When President Obama is re-elected!!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun May 27, 2012 12:40 pm

Funny you should mention that, Bacchus, I just cancelled my HBO yesterday and downgraded my Directv package, I hardly watch TV and I have Netflix. I've been watching this comedy show set in Winnipeg lately, though, I forget what it's called, but it's really funny with good acting. Plus I watched a couple episodes of The Wire for the first time the other day, the characters were pretty interesting, albeit not very realistic dialogue.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Sun May 27, 2012 4:18 pm

It is a good show. Bill Maher is annoying and I dislike his smuttiness, but his political commentary is often right on IMO (as it is in this clip). In particular, "Obama the socialist" is a complete joke, as Maher points out. If an ounce of socialist blood were in his veins, we might have had decent health care legislation, reasonable protection of the environment, and Mitt paying as high a percentage in federal taxes as I pay.

Unfortunately, for right-moderates like me, the only alternative is a wealthy religious autocracy.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 pm

Well it's all over, and you'll be glad to learn, Jim, that your man will win:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/48 ... -will-win/

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:11 pm

Indeed, Bacchus, it is the astrologers who are about the only ones left who are predicting an Obama victory.

hautbrionlover · Post by **hautbrionlover** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:35 pm

I don't know about astrologers, but Obama might win, though certainly not in a landslide.
Barring the good fortune of taking Florida, which seems more than questionable, I predict (having nothing to do with astrology) that this election will be about Ohio.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:46 pm

Stefan, agree completely regarding Maher. He's clearly a bright guy with a very sharp wit but lacks a bit of judgment sometimes. What might be acceptable for a standup in a smoky nightclub over drinks doesn't always play well in a setting of supposedly serious sociopolitical roundtable. We have more and more "entertainers" attempting to cross the line into the arena of what was once the purview of journalists and some seem to be able to pull it off better than others. I suspect somewhere Walter Cronkite is not pleased!

Obama must have polling data that suggests it's a good plan to go after Romney on his Bain career, but he's being badly undercut by some stalwarts in his own party, now including the heavyweight of all heavyweights, Big Bill, coupled with comparisons to his unspectacular foray into managing green energy companies, making that angle look dead in the water. He's in trouble with staunch Catholics now, who were significant supporters last time out but are now suing him. His union support is solid, but barring a last minute swing Wisconsin seems to show that alone won't get it. He still has strong support, I think, among younger voters, but almost certainly not at the level of '08 (Paul got surprisingly strong backing in this group). All indication is that his signature legislation will be tossed this month. Economic data today is dismal, Europe's not helping, and if the markets are this listless through the summer he's in real trouble. Romney also still has coming an almost certain bump from his veep choice, assuming any political savvy at all. What are the odds they find some excuse to dump Joe for Hillary? And will that provide a surge or come off as transparently political and desperate? He'd better have another rabbit in his hat somewhere.......

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:01 pm

If the election were held today ...

However, I hear helicopters. "I love the smell of QEIII in the morning" - Col. Kilgore.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:02 pm

Yeah, I agree, it is those swing states that will kill him. Over 70% of Catholics are at odds with their own hierarchy and support birth control. The problem is not that there is going to be some huge exodus of Catholics from the Obama camp. The problem is that there is going to be just enough of an exodus to shave away those 2 or 3 crucial percentage points in the key swing states. Man, this economic news is abysmal. I see Walker is winning in Wisconsin. Does this all sound familiar? Whenever Romney was losing a primary, he would saturate a state with Super Pac money and pull it out in the end. I'm assuming that is what is happening in Wisconsin right now as well. And wait til you see the final days of the November election. It is going to be amazing.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:04 pm

Houndsong wrote:If the election were held today ...

However, I hear helicopters. "I love the smell of QEIII in the morning" - Col. Kilgore.

LOL. Nice!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:06 pm

JimHow wrote:....The problem is that there is going to be just enough of an exodus to shave away those 2 or 3 crucial percentage points in the key swing states.....

