So who would you rather have a glass of savior blood with?
No Libertarian Party candidate has won more than 0.5% of the popular vote since 1980.
True Blood only for me, thanks. I quit the Sanguinistas and am now mainstreaming.
Coverage on blogs, newspapers, radio, etc seem pretty saturated with news regarding the GOP and Dems. Its hardly just a TV thing.
And I’d be surprised if one person in twenty know who Gary Johnson is, nevermind intend to vote for him.
Where? Do you live in some small, western state?
Would the impact be in favor of Obama or against?
I’ll repeat the answer I heard on one of the recent Sunday talk shows:
Joe Biden.
One game-ender would be if Romney chooses someone on the level of McCain’s Moose Shooter Lady as his running mate.
IMHO all that would need to happen for an Obama victory is…nothing unusual. Barring some kind of political/economic earthquake, Obama will enjoy the usual advantage the incumbent enjoys, plus the benefit of running against an opponent who has all the charisma and appeal of a rotting whale carcass.
He isn’t anymore of a drinker then Romney is.
I have a theory that in elections with an incumbant, no one cares about the opponant. They vote for or against the incumbant.
Despite what the Obama apologists say, there are still plenty of Americans frustrated with the economy. Yes I know that they can throw up numbers showing that we are in a recovery and that it is still all Bush’s fault and the economy was worse than Obama thought when he took over. If Romney were to start an attack campaign that simply compared the promises Obama made about job creation and unemployment (IIRC under 8% the first year and 6% by the end of his first term) that first year and simply compared that to the current state of affairs then he would sway a lot of independent voters.
For example on this set of promises, Obama talked about the stimulus creating 3-4 million jobs. I would have to check the jobs numbers (as revised downward a month or two after they are released) but I don’t think that is accurate, especially that 90% of the jobs were to be in the private sector. He promised more jobs for public workers like police and teachers. I know as a fact the number of teachers in the US has been cut for budget purposes every year since Obama took over and I would be surprised if the same weren’t true for police and fire. This probably goes along with Obama’s promise to help the states so they wouldnt have to make drastic budget cuts but as we all know, the states are still hurting as much or more than the Feds.
How about this one:
Do I even need to mention the fiasco of Obama’s alt-energy plan? True it was a minor issue but Romney can play it up as a broken promise.
Long story short (too late), the problem with Obama supporters is that they cling to this idea that Obama is doing the best he can and rationalize everything. What they don’t realize is that none of that matters even if it is true. Obama over-promised and under-delivered and if Romney can drive that point home in an emotional way (and already the Obama supporters are saying that’ll never happen) then Obama is done. People understand that 8.2% is bigger than 6% and they don’t understand the financial obfuscation of Obama of why 8.2% is absolutely fantastic - especially if you’re one of the 8.2%
He said jobs for police and teachers would be saved by the stimulus, not that they would be created. How many teachers’ salaries do you think would have been cut without federal aid?
The alternative energy plan is working quite well. I think you mean the Solyndra fiasco.
[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
We’ll create hundreds of thousands of jobs by improving health care – transitioning to a nationwide system of computerized medical records that won’t just save money, but save lives by preventing deadly medical errors. And we’ll create hundreds of thousands more jobs in education, equipping tens of thousands of schools with 21st century classrooms, labs and computers to help our kids compete with any worker in the world for any job.
[/QUOTE]
I guaranfuckinty you that there have not been hundreds of thousands of jobs created in education the last 4 years.
Romney’s strategy seems to try and not make too many waves, and hope that people either vote against Obama or stay home. Very risky, and it puts your fate in someone else’s hands. The only thing he really has going for him is the sucky economy, but anyone with half a brain fan figure out that his plan, such as it is, isn’t going to make a lick of difference.
Okay, but you were referring to teachers. I’m not sure what other jobs in education he might have been talking about, but as to teachers specifically he only referred to saving their jobs.
