I'll bet Obama gets reelected

[Elendil's Heir]

As many of you know, I'm a strong Obama supporter. Although it's a long time until Election Day 2012, I'm willing to bet $100 right now that he'll be reelected. I'll bet $20 with the first five Dopers who say otherwise. If you want to take my bet, simply post, in bold, "I'll take your bet." Say anything else you want to, but those are the magic words to take the bet.

We'll exchange real names and U.S. Mail addresses via PM. If I win, each of the five will send me a check for $20 within two weeks of Election Day. If I lose, I'll send each of the five winners a check for $20 by the same deadline.

If the President dies, resigns or otherwise leaves office before then, all bets are off. If he simply chooses not to run for reelection (which seems very unlikely, to say the least), I'll pay up.

[Covered_In_Bees!]

When you win that easy money, I just would like to humbly request a donation so I can be a "member" and not a guest.

:)

EDIT: And if you're feeling extra generous, a little something on top for a custom title?

[Elendil's Heir]

Nothing is easy money almost two years before the election. Just ask Tom Dewey and George H.W. Bush.

[Little Nemo]

Maybe you can get Rand Rover to put up seven dollars.

[furt]

Incumbent presidents are reelected about 2/3 of the time. I think you'll have to give odds to get any takers.

[What Exit?]

Incumbent presidents are reelected about 2/3 of the time. I think you'll have to give odds to get any takers.
Isn't that the whole point though? The bet is for any true Obama haters or fill in the appropriate Republican lover to believe enough that Obama is screwing up that he will not be re-elected.

[An Arky]

While the anger at Obama is palpable, the economy is slowly but surely improving for non-buggy whip makers, and by the time 2012 rolls around, barring colossal collapse, he should get back in. But if you think past elections seasons have been ugly, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[BrainGlutton]

Incumbent presidents are reelected about 2/3 of the time. I think you'll have to give odds to get any takers.

You don't take this kind of bet in hopes of winning money, you take it in hopes of winning gloating rights.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

You don't take this kind of bet in hopes of winning money, you take it in hopes of winning gloating rights.


This.

[TravisFromOR]

I doubt that Obama will be reelected. But then, if Republicans like our esteemed Walker keep doing what they do, reelection will be more likely.

[Chronos]

I think that he's probably likely to get re-elected, too, but I'm not a betting man.

Maybe you can get Rand Rover to put up seven dollars. Wouldn't his stake end up being more like $2? I seem to recall the odds he wanted being more like 10 to 1.

[furt]

Isn't that the whole point though? The bet is for any true Obama haters or fill in the appropriate Republican lover to believe enough that Obama is screwing up that he will not be re-elected.So, the bet would be for any true Obama lovers or fill in the appropriate Republican hater to believe enough that Obama is doing so great that he will give odds, n'est ces pas?

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

Vegas has Obama as a current -130 favorite, meaning you would put up $130 to win $100.

[gonzomax]

You are likely to get Qin's allowance money.

[What Exit?]

You are likely to get Qin's allowance money.
Isn't he a minor?

[Peremensoe]

I see no takers.

[Ají de Gallina]

Since I'm not a US citizen nor live in the US I can't participate n the bet, but even if there were Egypt-style protests and Obama was hiding in Cheyenne mountain out of fear for his life, I wouldn't take the bet at 1:1., 2 years is a loooong time.

[campp]

I think the more interesting bet would be on who the Republican candidate would be.

[Cyberhwk]

Who was it that proposed that absurd political bet a year or so back? Said he was right and was willing to put money on it...then glossed over the fact he was requiring people give him 10-to-1 or something ridiculous like that. Then got all indignant saying nobody taking it was proof he was right IIRC.

[Elendil's Heir]

I think the more interesting bet would be on who the Republican candidate would be.

By all means, start your own thread!

Ají de Gallina, you may certainly take my bet if you like, despite living overseas and not being a U.S. citizen.

[Peremensoe]

Who was it that proposed that absurd political bet a year or so back? Said he was right and was willing to put money on it...then glossed over the fact he was requiring people give him 10-to-1 or something ridiculous like that. Then got all indignant saying nobody taking it was proof he was right IIRC.

It was Rand Rover, and it was 15-1. Thread here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561707).

[BrainGlutton]

I think the more interesting bet would be on who the Republican candidate would be.

Here you go. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=596908)

[Ají de Gallina]

By all means, start your own thread!

Ají de Gallina, you may certainly take my bet if you like, despite living overseas and not being a U.S. citizen.

Let's talk in a year's time.

[Agnostic Pagan]

I am tempted to take this bet since I have a horrible record of winning such things, but, also knowing my luck, this is what would cause me to break that streak. ;)

Waiting to see if any real takers do show up.

He better get his butt to Wisconsin soon though if he wants to keep his base.

Ed Schultz railed on him last night after this exchange (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/24/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-2242011) at the White House:

Q On the Wisconsin -- I’m sorry, on the Wisconsin situation, Congressman Ellison and others have called for the President to come out to Wisconsin and stand with the workers. Is that under discussion?

MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of, Chip. I think what we have made pretty clear is that the President thinks and we think, he’s stated this, that obviously a lot of states in the union are dealing with fiscal issues, big problems in their state budgets that need to be addressed. And they need to act responsibly, tighten their belts, live within their means, just as we in Washington, the executive branch and Congress need to do with our federal situation.

Q And forgive me --

MR. CARNEY: But again, he believes very strongly that the way to achieve that, just like the way to achieve it here, is that people need to come to the table, work together, share the sacrifice, and produce the result that the people in the states want and, again, extrapolating to the larger picture here, the whole country -- do the things that we need to do to live within our means so that we can invest in the future, and I think that’s true on a state level.

Q And forgive me if I’m being redundant, I missed much of yesterday’s briefing. But you’ve been asked about what he said about joining the picket lines back in 2007 when he said, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.” Is he ready to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and fulfill that promise?

MR. CARNEY: I think, Chip, that the President, as President, has a -- obviously an ability to be heard when he speaks, and he spoke to the situation in Wisconsin and his views on it last week. And I’ll leave it at that.

Q And I know you weren’t with him at the time, but do you think he meant that when he said it? Is that a promise?

MR. CARNEY: I wasn’t with him at the time, but again, I think that the President has different means of speaking out on issues and being heard, and clearly he did -- he made his viewpoints known on the situation in Wisconsin, the need for people to come together. He takes very seriously the fiscal situation that the states find themselves in -- some of the states -- and understands it because he understands it at the federal level. But he encourages the parties involved to come together and sacrifice together and reach a solution that serves the interests of all the people of the states, just like he’s trying to do for the broader nation.

Q Thanks.

Bolding mine.

I agree with Schultz and think he really needs to keep that promise - I love Obama, but he really needs to use the bully pulpit a lot more effectively. He needs stop the 'governing' mode and turn on the 'campaign' mode and start rallying his supporters, or 2012 may be a repeat of 2010 and not 2008 - and this country will be screwed beyond belief.

Congressional 'leadership' has been too damn quiet also. But that is another thread and/or bet.

[Elendil's Heir]

I must agree.

[gonzomax]

The finances have been orchestrated to heavily favor the Repubs. Citizens United gives corporate Repubs a huge edge. Now the Repub, governors are involved in major union busting. If they succeed, the Dems will lose their ally. I wonder how the Repubs will stop internet donations? This whole mess is political. I think the Dems are haded for a difficult fight.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

The finances have been orchestrated to heavily favor the Repubs. Citizens United gives corporate Repubs a huge edge. Now the Repub, governors are involved in major union busting. If they succeed, the Dems will lose their ally. I wonder how the Repubs will stop internet donations? This whole mess is political. I think the Dems are haded for a difficult fight.

Yes, it'll be more difficult after Obama. Not now, though. Obama's sitting on a billion dollars. Wouldn't that be crazy to see a 2 billion dollar election cycle? When will this madness end?

[gonzomax]

The next election is expected to break 2 billion.

[Elendil's Heir]

I know what you're driving at, but I'm not betting more than a hundred bucks.

[elfkin477]

While the anger at Obama is palpable, the economy is slowly but surely improving for non-buggy whip makers, and by the time 2012 rolls around, barring colossal collapse, he should get back in.If we see the predicted $5/gallon gas while we still have ~ 10% unemployment, a whole lot more politicians than Obama are going to face reelection doubts when the economy spirals rapidly downward again. As it is, things are too uncertain to predict the state of the economy in 2012, and isn't that the issue that generally keeps presidents from being reeelected? Or, you know, ballsing up an impending civil war, but that won't happen on Obama's watch.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I might have taken this bet if he hadn't abandoned DOMA last week.

[DigitalC]

Bush got reelected, i doubt anyone would take this bet. The Republican field also does not look very inspiring so far. Even a hardcore Republican has to know an uphill battle when they see one, i'm a hardcore Democrat but i wouldn't have put any money on them on this past election.

[gonzomax]

The REpubs have lots of money, they own TV stations ,newspapers and radio stations. They don't mobilize to run an election but run one 24 hours a day ,everyday. They are nasty and take no prisoners.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Does that mean you're taking the bet?

[gonzomax]

Too early. I need to see if the REpub union busting works. The, if it generates a huge backlash as people figure out the rich are after all middle class and poor people, then I might not. There is time.

[Rigamarole]

No shit he'll get re-elected. Constant/rapid regime changes serve nobody.

[jasonh300]

I'd only take that bet if someone could guarantee that Sarah Palin wouldn't be the republican running against him.

[Nunzio Tavulari]

I feel that a large part of Obama's success was the due to effort to get the inner city residents to vote. Now that the first black president has been elected, I do not believe that he will get as large a turnout from people would do not consistently vote in every election.

Older, wealthier, conservative white people are much more likely to vote. I think our next President will be republican.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If by "inner city residents" you mean, "black people", then no. Obama won 96% of black voters, and turnout among black voters was 2% higher than in 2004, but that extra 2% is 0.25% of all voters, and Obama won by considerably more than that.