Agreed. Ditto with the younger voters.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:34 am

First time I've seen numbers like this for congress:
Generic Congressional Vote CNN/Opinion Research Republicans 45, Democrats 48 Democrats +3

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:49 pm

Here's a race that's tightening up:

Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren Boston Globe Brown 39, Warren 37..................Brown +2
Massachusetts Senate - Brown vs. Warren Western NE University Brown 43, Warren 45......Warren +2

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:16 pm

That Massachusetts race is fascinating. I'm really struggling to remember a candidate trashed more by the local media than Warren has been by both the Herald and Globe over what seems to me anyway like a complete non-issue. It's kind of bizarre, actually, they are obsessed. Fortunately, Massachusetts voters don't seem to be listening to those two rags (the Globe is about to close its doors anyway). Brown is a real lightweight, very shallow. He'll probably pull it out, though, although, I'll be curious to see the polls after they debate this fall. He's pretty numb.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:18 pm

Apologies if I bring up a point already being discussed but I was reading in Politico that the super rich without a conscience has been mobilised by the likes of Karl Rove to outspend the Dems. The Koch family is reportedly prepared to stump up $400m just as a starter for ten. That is more than McCain raised in 2008. So we now get billion dollar plus campaigns as the unconscionable super rich pay hundreds of millions to avoid tax and ensure that the US remains a plutocracy. So the fiscal cliff will not be resolved until the last minute and confidence will get crushed. It already is. Not just because of the eurozone debacle.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:56 am

Yes, the super rich. Now here's a plan for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wlI9sQP ... ure=relmfu

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:56 am

Comte, I share your concern about the undo influence of money in US elections - from every source. Not just the super rich, but also corporations, unions and everywhere else it arises. That said, I'm not sure these individuals only motivation is "to avoid taxes" as you say. What sense is there is spending $400M to avoid tax that would amount to a fraction of that? I assume instead that it is in support of their ideology, much as the Hollywood crowd, for example, raises sums far beyond the reach of average folk in support of their ideology. I think is an oversimplification to portray the massively rich as interested in money, only money, and screwing others out of their money. How would you characterize, for example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? Has anyone devoted more wealth to political causes than George Soros?

Jim, Warren is really getting pounded by the local press, to the point where I almost wonder if she somewhere along the way made some enemies! The issues being raised are obviously not central policy, but I do think they are damaging, if for no other reason than it distracts her from her message and takes resources. They are the kind of issues that can sting a populist kind of candidate, I think, if they produce even a shade of doubt about honesty, motivation, special treatment, etc. In a race this tight it could make a difference. The debate will be fascinating.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:07 am

The Herald has been drumbeating the issue literally every day on its front pages, which is no surprise. What has surprised me is how much the Globe has crucified her. I mean, years ago, she put down that she was part native American on her Harvard applications because she is like 1/32nd Cherokee. I mean, okay, I guess that's an embarrassing little thing from her past. But it warrants daily front page attention, I mean, like EVERY day? In a race that is razor thin, it probably will cost her the election. I was watching Brown at a committee hearing on CSPAN the other day, attempting to grill the head of the secret service. His questions were so shallow, he is clearly a major lightweight.. But, I guess people eat that shit up.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:23 pm

JScott - of course not all of the super rich are unconscionable. There are some like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who genuinely want to mobilise their enormous wealth for good causes;there are some who want to shout their philanthropy from the roof tops, either to project their ego (George Soros?) or because they feel insecure. Then there are others who having reaped all the spoils want to keep it for themselves. The Koch family wouldn't be shelling out $400m unless they had undertaken a careful cost-benefit analysis. These three broad categories are probably not mutually exclusive anyway.

Then the next question is this: what will these vast sums of money be spent on? The answer is that a lot of it will be spent on negative advertising: mud slinging and character assasinations. This tells you that the two parties will become more polarised than ever before, which suggests that the fiscal cliff issue will not be resolved before we get major market turbulence. This is probably already hurting confidence, hiring and investment as we saw in Friday's employment report.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:27 pm

The latest issue they're raising with her is that she and her family apparently were in the business of flipping foreclosed properties back in the '90's I think. Again, fairly remote history but when that headline sits next to her message about predatory lending and such, she's going to get tagged a little. In all honesty I haven't seen enough of Brown to get a sense of him, but never had him pegged as a real idea man. Maybe that's not fair, but wasn't he a calendar boy somewhere? Am I remembering that right?

