When President Obama is re-elected!!

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Fri May 11, 2012 5:04 pm

Good to see you back Jscott.

As you can see, it is not the post about Bordeaux that get most popularity... so if you want to discuss about US politics, you seem to be a t the right spot!

Pretty scary what happened with you smelling sense, but you can now just laugh at us, still stucked with the dilemma of buying or not the 2009-2010 and other coming vintages of Bordeaux, that are always more expensive.

Nic

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat May 12, 2012 6:59 pm

Hi Jay. Yes, one of the originals.This place has brought alot of great people together over the years, even as it evolves and people come and go. Amazing to think about from that perspective, both in the sense that these are people who would've had virtually no chance of meeting prior to the advent of this kind of technology, and also in the sense that so many previous strangers are such genuinely kind and interesting people. Simultaneously astounds with technology and confirms one's faith in humanity generally. Which are two pretty great things to come out of a little corner of the internet!

Nic, as much fun as I used to have chasing the futures market, now I'm permanently on the sidelines watching the action. Every career comes to an end, though, so it feels natural in some ways....

Jay Winton · Post by **Jay Winton** » Mon May 14, 2012 1:20 pm

Scott, just caught up with this thread. Very sorry to read about your issues with sense of taste. Still hope we can meet in person someday!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue May 15, 2012 11:22 pm

I see the NYT Times/CBS poll has Romney up by 3 points. It is not 10 points but it might as well be.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed May 16, 2012 11:35 pm

Crazy polls these days! Saw a Fox poll that has Obama up by 7.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Thu May 17, 2012 8:26 am

Guys latest polls says it will be very close thus what they do from here on is going to make a big difference.

Nick
Buy 2009. This is a seriously good vintage I assume you and I am not selling them!
It is a modern day 82.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 17, 2012 11:54 pm

So the rest of the world perceives this as a close race, eh, Claudius? Interesting. My is the rest of the world in for a shock. I honestly do not see this race as even being close. I see a very comfortable Romney electoral college victory. Just watched a funny money negative ad against the prez on my local TV station. It is amazing how the public has no idea what is even happening. Karl Rove had a good article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about the very bad month the Obama campaign just had. As I've said so many times, gosh do I wish I were wrong. Unfortunately, as we move into summer, I've never been more convinced that Barack Obama is about to become the next Jimmy Carter. In fact, I'm going to make a bold prediction: As a result of his recent gay marriage support (which I support), Obama will now lose Pennsylvania, which he would have won otherwise. And, of course, without Pennsylvania, a Demicratic candidate cannot win the presidency. There is no way you can be pro gay marriage in a bad economy and still win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, which is what the prez must do. Obama is finished. What a shocker that is going to be to the world.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri May 18, 2012 12:22 am

I'm sure there must be some network, Jim, willing to give you a job as a talking head just for your counter-common perspective.

It is true that the American population seems torn on the whole gay thing. While the polls show that support for gays and their issues is steadily increasing, even over 50%, nonetheless whenever some bill or initiative for gays is put to a vote, it seems to go down to defeat. Odd that. Will there be a time when the vote goes the other way?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri May 18, 2012 12:38 am

Oh in 20 years, Bacchus, this whole gay marriage controversy will seem silly. Young people of course support gay marriage overwhelmingly. It is of course silliness not to. Even the Republicans realize that in the long term. Unfortunately, that's not going to help Barrack in the November election. The biggest problem with the inevitable Romney victory is that it will back us up for a generation on the supreme court, in Congress, in state legislatures, etc. The impacts of money and gerrymandering, the assault on women's reproductive rights, gun rights, the Tea Party agenda, the assault on the poor, etc. , etc., will dominate for at least another 20 years. I was a Hillary man in the 2008 primaries. The Cause would have been much better off with her in the White House. Shame on the New York Times and the liberal hypocrites for abandoning her for the new kid on the block. Obama, in the end, is basically a light weight.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri May 18, 2012 12:54 am

Jim, in your list of issues with the repubs is the assault on women. From my perspective sitting up here in Canada, it blows my mind. What blows it even more, however, is that there still are women prepared to vote Repub! I really don't understand that. Can you shed some light on the matter?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri May 18, 2012 3:03 am