[Elendil's Heir]

...Older, wealthier, conservative white people are much more likely to vote. I think our next President will be republican.

:: coughs ::

Care to make it interesting...?

[What Exit?]

If by "inner city residents" you mean, "black people", then no. Obama won 96% of black voters, and turnout among black voters was 2% higher than in 2004, but that extra 2% is 0.25% of all voters, and Obama won by considerably more than that.
Don't bother him with facts. Elendil's Heir trying to make some bets. :D

[An Gadaí]

Hey I've lost €14.33 stupider ways before.

I'll take your bet.

[Peremensoe]

Hey, by the time you have to pay up, I expect it'll be less than that.

[Elendil's Heir]

Hey I've lost €14.33 stupider ways before.

I'll take your bet.

Excellent! That's one.

Maybe I should place a time limit on how long this offer will remain open, before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary - say, noon EST on Jan. 1, 2012?

[muldoonthief]

Geez - what a bunch of slack jawed pansies here! I'm not even an Obama hater, and I think he'll be re-elected, but I'm a gamblin' man.

Elendil's Heir, I'll take your bet.

BTW, if he seeks the Democratic Party nomination, but fails, do I still win?

[Elendil's Heir]

...BTW, if he seeks the Democratic Party nomination, but fails, do I still win?

Yes, since he would not then be reelected, consistent with the OP (although I suppose he might then run as an independent).

Welcome aboard!

[Gukumatz]

I'll take your bet.

Heck, I want Obama to win, but I don't see it happening. I figure him for a scapegoat come the next election - do the hard stuff nobody else wants to touch, then don't re-run. Whether he'll open the door for Hillary or the republicans can find someone with enough credibility to pull in the centrists, I don't know. But considering his attempts to actually accomplish stuff, I don't think he plans to be a 2-term president.

I don't do checks though, but I think we can figure something out by the time November '12 comes around.

[Elendil's Heir]

Thanks, Gukamatz! I'll PM you.

[Elendil's Heir]

...Maybe I should place a time limit on how long this offer will remain open, before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary - say, noon EST on Jan. 1, 2012?

Having heard no objection, I hereby set that deadline. No bets taken thereafter.

[Precambrianmollusc]

Well I live in the US but can't vote and I hope Obama wins. Maybe I am just being coloured by the rampant redness that surrounds me here in sunny Utah but it looks like President Obama has a tough time on his hands next election, so for the sake of sporting humour if nothing else
I'll take your bet

Assuming I am not breaking some federal rule about furriners trying to influence US elections through gambling on the outcome.

[alounacara]

Trump was on the news the other night calling Obama out on the birth certificate ordeal again.
If Trump ever runs for president ill vote for him bigtime

[Chronos]

The relevance of this being?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Apparently, that he has multiple votes. Hence, Obama can't win.

[kopek]

I see no takers.

I'll take $20 of it just for the Hell of it. Obama being half-way to a Republican has made me a ton of money. Proving that even in this economy there's money to be made. I can hope to be wrong AND afford it as well. ;)

Elendil's Heir put me down and remind me where to send the check in a couple years.

[Kozmik]

Trump was on the news the other night calling Obama out on the birth certificate ordeal again.
If Trump ever runs for president ill vote for him bigtimeTrump/Guliani 2012? :dubious:

[Fear Itself]

I'd only take that bet if someone could guarantee that Sarah Palin wouldn't be the republican running against him.Are you kidding? Of all the bozos lining up on the right, Palin is the longest shot. I would take that bet in a heartbeat. Her popularity among republicans has been sinking like whale shit.

[PlanetCharlie]

kopek didn't write

"I'll take your bet."

so I'll assume his doesn't count. ;)


So:

"I'll take your bet."

[Elendil's Heir]

Well I live in the US but can't vote and I hope Obama wins. Maybe I am just being coloured by the rampant redness that surrounds me here in sunny Utah but it looks like President Obama has a tough time on his hands next election, so for the sake of sporting humour if nothing else
I'll take your bet

Assuming I am not breaking some federal rule about furriners trying to influence US elections through gambling on the outcome.

Thanks - a PM is on its way to you.

Thanks, also, PlanetCharlie. A PM to you too.

That's five Dopers, as laid out in the OP. kopek, having not used the magic words, did not actually place his bet. Sorry. The betting is now closed.

[kopek]

Just like a durn poly-tishian, mincing words. :D

OK

"I'll take your bet."

(Darn it - now I actually want to win! :) )


(Third place - does that make me the Al Haig of this bet?)

[Elendil's Heir]

It was in the OP, quite specifically, that those particular words had to be used, in bold. But now that you've done it, I'll cut you some slack. You are the sixth person to bet, and the betting is NOW officially closed.

PM on its way to you.

Thanks, everybody.

[Farmer Jane]

Re-elections are a LONG way off. There's no way to tell right now.

Besides, remember President Bush? He managed to get reelected.

[Jonathan Chance]

True, but not the first one. And his numbers were through the roof 20 months prior to reelection.

[Farmer Jane]

True, but not the first one. And his numbers were through the roof 20 months prior to reelection.