I can tell you that there are no new jobs in education and havent been for 4 years. Do you realize that there was a half-time math position open at a school near me and I went up against over 100 applicants. The market this summer (after my district had to CUT 60 positions) is the bleakest I’ve seen in years. I will admit that Obama has spent money to try to get more teacher positions but it’s simply not enough. That is why I said he over-promised. Has he tried? OK yes he has but the numbers he gave us were far beyond what he could deliver. I would have respected him more if he just admits we’re fucked and his job is to make sure it doesn’t hurt so much.
Do you think there would have been more teaching jobs or less teaching jobs today without the stimulus?
There are, maybe, five more nationwide. Six, if you count ten-hour-a-week teacher assistant jobs.
I have had a similar experience as another poster–it’s impossible to get hired for any teaching position. Go to any school district HR office and they’ll tell you that their workforce has shrunk by 20% or more and their response to any vacancy created by sickness, retirement, or death is not to fill that vacancy, but to consolidate the position into other existing ones. The average class size in my hometown district is now 37–up from 25 in 2008.
A tiny bit of money (on a relative basis) was dribbled in the direction of schools by the stimulus, but its effect was negiligible. Tens of thousands of teachers now sit unemployed, and students aren’t receiving the education they’re entitled to because the teachers that remain are horribly overburdened. Also, many districts are cutting down on school days and hours.
So did Obama fulfill this promise? Absolutely not. Could he have? No. The money wasn’t there. I think everybody except the most starry-eyed faithful knew that he was just blowing smoke when he said that the stimulus would be the magic Band-Aid for the country. I don’t even blame him for doing so–presidents are relatively powerless to influence the outcomes of events, even if we and they think otherwise. The job of the president is to set the tone, and in this case, the proper tone was misplaced optimism.
I think you have an critical nuance wrong in this statement. People do not generally vote blindly for or against the incumbent. (People here meaning those who are not voting along party lines no matter what. Potential swing voters.) They vote for or against the incumbent if the opponent is perceived to be equal to or better than the incumbent. Even if they dislike the incumbent and his policies, they will not turn out in droves to elect someone they think is worse.
A weak incumbent can survive if his opponent is considered to be weaker. And charisma is one major factor in determining that. I think it’s no coincidence at all that, post-war, charismatic opponents (Reagan, Clinton) have beaten incumbents while non-charismatic ones haven’t (Dewey, Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, Dole, Kerry). (Carter beating Ford was a special case: Nixon’s successor had no chance of winning. Besides, in 1976 you could make a good case that of the two Carter was the charismatic one.) By your own theory people aren’t going to be paying attention to Romney’s economic program so that’s all they will have to go on.
That’s why generic polls at all levels always return different results than specific polls. When asked if a Republican should become president more people always say yes than when asked if a specific Republican should win over Obama. People always puff up the imaginary opponent to contain all the virtues they want. Real-life people never live up to those dreams. And a crucial few percent fall away.
I call strawman.
I admitted that there is more spending in education and that probably a small percentage of teaching jobs have been saved, but those are due mostly to priorities of the superintendents than education funds. My argument was specific that Obama promised “hundreds of thousands” of NEW jobs in education and that has not happened.
Well, apparently if there had been you would have credited those to superintendents’ priorities too.
You really don’t understand how it works do you? Do you think Obama sends a check out and on the memo line writes “For teacher salaries only”? The Feds send the states money which helps increase the budget of the districts. But it is up to the individual districts to decide how to spend the money. I can give you the results from 3 districts I’m familiar with.
South Colorado Springs: This district had a fuck all teachers attitude. No union and not one job was saved by federal funds. This may be the outlier but the Superintendent was spending his time cutting salaries. No way any Fed $ were going to teachers.
North Denver: The money was used to try to save teacher jobs and yes a few were saved but it just wasn’t enough money. Still lost about 60 positions despite the increased spending.
North Boulder County: The superintendent was moving money around since 2009 to save teaching jobs. No doubt that Obama money helped but the superintendent himself save jobs by reprioritizing the budget.