Boy that's a good question, Bacchus. In the end, young people just don't vote. Whether it is young women or young men, they just don't vote. Contrary to the shallow analysis of some in the media, Obama didn't get voted in four years ago by any great surge in youth vote, etc. It is a myth every four years that some great youth movement is going to decide the election. In 2008 Obama won because people were tired of 8 years of Bush/Cheney, and because the Republicans put up a weak candidate in McCain and Palin was a catastrophe. It is not young sexually active women who decide elections. It is the soccer moms in places like Ohio and Iowa, and, of course, the big money guys like the Koch brothers. And the Joe the Plummers.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Fri May 18, 2012 4:14 am

Jim
The polls published in Asia were I think before the gay marriage issue.
It is sad if voters change their vote based only on whether Obama supports or oposes gay marriage.
If you are not gay, then why do you have a right to tell others if they can get married?
And it you think you can, then gay people should have a right to say if straight people can get married.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:23 pm

Romney up by 6 in Florida in the highly respected Quinnipiac University poll.
I am now adjusting my prediction from "comfortable Romney victory" to "landslide Romney victory."

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed May 23, 2012 3:36 pm

Oh oh -- Marco's star just got a little bit shinier!

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed May 23, 2012 3:57 pm

I need help, Jim. I do not understand, even in the least, the infatuation of the American voting public with the Republicans. To me they just seem nasty. They seem to be against women, afro-americans, latinos, or anyone that might bear the label "immigrant." They seem to be pro rich and pro wall street at the expense of anyone who has less than $10 million worth of assets. They seem to be against unions and anyone who works rather than invests for a living. "Rights" seems to be anathema to them, despite the fact that American foundational documents seem pre-occupied with the idea. They seem to be ruining anything vaguely related to social/community service -- teachers, firefighters, etc., are all being reduced under Repub administrations across the country. They claim to be about the economy -- and we all know it's all about the economy -- but they don't seem to be very good at it actually, unless you're already very wealthy. W, as we all know, led the country into a near depression. They claim to be about fiscal responsibility, yet at least since the 80s they have run up larger deficits than the Dems. Lately they don't even seem interested in the country's infrastructure, even though that used to be one of their concerns. I'm not arguing that the Dems are saints and don't have their problems, but they don't seem anywhere as nasty as the Repubs. And the idea that the Repubs are better on economic issues seems pretty thin. So I'm truly at a loss as to why anyone other than Mitt's mother would vote for them?

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed May 23, 2012 5:38 pm

@ Bacchus:

1. God backs the Republicans.

2. The Republicans have better liars than the Democrats.

3. Americans want to be as rich as role model Romney and pay 14% of AGI in federal taxes.

4. Obama is a person of color.

That is all I can come up with.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed May 23, 2012 8:05 pm

Current state polling shows Obama can lose Florida, Ohio and Virginia, and still squeak out a victory. But if he loses those three big states (and I think he is sure to lose Virginia), he needs to win PA, CO, NV, IW, NH and WI to do so. Ouch.

But if Obama wins Florida, it's hard to see how he loses.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed May 23, 2012 11:55 pm

I really liked this post. Just wanted to bring it back to the current page...

JimHow wrote:Here is my JimHow prediction, on April 20th, of the electoral college breakdown in November.
270 electors are needed to win.

Barack Obama
ME... 4
NH... 4
VT... 3
MA... 11
NY... 29
RI... 4
CT... 7
NJ... 14
DE... 3
MD... 10
DC... 3
PA... 20
MI... 16
MN... 10
IL... 20
WI... 10
WA... 12
OR... 7
CA... 55
HI... 4
IA... 6

Barack Obama Total: 252

Mitt Romney
VA... 13
WV... 5
NC... 15
SC...9
GA... 16
FL... 29
AL... 9
MS... 6
AR... 6
LA... 8
TX... 38
OH... 18
IN... 11
KY... 8
TN... 11
MO... 10
OK... 7
KS... 6
NE... 5
SD... 3
ND... 3
MT... 3
WY... 3
CO... 9
NM... 5
UT... 6
AZ... 11
ID... 4
NV... 6
AK... 3

Mitt Romney Total: 286

Mitt Romney wins the U.S. Presidency....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu May 24, 2012 1:18 am

@ stefan: God likes the best liars! Who knew?!