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:32 pm

Comte, agree on the problem with the money and the rest. Of course you can't allow some rich guys to spend their money and others not. I'm not about to make assumptions about the motivation for the Koch family any more than the rest of them. I assume they are attempting to advance an ideology they believe in, just as Buffett and Gates. Whether I personally agree with any of them is irrelevant as far as whether it should be permitted. Personally, if only so I don't have to watch the same smarmy commercials back to back all Fall, I'd love to see the money curtailed. But I place personal freedom above all else, so I wouldn't want to be the one to propose the law or the limit.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:31 pm

....and in Wisconsin the fun has already started. The Dem Party is calling for an investigation, four hours into the polls, that calls are being made to constituents telling them if they signed the recall they don't need to vote. There are also claims that some homeowners were paid to post signs in their lawns. You can be certain there will be more filings on both sides before the day is over. Can we have an election any more that doesn't involve teams of attorneys (no offense to the fine legal eagles here!)? Maybe we need to look at this purple thumb thing they have going in the middle east.....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:51 pm

Lol... Where is Jimmy Carter when we need him.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:09 pm

Liz Warren. Yeah it's a bad rap, but still you don't claim Native American heritage based on "family lore." On the other hand there are NA descendants with 1/32 blood that have been certified as official tribes and now run casinos in RI worth billions.

But this is why I'll never run. In first grade we had to do our family trees. I claimed I was a direct descendant of Michaelangelo (di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni). Somewhere that original document is out there and will surface for the right price. Worst part is, I didn't even do that homework assignment. My mother did. I just handed it in.

Gerry M. · Post by **Gerry M.** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:32 pm

Unfortunately, liz Warren has two things working against her. First is that she comes off too much like Martha Coakley, the previous Democratic candidate for Ted's Senate seat. In her effort to portray herself as a fighter for the middle class she crosses the thin line that can be taken for being arrogant, condescending and unwilling to listen to anyone elses opinion other than her own. There is a certain likability factor that voters need to connect to a candidate and sorry to say she doesn't have it IMHO. Also, in remembering the old quote of Tip O'Neil "all politics is local", Liz has no local roots and is campaigning on a national agenda rather than what she plans to do represent the interests of Massachusetts.

The second point, beyond the surface of the whole native american and real estate flipping issues, is a more serious concern of trust. Family lore?? really?? She's an intelligent attorney and I find it hard to believe that she did not understand what the ramifications were when she checked off the boxes on her employment applications stating she was a minority. I cannot help but suspect she understood perfectly well when she checked off those boxes that she stood a better chance of being hired and she reached for any edge she could get. I'm dissapointed in how she chose to respond to the issue by trying to ignore it. She thought the story would just go away with the 24 hour news cycle but she was mistaken. She did give an initial response blaming it all on Harvard but once Harvard responded the two explanations did not jive and she had to fess up.

Scott Brown is an intelectual lightweight despite being a grad of Tufts University. I don't know if he really has any sort of idealogical convictions but he tries to portray himself as a moderate mainstream Republican, which is the only way a Republican can get elected in this State.

I guess as i get older I'm losing my idealism and and becoming more pragmatic in approaching issues. i suspect the same is true for a number of others. With the extreme elements of both political parties in control it's easy to see why we have this political stalemate and toxic debate.

