Why on Earth would anyone take you seriously after this comment?
Obama has made the economy considerably better. If someone is telling you the economy is worse, they’re either misinformed or a liar. Either way, you’re being mislead.
The stimulus is widely accepted to have diverted much worse economic times. It created or saved over a million jobs (at the low estimate) and pumped GDP.
If you’ve been lied to about the “8%” issue. The reason 8% unemployment was projected at the start, is our economic numbers were preliminary. As it happens the actual numbers at the time that projection was made were far worse.
Well I guess that settles it then.
Subtle inclusion of rat for Democrat there.
They do work. And they have worked. The unprecedented Republican obstructionism is largely to blame for our current financial numbers.
He could certainly lose. But it will be because of people like you who are misinformed and laboring under bizarre right-wing mythology.
As a former Republican who switched parties in 2004 in the wake of Bush’s idiocy, and who voted for Obama in 2008, the ONLY way a Republican candidate will get my vote is when one steps up who abandons this “Tea Party” juvenile nonsense and knocks off the religious right wankery in favor of actually fiscally sound policies, judicious tax increases coupled with spending adjustments, and a commitment to spending on infrastructure improvements as an economic stimulus until the job market is back up.
You remember why Reagan won in 1980? He had the so-called “Reagan Democrats”, who realized Ronnie’s vision was something the US needed at the time even if it was away from what they’d’ve typically wanted or voted for?
Let’s just say I know a lot of Obama Republicans–guys whose commitment to sanity, equal rights for all, and scientific fact overwhelms their loyalty to the GOP. Young conservatives are by and large not going to vote for anti-science, race-baiting and racist jerkwads just because they have good hair and a “R” next to their names.
I so dearly desperately want this to be true. Not because I like Obama but because my experience with young republicans on college campuses has saddened me, as someone who values sober careful thinking.
(The crunchy granola people similarly sadden me, to be clear.)
Are you telling me there’s something of a silent majority–or large silent minority–of young conservatives who don’t have the values of a hybrid objectivist religious fundamentalist?
I won’t even claim there’s a majority. Just that, in my experience, there’s enough of them to strongly influence elections where there’s typically less than a 5% margin.
How can you make such a ridiculous statement? That kind of crap adds nothing to the conversation. Neither Clinton nor Obama hate America. In my opinion, they honestly want what is best for the country–it’s just that what they think is best is different from what I think is best. They aren’t traitors and they probably don’t run live kittens through sausage grinders for amusement.
Rational minds can differ on political issues. Neither side is inherently evil. Odds are good that I won’t be voting for Obama in 2012. I think he’s been ineffective, and I disagree with many of his policies. I also think he’s a decent human being, honestly pursuing what he believes to be the best course for the country–but that course is not the one I think we should take.
Government can regulate the economy (often poorly and injuriously) to help prevent some of the worst effects of the economic cycle, and it did fail in several key regulatory ways leading up to the housing-market bubble bursting.
What no President and no government can do is wave a magic wand and fix an economic downturn. It didn’t work at all during the New Deal and it has obviously not worked very well in the modern era.
Some degree of “backstop” was necessary, and for that reason by and large TARP was necessary. Not having that backstop would have lead to greater problems than we ended up having.
Since government cannot fix economic downturns, why should it even attempt to stimulate the economy? Well, I do believe that stimulus efforts can alleviate some effects of downturns, and perform a “social good” if done properly. I still don’t know personally when I agree with such activities and when I oppose them.
The Obama stimulus obviously prevented some loss of jobs, however while Paul Krugman (who is only about 20% serious economist and 80% political pundit these days) advocates for essentially unrestrained spending in an economic downturn if you note many other economists who supported stimulus spending have actually faulted the Obama stimulus.
We can argue that the stimulus should have spent more money to save more jobs, and maybe it should have. I think the single biggest problem with the stimulus though is it was not nearly job-oriented enough, instead it was concerned with protecting sacred cows like GM instead of doing things that I believe could have been more directly used to create new jobs. The best way for government to stimulate the job market is to spend money on things that will directly create jobs, unfortunately the Obama stimulus spent too much money on propping up sacred cows like GM and tax cuts–which do not create jobs as efficiently as say, direct spending on infrastructure projects.
Now, I am a conservative, I don’t normally believe that it is the job of government to create jobs in any case. I do believe that if you are passing a massive stimulus package to create jobs, the majority of the money should go towards “direct job creation”, instead a lot of it went to saving failing companies and tax cuts which are not as efficient dollar for dollar. Obama deserves the blame for that, and he is trying to make up with it via his newly proposed jobs package, we will have to see how that goes.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, please spread the word that unemployment statistics are not calcuated from the number of people filing benefit claims. They are calculated from a random sampling of households. And the rate is based on the number of individuals who are looking for a job but cannot find one. The “actual” rate includes unemployed people who have given up looking and are no longer considered part of the workforce.
I think the point of saving GM was very much jobs-oriented - it wasn’t just GM workers on the line but everyone from the companies that supply parts to the car dealerships as well. GM failing would have taken down a lot of other business as well.
As soon as the smoke clears and there is just one Republican nominee standing, all the Dem guns are gonna zero in on him or her and their numbers are gonna drop like a rock, because they ALL have serious flaws.