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Thu May 24, 2012 5:03 am

Bacchus
I'm an Australian living in Asia and constantly travel thru Asia, Europe and just about everywhere else.
I have to say that the rest of the world sees American politics as rather bizarre.
The President, supposedly the most powerful man in the world, is beholden to the Reps in Congress and struggles to do anything remotely important.
He is blamed for the heap of shit that the Reps under Bush Jnr created in the GFC - which is sill making a total mess out of Europe in particular.

The Reps talk about fiscal responsibility yet demonstrate a lack of interest in and understnading of economic theory and international business (which I've taught for decades by the way).
They seem to think that they do not have to know anything, learn anything or do very much other than look after very narrow sectional interests.

I have to say that I shake my head in disbelief and dismay that people can relate God to a party in the USA.
So how is that any different to fundamentalist Islamic countries? They don't give a shit about economics or community needs either.
Everything becomes driven by zealotry and avarice.

The rest of the world sees the USA as the most powerful nation but one in decline of its own making.
Try asking the Chinese what they think. And no I am not advocating their position or anyne else's.

You are correct about being nasty as they seem to lack acceptance of the legitimacy of the Democrats, of interests other than their own and in not just minority groups but the vast majority of the public. Yet they seem to have engendered broad support for reactionary policy that will adversely affect the lives of most Americans.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 24, 2012 6:15 am

>>
the rest of the world sees American politics as rather bizarre.
>>

A lot of Americans, myself included, sees American politics as bizarre.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu May 24, 2012 7:42 am

The question I have, Claudius, is given what you say about the Republicans, why is the American voter in love with them? Why does the American voter overlook all of those nasty qualities, including their horrible record on the economy and things fiscal, and vote for them anyway? This is the part that amazes and confuses me.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu May 24, 2012 11:35 am

New battleground polling out this morning 5/24/12 from NBC News and Marist College:

President Barack Obama holds a narrow advantage over presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney in three of the most pivotal presidential battleground states -- Florida, Ohio and Virginia -- according to new NBC-Marist polls.

But in each of these states, Obama's share of the vote is below the 50 percent threshold usually considered safe haven for an incumbent president, and Romney has narrowed the margin in these three battlegrounds since earlier this year.

In Florida and Virginia, Obama leads Romney by an identical four-point margin, 48 percent to 44 percent … In Ohio, the president is ahead by six points, 48 percent to 42 percent.

As NBC points out, those are tighter margins than in the network's last round of swing-state polling. Democrats are also up in the Virginia, Florida and Ohio Senate races, though by small gaps that indicate all three are likely to be close in November.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 24, 2012 11:41 am

The slightly scary thing about that electoral tabulation I did, David, is that I could actually imagine IA and WI going to Romney. And the other scary thing is that, even if CO and NM were to switch from Romney to Obama in this example, Romney would STILL win. I've already given up on FL. As usual, it is ALL coming down to OH! The candidate who wins OH wins the presidency.

Claudius: The system was DESIGNED to make it difficult to pass legislation. The system was designed to encourage gridlock. The House was intended to have a very different role than the Senate, etc. Laws should not be passed easily. Gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing by itself. And early in the history of the country, Chief Justice Marshall carved out a role for the U.S. Supreme Court that actually served the country well for a couple centuries. This is not the first time in history that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has caused heartburn to a president trying to defend his major initiatives. FDR's battles with the Supreme Court are a prime example.

What HAS changed, and this goes to Bacchus's points, is the influence of money. Money has completely poisoned the groundwater in DC. Legislators receive billions every year in legal bribes. We live in a country where bankers get $10 million bonuses when a company FAILS, but we can't find money for senior citizens, who have fought in our wars and built up the country, who have to ration their prescription drugs. How can that be? Because of the power of money. And I'm not sure the average person sees the tsunami that is coming this fall, when Romney and the Republicans outspend Obama and the Democrats by a margin of 2-1. It is going to be mindblowing. The country is very divided, Bacchus. As great as this country is, it has always had a mean streak to it. And as "the American way of life" slips through our fingers, the American public is getting more and more ugly. there will be riots eventually, from both the right and the left. Combine voter ignorance with the influence of money, and you see the current state of affairs in the U.S. Just look at the Republican primaries we just witnessed: Several times a non-Romney jumped to the lead: Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, etc. Whenever someone else jumped ahead, Mitt just opened up the spigot of negative ads, and a 15 point Gingrich lead would switch to a 15 point Romney lead in less than a week. Ignorance and money: It's the American Way.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 24, 2012 11:43 am