As a result, my prediction is Brown will probably be re-elected because he's a more likable less polarizing figure and not because he's any more qualified.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:52 am

Wisconsin: The Republican 2012 tsunami begins....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:49 am

Sorry to hear that, Jim. We'll take you in up here if you feel the need for a new abode.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:31 am

I've been taking a look at the readers' comments over on the Daily Beast. Posters really seem to hate the unions, especially public sector unions, and anything to do with government. They also seem to think that Walker will solve both these perceived problems. They're probably right that he'll continue to go after the unions, but delusional if they think he'll do anything about the size and influence of government. His power, fame, money and future fortune are entirely dependent upon government, so I doubt he'll kill that golden goose. I suppose it's ironic too that the very people claiming to be against government go out and vote precisely for a government they think will do the job they want a government to do. Time will tell if it will produce the results they want.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:15 pm

Exit polls in WI showed Obama ahead of Romney by 12%, despite the Republican win. It ain't over 'til it's over, but if the job news doesn't pick up Obama's toast.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:45 am

David, the exit polls I've seen aren't quite that optimistic, but I agree WI is still Obama's to lose. Still, the biggest losers here are the public unions and maybe the Dem Party as a whole. They should've passed on the recall vote and tried to rally the base for November. They likely could have rallied some angry motivation that could've helped turnout for the whole ballot. Instead they emptied the chambers on this failed gambit (and it really wasn't even that close) which may ultimately deflate - bottom to top - in the Fall. Whomever made the call on this one at the State Party blew it.

Bacchus, not sure I completely got your point. Even small government advocates still have to vote for a government; "anarchy" isn't on the ballot. Voting "precisely for a government they think will do the job they want a government to do" - if that job is making government smaller - isn't really internally inconsistent. That said, I agree with you that assuming automatically that this bunch is likely to do that is likely a pipe dream, since government has done nothing but grow inexorably regardless of party.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:14 am

I mean, to me, it's a pretty brainless issue. The economy sucks and is broken structurally, and money (surprise) is dominating politics. Wow, what a revelation. We can over-analyze all the issues-- what does Wisconsin mean, which first lady do you prefer, does gay rights help or hurt Obama, etc., etc., etc.-- the bottom line is that a) the American Empire is swiftly coming to an end and b) with Citizens United, corporate influence in the electoral process is unlimited... and I mean UNLIMITED... at all levels, from the presidency, through Congress, through state houses, down to the city council level. Unlimited, I mean, in ways that you have no idea. I've seen it here in Maine, where long term local liberal Democratic legislators have seen $80,000 of Koch Brothers money materialize overnight in the last week of campaigns to sway elections to the Republicans. This is happening EVERYWHERE, at all levels, including the presidency. Obama can hold 20 more George Clooney fundraisers, he will NEVER be able to compete with the Koch Bros., Texas Karl Rove crowd. Obama will be outspent 2-1 this year, just watch. I will reiterate what I have been saying for about two years now: Obama will be a one term president; polls mean NOTHING, Bacchus, when corporate money comes into town in the last month of a campaign, the Republicans will maintain control of the House and will win the Senate, after one term of Romney (let alone two) the 5-4 conservative majority on the supreme court will become at least 6-3, maybe even 7-2. The Repubs will continue to gerrymander Congressional Districts and limit voting through bogus state-level "voter ID laws," etc., which discriminate against the poor, minorities, etc. Fox News will continue to thrive. The Tea Party is the real deal... deal with it, Democrats. Local legislatures and city councils will continue to go Republican for the next 10 years.

For the Dems, there is some good news. In he end, younger generations will at least offer the possibility of salvation. Plus, the American economy is so structurally ravaged with debt that even a President Scott Walker and the elimination of social security/Medicare would not be able to save it, so eventually the Republicans will get blamed for the country's problems. On the other hand, just because the electorate will eventually become younger, does not mean it will become less ignorant. I see Fox News continuing to wreak its damage for at least another decade. So, look for another 10 years of Republican dominance. The big question is, can the Democratic Party survive the next decade, how bad will Romney be?, will Ginsburg be replaced by a liberal or a conservative on the supreme court, etc.... Can the Democratic Party (and the world) survive a generation of Republican conservative leadership? An absolutely fascinating question.