Jimmy Carter is to Iran Hostage Crisis as Barack Obama is to:
a) NAVY Seal rescue of Richard Phillips, captain of the container ship MV Maersk Alabama, from Somali pirates
b) Fall of Muammar Gaddafi
c) Death of Osami bin Ladin
d) All of the above
They were plenty of people on this board who were absolutely positive that Kerry would beat Bush in 2004. They were all sure because how could anybody vote for Bush? It was unthinkable.
Conservatives should exercise a little caution. If you don’t understand how somebody could choose Obama in 2008, don’t assume you understand who voters will choose in 2012.
Obama was elected in 2008 by a ten million vote margin. Do you honestly think that millions of people who voted for Obama in 2008 are going to vote for Michele Bachmann in 2012?
Republicans need to wake up and realize that none of their current candidates are Ronald Reagan. They’re Barry Goldwaters with maybe a couple of Gerald Fords. Obama may be Jimmy Carter but Jimmy Carter could beat these guys.
And I was 18 years old so I remember that election just as V[COLOR=“BLUE”]I[/COLOR]VI[COLOR=“Magenta”][COLOR=“Magenta”][COLOR=“Magenta”]D[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]LY. The one thing I remember that you have forgotten or conveniently chosen to ignore is the Iran hostage crisis. As I recall things, this was the event that did the most damage to the public perception of Jimmy Carter as being ineffective and incompetent. I also seem to recall the humiliating failure of Operation Eagle Claw serving as the fatal blow to any chances Carter had of getting reelected. Oddly, I seem to recall Obama having much better results with a high profile, middle of the night, military raid.
I have no idea at this point who will win in November 2012. I also think there is quite a bit of overconfidence among my fellow Democrats on this board given the present situation and mood in the country. Having said that, I haven’t seen or read anything to make me feel Obama is doomed. If Romney gets the nomination then I suspect it will be a really close race. If Perry gets it then I will feel a little more secure Obama will be reelected. Then again, this election is still a loooooong way away.
This begs the question. You have to pass the legislation. He was lucky to get what he got before the Republicans turned it into the “just say no” Congress.
Conceptually, half the problem is strictly economics, and half is perception. The market is whipsawing based on every new press release. While there is some potential about what to do about the underlying issues, there is no clue about how to consistently support “market confidence”.
In terms of military ventures abroad, there’s a world of difference between Obama and Carter. Basically, Obama continues to kick ass.
This should probably give true progressives some pause - they’d hate this in a Republican president, and Obama is for all intents and purposes a moderate Republican.
Carter didn’t really beat Gerald Ford–he beat Nixon. Gerry just happened to be the stand-in on the ballot. Likewise, Obama beat Bush, with McCain standing in on the ballot.
To win in 2012, the GoP nominee has to beat Obama. An actual, sitting president running on his own record. That record is not especially impressive, but Obama owns it, and unseating him is going to be an uphill battle. It’s going to take a relatively middle of the road candidate. Bachman has no chance at the nomination. Perry has a shot at the nomination, but no real chance of winning the general election. If the Tea Party runs a serious third party candidate, Obama wins in a blowout. Even Sarah Palin ought to be able to figure that out.
I agree with this. My point was that anyone who claims it’s unthinkable that people will vote for Obama has to explain why almost seventy million people did vote for Obama.
Too many board pundits are idealogues who literally can’t see the other side’s viewpoint. If you read the OP, you wouldn’t be able to understand how any Democrat ever got elected. And you could find even more posters on this board who find the Republicans equally incomprehensible.
I agree with the OP that Obama is a second-rate candidate. There are some valid comparisons to Jimmy Carter. But I’m also aware of the vulnerabilities of the Republican candidates, which the OP seems to be unaware of. Most of these people are struggling to be third-rate.
It’s still early. One of the Republicans will get nominated and the party will fall in behind him or her. Once the internal competition is gone, the nominee will grow in stature. But by the same token, Obama will go into campaign mode which he hasn’t had to do yet. He’ll start working on his election image and his stature will increase as well. Maybe a year from now we’ll be able to make some realistic predictions.
But anyone who’s saying this election has been decided at this point is kidding themselves.
Obama has his faults and, given the tepid-to-bad economy, could certainly lose next year, but he’s no Jimmy Carter unless (a) he draws a pretty strong Democratic primary opponent, as Jimmy did in Ted Kennedy, and (b) is mired in a prolonged overseas crisis, as Jimmy was with the Iranian hostage situation. Right now, I don’t see either happening. Facile historical comparisons mislead more than they educate.
Everything is talk until October '12 and even then it’s just slightly informed talk.
Getting elected the first time is about convincing the American people that they don’t hate you personality-wise, convincing them they like you better than the other guy, and then running a good enough campaign to roll over the finish line. That’s in an open, contested election with no incumbents.
Every incumbent President is essentially facing a referendum on their first four years as President, and that referendum is almost always based on the economy. Which is kind of unfortunate because unless the President has actively done something very stupid it is unlikely they have damaged the economy and essentially impossible for them to fix it.
If the economy still sucks in '12 it will come down to whether or not the GOP candidate can pass a national likability test and if he can convince people he will fix the economy. That isn’t a slam dunk, given the GOP slate. I think the economy will be marginally better in Oct '12 than it is now, and unless the GOP nominates Romney they won’t have someone who has a fighting chance of getting moderates so it will truly be Obama’s election to lose. Realistically unless we’re in the swing of a new recession in October '12 I’d say that regardless of the incumbent it is always theirs to lose, and that’s what I think about Obama.