Interesting results, blanquito. Not calming my fears, though. I wonder whether the Bain issue will have an impact. I say it will hurt Romney, but the economy will hurt Obama more.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:30 pm

Take that Mitt

Massachusetts: Romney vs. Obama Suffolk/7News Obama 59, Romney 34 Obama +25

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:34 pm

Can a candidate who loses his home state win the election? Gore came close.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:47 pm

Hey, even Mondale won Massachusetts....

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:51 pm

You know, I like the prevailing politics in MA. It is too bad that the people there are so rude. In Texas it is the opposite; the stupidest kind of "conservatism", but people are very polite.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Thu May 24, 2012 5:41 pm

Ok, let make things clear:

Is the Democrats or the Republicains that prefer Bordeaux wines? So the others prefer Bourgogne wines and are the Evil ones.

Nic

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu May 24, 2012 11:21 pm

Most Republicans are boring as a 1993 Batailley.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:53 am

Republicans wouldn't admit to liking either Bdx or Burgundy. Both are from France!! They prefer freedom wine. Actually, I'm pretty sure they'd try and outlaw wine. They prefer Welches freedom grape juice.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:02 am

Of course, Tricky Dick Nixon loved Chateau Margaux.
In classic Republican fashion, he wouldn't share any with anyone else in the room.
You think I'm making this up....

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri May 25, 2012 2:10 am

Prohibition, after/during one of the most Republican stretches in American history: Harding (1 term), Coolidge (1+ terms), Hoover (1 term, 1 Great Depression).

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:57 pm

I heard a recent commentary that posited either a very narrow Obama win or a comfortable Romney win. I didn't catch the thought process, unfortunately, but those were the two proposed scenarios. It seems plausible to me in that Obama will either lose big because of a flagging economy or find a way to squeak out just enough support in the right places to pull off what is usually an impossible handicap.

I'm not about to begin to try to defend the Republican party but I frankly would say the same about the Democrat party. I really don't think the difference between them is as great as they both seem to think. We've had both parties in charge at various points over the past 40 years and throughout all of it the end results are approximately the same. One side is every bit as nasty as the other, don't kid yourself. Both parties somehow manage to argue strenuously their purpose in life is defending issues and principles that they never practice. Repubs claim to be the party of fiscal discipline but haven't balanced a budget in my lifetime. Dems claim to be the defenders of personal freedom but seem hell-bent on doing everything they can to limit it. I remember during our discussion a few years ago expressing concern about cameras on the street corners and most here thought it was much ado about not much. Now we have drones circling the neighborhoods and warrantless eavesdropping by the military on any and every private conversation, archived for years. Anyone bothered yet?

Earlier in this thread there were some report cards on Obama. The argument was whether he deserved an A or a B. You guys are far easier graders than I. Obama was elected because people wanted changes in policy. Let's see...

1) The wars. In the end, the Iraq drawdown ended up proceeding along the Bush timetable (and, as I predicted four years ago, is not and likely will never be truly complete; we just "re-assigned" troops there, classifying them as something else to be able to claim they're all gone). Obama nearly quadrupled the troop commitment in Afghanistan and conducted a clandestine "unofficial" invasion in Libya. There is a trial underway in Guantanamo, which was the scourge and embarrassment, the very face of the Bush arrogance and warmongering, that couldn't remain open for a single day longer. Has anyone heard when it's due to be closed? I missed it....

2) Gay marriage. Obama had an "evolution" just in time for the election cycle. If we're going to ask why women are willing to vote Republican, I think it's fair to ask why gays are willing to vote Democrat. (Along those lines, I need someone to explain what the "attack on women" is about. At this point I see it as a completely manufactured, election season issue, frankly, that is only likely to solidify the base rather than draw in undecideds, but what do I know?)

