling themselves "conservative" has grown quite dramatically, and the most population growth is in suburbs, not cities.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Herbal Tee, please stop giving the enemy advice. Yes I had to say that. Let them fail. We need them to fail. We just have to not lose the election remember that.

One reason why I've waited this long to respond to you is to give them a chance to post some more. As you can now see, they aren't going to listen to me anyway, so I can tell them exactly what to do and they'll either do nothing or else do the opposite.
Huuum manipulating them into doing the opposite... Well that sounds like something Sun Tzu might suggest. LOL

Originally Posted by Kinser

Uh..I hate to be the guy that says this, but. The reason their strategist set the bar so low for President Obama is because at heart they are racists. Everyone knows that "illegal aliens" is their public code word for Latinos. That "urban" is their code word for Blacks. And that in their smoke filled rooms they call the President "that <n-word> in the White House."

And yes I am playing the race card here right wingers. I'll only stop playing it when y'all stop being racists.

Yhat could be but I suspect that simple incompetence is involved. Ever hear of the Powell Memo ?
For years the right has been creating wingnut welfare positions for their young minions. I recall myself when I was a college student in the early '80's the college Republicans were always well funded and throwing beer bashes the weekend before the election. And the reason I'm bringing this up is because I believe that after all of these years of providing a gravy train young cons. that they are getting a lot of bloat for their money. Blue chip prospects that prove out not to be as astute on the campaign trail as the Reagan era origionals.
To put it another way, they've got a lot of hangers on who just aren't up to the standard that right wing operatives were about back in the eighties.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Weave

Brian several times in 2010 you predicted that not only will the Dem losses be limited, they probably pick up a few seats.....

As far as voter intensity you can peruse this fox news poll about it....59% Republican and to 47% Dem (among the Tea party which includes alot of evangelicals its 71% intensity far from being a drag on his ticket), this was before each convention. Romney has 92% Repub support, obama 88% Dem.

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2...tly-good-news/

Obsolete, highly-partisan source ... and an opinion-editorial, at that. Op-ed pieces are not news sources!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

[A]nd then [the Democrats] won in 2008 with a leftist who pretended to be a moderate

It's quite interesting how a certain subset of conservatives (and there may be a parallel among liberals, too) deal with facts that don't fit their narrative by changing them in their memories.

Obama is not a leftist who pretended to be a moderate. Comparing his campaign stances to his governance, what he is, is a moderate who pretended to be a leftist. He did not move left from his campaign rhetoric and positions. He moved right.

Oh-oh, Weave, new poll has Obama up by 4 in Ohio.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Oh-oh, Weave, new poll has Obama up by 4 in Ohio.

Also, tere is the old adage of follow the money.

And right now where the Romney campaign is not spending money anyomre are the state of PN, MH and they've cut way back in Ohio.
We know from the inance reports thatt hey aren't cutting back for a lack of funds. Most likely their internal polls show those states as being out of reach.