Who? President Bush I? I'm just saying...way too early to tell.

[The Niply Elder]

Well, this round of betting started promising, but then everyone who bet was pro-Obama, sup with that? That's like going all in with a pair of deuces. I think the bets of insincere individuals should be cancelled to make room for people who actually think they will win. Let's see some transferring of funds from reps to dems, otherwise it's not fun.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Trump was on the news the other night calling Obama out on the birth certificate ordeal again.
If Trump ever runs for president ill vote for him bigtime

What is it with Birthers and lack of punctuation anyway?

[Chessic Sense]

kopek, since the money is gone from Elendil's Heir, I'll fund another $100 on the Obama side. Same rules: If Obama wins, you send me $20. If a Pub wins, I send you $20.

So the next five callers...er, posters...get to bet on Trump and Co.

[Chronos]

Well, this round of betting started promising, but then everyone who bet was pro-Obama, sup with that? That's like going all in with a pair of deuces. I think the bets of insincere individuals should be cancelled to make room for people who actually think they will win. Let's see some transferring of funds from reps to dems, otherwise it's not fun. There's a difference between hoping that he wins and thinking that he actually will. Maybe the bettors were all just pessimists.

[New Deal Democrat]

Bush got reelected.

Bush was still benefiting from the surge in nationalism that followed 9/11.

[Elendil's Heir]

kopek, since the money is gone from Elendil's Heir, I'll fund another $100 on the Obama side. Same rules: If Obama wins, you send me $20. If a Pub wins, I send you $20.

So the next five callers...er, posters...get to bet on Trump and Co.

Cool. More power to you!

[muldoonthief]

Geez - what a bunch of slack jawed pansies here! I'm not even an Obama hater, and I think he'll be re-elected, but I'm a gamblin' man.



Well, this round of betting started promising, but then everyone who bet was pro-Obama, sup with that? That's like going all in with a pair of deuces. I think the bets of insincere individuals should be cancelled to make room for people who actually think they will win. Let's see some transferring of funds from reps to dems, otherwise it's not fun.

Hey, I resent that. I said that I don't hate him, and I think he'll win, which hardly makes me pro-Obama.

[Elendil's Heir]

FWIW, early polling shows GOP voters don't much care for the field: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/19/poll-shows-gop-not-happy-with-its-prez-candidates/

[An Gadaí]

Well, I lost that bet.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You might as well pay up now.

[DigitalC]

Oh come on, Obama could show up for the election with Satan's head on a stick and the result would still come down to the economy and job situation.

[appleciders]

Assuming that the last three posts are in reference to Osama bin Laden's reported death-- I don't think this makes it a foregone conclusion. The election is almost eighteen months away. This does work in Obama's favor, but I don't think this changes the political calculus much. Were it an October surprise, then sure, but this is too distant from the election to clinch it.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Assuming that the last three posts are in reference to Osama bin Laden's reported death-- I don't think this makes it a foregone conclusion. The election is almost eighteen months away. This does work in Obama's favor, but I don't think this changes the political calculus much. Were it an October surprise, then sure, but this is too distant from the election to clinch it.

I remember Bush I's approval rating soaring in the 90s after Gulf War I.

[appleciders]

I remember Bush I's approval rating soaring in the 90s after Gulf War I.

Who then failed to get re-elected in '92. This is definitely positive for Obama, and does increase his chances somewhat in the long term, but I don't think this clinches it, or even close. If this were an October Surprise, then it might clinch it, but the election is just too far away.

[RTFirefly]

True, but not the first one. And his numbers were through the roof 20 months prior to reelection.Bingo. It looked like a waste of time to run against Bush Sr., so guys like Cuomo and Gore decided to skip 1992.

Hell, I was one of those people who assumed, after the Gulf War, that Bush I had a lock on re-election, so my crystal ball was just as bad as theirs.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hell, I was one of those people who assumed, after the Gulf War, that Bush I had a lock on re-election, so my crystal ball was just as bad as theirs.
Yeah, but the economy went in the tank after the Gulf War. This economy is already in the tank, and is almost certainly going to have picked up a bit by the election.

Plus, Bush I was painted into a corner by his own earlier promises ("no new taxes"). I can't think of anything Obama's said that could come back to haunt him like that. Hell, he's already reneged on lots of things.

[Elendil's Heir]

"I've never wished anyone dead, but I've read some obituaries with a great deal of satisfaction." - Will Rogers

I agree that OBL's death doesn't guarantee the President's reelection. It's still a long time until Nov. 2012.

[DMark]

I am sure there are a lot of potential Republican candidates who are re-evaluating their moves now.
Mitt Romney just canceled showing up at a debate this week - so I guess nobody in the Republican Party wants to talk much for a few weeks until this news dies down.

Still, this will certainly kill any Republican innuendos that Obama is a military wimp.

Lots can happen before November 2012, but this certainly hasn't hurt Obama's chances for re-election!!

Trump might actually get the nomination, as maybe nobody else will want it.