In the end... be ready for a decade of conservative Republican dominance. I hate to say I told you so, but, I told you so: The Democrats should have nominated Hillary in 2008. Seriously, Obama is so in over his head it is not even funny.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:56 am

Jim, you may be right about each and every point you make. But there is still one thing you can't say yet. If you're predicting an Obama loss and a decade of Republican control, you can't say "I told you so" until your prediction actually comes true. At the moment your prediction is still just a prediction, no matter how convincing it may sound. You're a bit premature with the "I told you so." But I agree with the effect big money seems to be having on the voters, so I fear that you may in fact be right. It makes me shake my head because the ads the corporatists spend on their causes seem so obviously manipulative that I have a tough time believing that anyone would fall for them. But they are and, saddly, it seems to be a fairly easy task to convince the voters to vote against their own interests. Prop 29 out in CA is a sad case in point:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/ca ... -they.html

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:54 am

Jim, here's a guy who agrees with you that Romney will pull ahead of Obama to win in Nov, but his analysis of the situation is quite different than yours: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ng/257285/

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:28 am

I think he makes good points. As always, I hope both he and I are wrong!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:10 pm

Interesting article, but a few things strike me. Even as he attempts to lay out the case for compromise, how you define that is all perspective. For example, he views the healthcare bill as center right, apparently, and while it certainly isn't hard left the public doesn't seem to be receiving it as soft conservativism. The point is, one man's compromise is another man's extremism, which is of course the entire problem.

Jim, I think you're underestimating the Republican's ability to muck it up. Right now, I agree that the odds for Obama are getting longer, and along with that the very real possibility that both houses could go GOP, too, but unless you believe Romney has all the answers and will pull the right strings, within a year the mid-term campaigns will start and Congress could trade hands. I think The Dems really did squander a golden opportunity with both houses and the Office in their first two years, but I'd bet the ranch the GOP will do the same. To me the other fascinating wild card in this is when the public starts to get weary of all of them, all the influence that bathes both parties, and a multi-party system starts to become viable like almost all of the rest of western government. The younger generation is very open to it. Like I said earlier, Paul had significant support among the college crowd.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:49 pm

JScott's comments on the article in the Atlantic are driven home by Michael Tomasky's recent piece over at the Daily Beast. He argues that Obama's problem is that he still thinks he can compromise with the GOP, and that he needs to get tough with them!!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/voxbox/mic ... masky.html

Some hopeful if meaningless poll results:
Virginia: Romney vs. Obama Quinnipiac Obama 47, Romney 42 Obama +5
Pennsylvania: Romney vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall Obama 48, Romney 36 Obama +12
Florida: Romney vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 50, Romney 46 Obama +4

President Obama Job Approval Pew Research Approve 46, Disapprove 42 Approve +4

General Election: Romney vs. Obama Pew Research Obama 49, Romney 42 Obama +7
-The significance of this poll is that it is outside the margin of error.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:34 pm

I think we are getting to the point where we can't ignore some of these polls, and I think we have to be reasonably happy if Obama is coming out consistently ahead. He has had a brutal month politically and if he is still up after all that, then that is at least some cause for optimism. We'll see how things shake out after the conventions later this summer and after Labor Day. Hey, it may be that Romney is just not connecting with the public, despite all the things working against the president.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:30 pm

Funny, my first thought looking at those polls was that these are the same people who had Walker in a dogfight the other night! I have no idea how accurate any of them are any more. Jim, I figured since you were feeling a flicker of optimism I may as well go ahead and squash it!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:32 pm

Also this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... UG20120607

Looks like you're all over it, Jim.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:30 pm

It seems to me that only MSNBC and some Dem spokespeople thought the Dems had any chance in Wisconsin. It had been a long time since I saw a poll where Walker trailed. Here's two polls taken on the 4th; the real margin of victory lying almost equa-distant between them:

Wisconsin Governor Recall Election - Walker vs. Barrett PPP (D) Walker 50, Barrett 47 Walker +3
Wisconsin Governor Recall Election - Walker vs. Barrett WeAskAmerica Walker 54, Barrett 42 Walker +12

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:37 pm

Bacchus, actually I'm not familiar with the pollsters you cited above. The major outlets had the race tightening as the day approached and on election night virtually every major network, including CNN, MSNBC and FOX all cited exit polling that showed the race a 50-50 dead heat.