3) The economy. Worst in my lifetime. Granted, it was not good when Obama was sworn in, but he didn't make it better. He made speeches about where his policy was going to take us and didn't deliver. To say now that it was just too hard doesn't carry the water. He over-promised and under-delivered. The party line is that it would've been so much worse if he hadn't stepped in. Let me say in advance that wherever you are it would've rained today if not for my positive thoughts that prevented it. You're welcome! It's an impossibly weak argument. I keep hearing how it was all Bush's fault, those damn tax cuts for the wealthy, that gave us this whole mess. If they were so utterly ruinous and the cause of the world's misery, Obama deserves even more scorn for having extended them.

4) Healthcare. Likely about to be dismantled in pieces. The net effect is that the system will have been made even worse. The irony is that he was politically too timid to call it a tax, which would not and could not have been legally challenged, largely because of his famous "not one dime" stump speeches. Can you say "read my lips?" A debacle and a complete waste of political capital. It isn't even popular and never has been.

5) The environment. This is mostly a story of incoherent and incompatible policy, much of it abandoned, coupled with embarrassing spending choices (Solyndra, etc.). Again, how does an environmentalist pull a lever here?

I'm trying to see any way to a passing grade, frankly. Obama is trying desperately to paint this as all the fault of Bush and the Republicans but they held all the cards for the first two years. They could've passed almost anything they wanted, and the only thing they did was a trillion in spending that didn't accomplish what they said it would and a healthcare plan that is still unpopular and likely about to be unconstitutional (doubly embarrassing coming from a constitutional law prof). All that said, I'm not a fan of Romney, either, and will be happy to pile on him, but I think it's more interesting when there are two sides to a debate. Like Jim, I wonder what the world would look like today if we had chosen to make history with the first female president instead....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm

Sadly, Scott, there is much truth in what you say. There's a great article in this week's Rolling Stone on the demise of Dodd Frank and the brutish power or money. As I've said over and over, the system is hopelessly broken. I've given up all hope. My goals in life are to have my little home with my plot of land, plant my garden, try to leave some money for my nieces and nephews for college, try to do good for as many people as I can in my little community, keep my wine cellar stocked up, read my books and write my music, and try to live a good, simple life til I join everyone in that Great Tasting Room in the Sky. Theres nothing that can be done to save this country from itself, the problems are much too complex and the political system is just not equipped to fix it.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat May 26, 2012 12:52 am

Has anyone noticed that Rhode Island is like going bankrupt?
Has anyone been following the Curt Schilling saga?
There is some unbelievable stuff going on out there.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat May 26, 2012 12:49 pm

Jim, I've also become a bit pessimistic about the odds of righting the ship. I think it's still possible, but absolutely requires someone bold, charismatic and brilliant, someone with vision who is able to promote that vision convincingly, who is able to build an undeniable consensus, someone who doesn't give a shit about polls, pundits, the news cycle, re-election or their place in history, but is so unwaveringly focused on a principled course of action that others are inspired and compelled to devote themselves completely to that cause. We need William Wallace in a suit and dress shoes. I just don't see anyone on the horizon who fits that description, and I think the window of opportunity is closing. I don't know if it will still be open after another election cycle.

I hear you on the other issues. So much insanity that craziness flies under the radar and under the fold; only the certifiable makes headlines. Strange times.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat May 26, 2012 2:14 pm

Just watched Olympia Snowe march past my office at the head of a Memorial Day parade. She's retiring from the Senate this year, about the last of the moderates in Congress. John McCain could have picked her four years ago. Instead, he picked Sarah Palin. The extremes have taken over politics in the country.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun May 27, 2012 10:29 am

I don't know if any of you watch Bill Maher's show, but I thought it was serendipity that his recent episode of "New Rules" speaks to some of the problems jscott and Jim have been commenting on in this thread. You have to get through a group of short quips about various items before Bill goes on a longer rant on the problems with both the Repubs and Dems -- as he sees it, of course. It's episode 250, which should be front and centre if you click on the following link. His humour can be a little coloured, so if you're uncomfortable with that sort of thing, consider yourselves forewarned:
http://realtimewithbillmaher.blogspot.ca/