[Chronos]

Still, this will certainly kill any Republican innuendos that Obama is a military wimp.Sure, but those weren't going to be a big deal in the election, anyway. Before this, everyone was expecting that the Republicans would mostly be attacking Obama over the economy, and now, everyone's just even more certain of that fact. And of course, there's still plenty of time for some other unexpected event (or more likely, a half-dozen of them) that'll also have an effect on the outcome.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Sure, but those weren't going to be a big deal in the election, anyway. Before this, everyone was expecting that the Republicans would mostly be attacking Obama over the economy, and now, everyone's just even more certain of that fact. And of course, there's still plenty of time for some other unexpected event (or more likely, a half-dozen of them) that'll also have an effect on the outcome.

Things change. Republicans were skewering him for perceived wishy-washiness and weakness with regards to Libya. This is a pretty epic win, so even if the Republicans NEVER bring up national security, now the Democrats can. "Obama brought bin Laden to justice. What has (insert Republican nominee) done to improve security?"

[Sam Stone]

Just to remind everyone: At this point in his first term, George HW Bush was a hero for the very successful Operation Desert Storm, and had approval ratings that peaked at 92%. He was thought to be unbeatable, so every major Democrat stayed out of the race, allowing an obscure Arkansas Governor to win the nomination as the sacrificial lamb.

I think we all remember what happened after that.

[Bosstone]

I think we all remember what happened after that.Yep, the best 8 years in recent history.

If a dark horse Republican is savvy enough to pull out a win the way Clinton did, that might not be such a bad thing.

[JohnT]

As many of you know, I'm a strong Obama supporter. Although it's a long time until Election Day 2012, I'm willing to bet $100 right now that he'll be reelected. I'll bet $20 with the first five Dopers who say otherwise. If you want to take my bet, simply post, in bold, "I'll take your bet." Say anything else you want to, but those are the magic words to take the bet.

We'll exchange real names and U.S. Mail addresses via PM. If I win, each of the five will send me a check for $20 within two weeks of Election Day. If I lose, I'll send each of the five winners a check for $20 by the same deadline.

If the President dies, resigns or otherwise leaves office before then, all bets are off. If he simply chooses not to run for reelection (which seems very unlikely, to say the least), I'll pay up.

Just FYI, I would have made the same bet about GWB1 back in May of '91...

ETA: or what Sam Stone said.

ETA2: or what half the posters said, before I entered with my irrelevant comment. Thanks, everybody! :p

[Sam Stone]

Yep, the best 8 years in recent history.

If a dark horse Republican is savvy enough to pull out a win the way Clinton did, that might not be such a bad thing.

Certainly much credit is due to Clinton's awesome ability as a politician, but the real lesson of 1991 is that voters have a very short memory. The economy started declining, and soon it was more important to the people that George Bush didn't know what a grocery scanner was and seemed to be insulated from what they were feeling ("Message: I care!").

Those factors totally outweighed the collapse of the USSR, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the wildly successful Desert Storm so much that within a year Bush's approval ratings fell from 89% in February of 1991 to 29% by July of 1992. An astonishing collapse entirely due to the economy. I don't recall any major scandals - just a President who appeared out of touch and disengaged at a time when the public was worried.

[ponys]

Obama is the sorryist person ever to run for president

:eek:

[Recovering Republican]

I'd take that bet for the following reasons.

9.1% unemployment. No president since WWII has gotten re-elected with unemployment over 7.2% and only one has gotten re-elected with it over 5.6.

$4.00 a gallon gasoline.

Houses have lost 7% of their value in 2011 alone.

War in Libya that will end up breaking the NATO alliance.

And most importantly, his ardent supporters aren't as enthused about him anymore. Gays are disappointed he hasn't endorsed gay marriage. Code Pink is upset he hasn't surrendered in the ear or closed Gitmo. The college kids don't think he's cool.

[What Exit?]

Obama is the sorryist person ever to run for president

:eek:
Dude, Kerry? Wallace?

[Merijeek]

Obama is the sorryist person ever to run for president

:eek:

Join date July, 2011? Unpossible!

-Joe

[enalzi]

Obama is the sorryist person ever to run for president

:eek:

Sorryism is just what we need right now! Vote Sorryist in 2012!

[waterj2]

And most importantly, his ardent supporters aren't as enthused about him anymore. Gays are disappointed he hasn't endorsed gay marriage. Code Pink is upset he hasn't surrendered in the ear or closed Gitmo. The college kids don't think he's cool.The Code Pink vote is minuscule. If the Republicans nominate Michele Bachmann, the fact that Obama's only endorsed civil unions isn't going to stop gays from stampeding to the polls to vote against her. Mitt Romney's probably got the best record on gay rights of any plausible candidate, and it's pretty bad. Not that anyone's ever won the presidency on the strength of the gay vote.

[Chronos]

Surrendered in the ear? Is that a typo? Because if so, I can't figure out what it was supposed to be.

[waterj2]

Surrendered in the ear? Is that a typo? Because if so, I can't figure out what it was supposed to be.I have to guess "war". Of course, Obama never ran on surrendering in either war when he won last time, so I don't think it was the pro-surrender enthusiasts that pushed him over the top.

[Recovering Republican]

I have to guess "war". Of course, Obama never ran on surrendering in either war when he won last time, so I don't think it was the pro-surrender enthusiasts that pushed him over the top.


i'd suggest you spend a few minutes over at Michael Moore's website, and see that he expected exactly that, and he's not only upset that Obama hasn't, but that he's started this new mess in Libya.

[Elendil's Heir]

I'd take that bet for the following reasons. ....

I already have my five (actually six) bets, as set forth in the OP, so I decline. Maybe one of the other posters would like to take you up on it?

[Elendil's Heir]

...such as Chessic Sense, fr'instance.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sorryism is just what we need right now! Vote Sorryist in 2012!
You know, right wing crazies are always complaining about Obama apologizing to foreigners...

[Double Foolscap]

With the gay marriage thing - he got rid of DADT, won't that be worth something? Integration of the military helped with Civil Rights in the long run, or so I've been told. That and soldiers based in the UK seeing how we did it over here ;)

[Chessic Sense]

I gotchu, Recovering. As much as I'd love Romney to run this country, it ain't gonna happen.

[Elendil's Heir]

Thanks, Chessic.

[gonzomax]

If Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare he will be in trouble.

[Recovering Republican]

With the gay marriage thing - he got rid of DADT, won't that be worth something? Integration of the military helped with Civil Rights in the long run, or so I've been told. That and soldiers based in the UK seeing how we did it over here ;)


Given the fact that 90% of guys discharged for being gay were people who wanted out of the army anyway, not really so much.

I knew people when I was in who got out for that reason. They decided they didn't like the Sergeant getting into their face, they didn't like the discipline, so they fessed up and got a ticket out.

Will it score him some points with Gays? HOw many of them were really trying to get in to start with?

Frankly, that's one of the things I give him credit for, because it was a stupid policy. Either it disqualifies you or it doesn't. Not it only disqualifies you if you tell someone.

[Recovering Republican]

If Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare he will be in trouble.

Well, today he said he would.

[Recovering Republican]

I gotchu, Recovering. As much as I'd love Romney to run this country, it ain't gonna happen.

Well, I don't think so.

I think any REpublican who gets to the finish line of the nomination process has an excellent chance of beating this guy. And it's not just the unemployment number. It's GDP growth, it's approval ratings, it's direction of the country polls. Any poll you have out there, he's in the loser category.

Romney's biggest problem is going to be in the nominating process. Too many evangelicals voting, to many tea partiers who don't like RomneyCare because it looks like ObamaCare, too many pro-life and anti-gay folks who actually have memories...

[Leaper]

Well, today he said he would.

What? (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/the-white-house-is-playing.php?ref=fpb)

[Fear Itself]

Given the fact that 90% of guys discharged for being gay were people who wanted out of the army anyway, not really so much.

I knew people when I was in who got out for that reason. Now you are not even trying. The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Given the fact that 90% of guys discharged for being gay were people who wanted out of the army anyway, not really so much.
Hint: referring to things you think as facts doesn't make them such.

[CaptMurdock]

If the GOP are going to unseat the incumbent, they better crack open their piggybanks...

GOP candidates not raising as much money as they thought they would: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58456.html)

The Republican presidential fundraising reports are still coming in, but a clear winner has already emerged: President Barack Obama.

Romney’s haul was less than what he took in as a first-time candidate out of the gates four years ago. Behind the former Massachusetts governor, the numbers tailed off dramatically. Neither Tim Pawlenty nor Jon Huntsman even hit $5 million. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee is mired in $18.5 million of debt.

Given the furvor with which the various GOPers are pushing the notion that Obama is a failure, he's weakening our international stance, he's destroying the economy, you'd think that they wouldn't be able to count the donations fast enough...

Meanwhile...

Obama officials have already disclosed that 493,697 individual donors gave to the campaign this quarter. That’s almost twice the number of donors they accumulated through the first two quarters of 2007, by which point they had raised $55.7 million for their Democratic primary battle. And it’s nearly five times the 105,000 donors Bush-Cheney’s reelection began with in 2003.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but is it possible that there are a large number of people out there who think Barack Obama's done a pretty good job under some adverse circumstances? :cool: Just saying.

[Recovering Republican]

Now you are not even trying. The plural of anecdote is not data.


Why you're right. There is probably no data on this, and these yardbirds are just going to have to find another excuse to get discharged after they figure out their recruiters lied to them, I guess.

[Buck Godot]

If Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare he will be in trouble.

I think that the Republicans would have a heard time hitting him on this given that it was they who were forcing him into it, and he that was arguing against it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but is it possible that there are a large number of people out there who think Barack Obama's done a pretty good job under some adverse circumstances? :cool: Just saying.
A bit too much. Democratic campaigns always attract more individual donors; Republicans attract larger donations. It's the nature of the respective constituencies.

[CaptMurdock]

A bit too much. Democratic campaigns always attract more individual donors; Republicans attract larger donations. It's the nature of the respective constituencies.

Point well taken, but if the number in the link in my post are accurate, the Repub's usual deep wallets are taking their sweet time with their checkbooks.

Not to mention, the large number of individual donors to Obama's re-election campaign seems to bely the right wing's contention that The People are disappointed in Obama. They seem to be wanting to give him another go-round in the Oval Office.

[Recovering Republican]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but is it possible that there are a large number of people out there who think Barack Obama's done a pretty good job under some adverse circumstances? :cool: Just saying.

You're right, you are reading too much into it.

His donors are all the usual suspects- the Union "teachers" (who don't actually teach anything), big labor, etc.

All the money in the world isn't going to erase the fact we have 13 million unemployed people.

[Chronos]

Actually, wouldn't money be exactly the thing to erase that fact? The entire problem is, in a nutshell, lack of money in the right hands.

[Chefguy]

Whatever Obama's faults, he and his staff are excellent tacticians. This most recent kerfuffle over raising the debt ceiling is a good example. Boehner and company clamored for $2T in cuts before they'd agree to raising the limit. The Dems fight back. Suddenly, Obama steps in and says "I'll do better than that: let's cut $4T, simplify the tax code, and close those loopholes that allow some to pay no taxes at all!"

Close loopholes? The horror! says the right. Why that's, that's. . .sputtersputter. . .an increase in taxes! Yeah, that's it: it's not reasonable and prudent, it's a tax increase on our wealthy contributors! Away with you, foul liberal!

"Tax loopholes" has been anathema to the working man since forever. For them to reject a spending cut that is double what they proposed in order to save their rich buddies from having to pay taxes on their income is going to be used to flog their asses bloody in the coming campaign, no matter how they try to spin it. It's brilliant.

[Recovering Republican]

Whatever Obama's faults, he and his staff are excellent tacticians. This most recent kerfuffle over raising the debt ceiling is a good example. Boehner and company clamored for $2T in cuts before they'd agree to raising the limit. The Dems fight back. Suddenly, Obama steps in and says "I'll do better than that: let's cut $4T, simplify the tax code, and close those loopholes that allow some to pay no taxes at all!"

Close loopholes? The horror! says the right. Why that's, that's. . .sputtersputter. . .an increase in taxes! Yeah, that's it: it's not reasonable and prudent, it's a tax increase on our wealthy contributors! Away with you, foul liberal!

"Tax loopholes" has been anathema to the working man since forever. For them to reject a spending cut that is double what they proposed in order to save their rich buddies from having to pay taxes on their income is going to be used to flog their asses bloody in the coming campaign, no matter how they try to spin it. It's brilliant.

Except now they are folding on the 4T deal and going back to the 2T deal that Boehner already agreed to but is having a hard time getting his caucus to go along with.

[Fear Itself]

Except now they are folding on the 4T deal and going back to the 2T deal that Boehner already agreed to but is having a hard time getting his caucus to go along with.I heard he was upping the ante to 6 trillion.

[Recovering Republican]

I heard he was upping the ante to 6 trillion.

Again, any ante that includes tax increases is a fantasy. The country has made it pretty darned clear that they don't want more taxes.

The way to approach this is the way any company would have to before going back to a bank for more loans or stockholders for more investment- show that you've cleaned up every bit of waste, inefficiency, etc. Asking the taxpayers for more money when you can't spend what you are already taking from them responsibly is a non-starter.

Of course, Obama could play the "Class Warfare" card, like FDR did in 1936. He'd lose most of his big money donors, mind you, but he might be able to pull it off. But that would take a lot of foundation laying, and he's really only got about four weeks to wrap this thing up.

[Fear Itself]

Again, any ante that includes tax increases is a fantasy. Any proposal without revenue increases is DOA. The public has had it with tax loopholes and corporate welfare.Of course, Obama could play the "Class Warfare" card, like FDR did in 1936. The GOP has been playing the "Class Warfare" card for over a decade. Guess who is winning?

[CaptMurdock]

You're right, you are reading too much into it.

His donors are all the usual suspects- the Union "teachers" (who don't actually teach anything), big labor, etc.

None of which explains why Romney & the other merry men's fundraising efforts are tanking.

I don't think there are that many teachers in the United States -- and I doubt they all make that much money.

"Big labor"? Sounds like a sitcom about a maternity ward... :D

[Chefguy]

Any proposal without revenue increases is DOA. The public has had it with tax loopholes and corporate welfare.The GOP has been playing the "Class Warfare" card for over a decade. Guess who is winning?

Glad to see someone gets the point. Returning to the $2T Republican mark now puts the ball squarely in their court. If they now balk at this amount, it will give Obama even more ammunition to say: Look, we said as long as we're cutting spending, let's really cut spending by closing tax loopholes, and the right said 'no'. Then, in the spirit of compromise, we said okay, then let's make the deal at your $2T level. And they said 'no' again. In other words, they're not willing to compromise for the good of the country. It's a brilliant ploy and will play well in the election, which is what this thread is about.

[gonzomax]

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would be prudent.
Any agreement that does not include tax cuts will not work. Our tax rate is at the lowest level since the 50s. The wealthy are accumulating money at an incredible rate while the middle class and poor are suffering. Any attempt to fix our problems, must address that problem.
The financial pros that tanked the economy have been made whole. It is way past time to prosecute those who committed malfeasance and cheated their investors. The rating agencies walked after helping tank the economy. Investment bankers who invested against the stocks while they were touting them to customers should be exposed.

[Recovering Republican]

None of which explains why Romney & the other merry men's fundraising efforts are tanking.



I think most of the big contributors are seeing who has traction and who doesn't. Why invest a few million in Bachmann if Perry comes in and steals all her voters by being a much saner version?

Romney's problem is that while he's beloved by the business faction of the GOP, the rank and file (especially religious and TEA Party conservatives) just haven't warmed up to him.

[Recovering Republican]

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would be prudent.
Any agreement that does not include tax cuts will not work. Our tax rate is at the lowest level since the 50s. The wealthy are accumulating money at an incredible rate while the middle class and poor are suffering. Any attempt to fix our problems, must address that problem.
The financial pros that tanked the economy have been made whole. It is way past time to prosecute those who committed malfeasance and cheated their investors. The rating agencies walked after helping tank the economy. Investment bankers who invested against the stocks while they were touting them to customers should be exposed.

I agree with you on the point that those who caused this mess on Wall Street need to be prosecuted (preferably by a jury of 12 people who lost their jobs & homes in this mess) and then sent to big boy prison (not "Club Fed")

Which begs the obvious question. Why hasn't Eric Holder done this?

And Obama himself has said that tax increases would hurt the recovery further.

(Wait, Obama said this? Why, yes, he did.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/11/white-house-agree-bush-tax-cuts-rich/)

[CaptMurdock]

I think most of the big contributors are seeing who has traction and who doesn't.

I think the big contributers are seeing that none of them have "traction." What you have here is, at best, Empty Suits and, at worst, Raving Lunatics. Who wants to spend a few million on someone who's going to take a dump at the televised debates?

[Chefguy]

Of course, if one reads the entire article linked above, one sees this:

In response to the earlier story, Axelrod says, "There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what [Obama] and [his press secretary] have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy."

Also, Obama didn't say shit, Axelrod did. Otherwise, spot-on.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Whatever Obama's faults, he and his staff are excellent tacticians. This most recent kerfuffle over raising the debt ceiling is a good example. Boehner and company clamored for $2T in cuts before they'd agree to raising the limit. The Dems fight back. Suddenly, Obama steps in and says "I'll do better than that: let's cut $4T, simplify the tax code, and close those loopholes that allow some to pay no taxes at all!"

Close loopholes? The horror! says the right. Why that's, that's. . .sputtersputter. . .an increase in taxes! Yeah, that's it: it's not reasonable and prudent, it's a tax increase on our wealthy contributors! Away with you, foul liberal!

"Tax loopholes" has been anathema to the working man since forever. For them to reject a spending cut that is double what they proposed in order to save their rich buddies from having to pay taxes on their income is going to be used to flog their asses bloody in the coming campaign, no matter how they try to spin it. It's brilliant.


It's a marathon, not a sprint. When we look back on the body of work, given the climate, I think we'll be impressed. Well, enough of us, at least. (http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/right-on-the-nose.jpg?w=720)

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I think most of the big contributors are seeing who has traction and who doesn't. Why invest a few million in Bachmann if Perry comes in and steals all her voters by being a much saner version?

Romney's problem is that while he's beloved by the business faction of the GOP, the rank and file (especially religious and TEA Party conservatives) just haven't warmed up to him.


I think most of those big contributors are putting their monies in the Super PACs so the money doesn't just go to one person, and so it has more flexibility.

[gonzomax]

I agree with you on the point that those who caused this mess on Wall Street need to be prosecuted (preferably by a jury of 12 people who lost their jobs & homes in this mess) and then sent to big boy prison (not "Club Fed")

Which begs the obvious question. Why hasn't Eric Holder done this?

And Obama himself has said that tax increases would hurt the recovery further.

(Wait, Obama said this? Why, yes, he did.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/11/white-house-agree-bush-tax-cuts-rich/)

Does that make it so? We have had 40 years of cutting taxes for the rich and it has demonstrated clearly that the rich do not create jobs. They just pile up money.
Obama is seeking to widen his base. He says things that are stupid like that to placate those who can not follow what has really happened. That does not mean he believes it. That does not mean he is planning on giving the rich even more money and hope they will create a job. they will not.
Demand is what causes companies to hire. So the tax cuts for those shipping jobs overseas should end. Everything the government buys should be made in America. TYax cuts for the wealthy should end. Unemployment should be extended.

[muldoonthief]

Just wanted to congratulate President Obama and Elendil's Heir, and say my $20 will be in the mail by the weekend.

[Elendil's Heir]

Thanks! I've got a big smile today, and definitely not just because of the bets.

[BigT]

Wait, did you pay for Bees' membership, like he asked?

[Elendil's Heir]

Wait, did you pay for Bees' membership, like he asked?

I don't think so. Don't remember that.

Here's the President's acceptance speech, for those who missed it in the wee small hours: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_rr_7#/video/politics/2012/11/07/election-obama-victory-speech.cnn