Doctor Fate wrote:He has, via the EPA, NLRB and DoJ enacted social and economic change of a scale not seen since the 60's without so much as a whisper to Congress.

So then he's come through on at least half his mandate: change (if not hope).

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:He has, via the EPA, NLRB and DoJ enacted social and economic change of a scale not seen since the 60's without so much as a whisper to Congress.

So then he's come through on at least half his mandate: change (if not hope).

I'd love to see that bumper sticker: Change: redefining the Constitution since 2009!

Nicely done.

Fate

Every great power has fallen because it overextended itself financially. While that was sometimes marked by an overreaching military, that is a symptom and not the disease. The fatal illness is presuming that there is no ceiling on what a nation can spend. Dr. Obama senses we've got a fever and his prescription is "more spending."

Obama will have to spend an awful lot to get to the level of spending that occured the last time the US successfully spent its way out of a horrible depression that was larger in magnitude then the 08 crash and super recession...
Somehow that incredble debt didn't sink the country....rather it launched a long period of sustained growth. Perhaps its that historical precedent that Obama "senses"?
I think its commendable that you worry about the country over extending itself militarily and seeking under the debt of sustaining an out sized military. Hasn't Romney sworn to increase military spending substantially and yet still somehow decrease the defict?

rickyp wrote:Fate

Every great power has fallen because it overextended itself financially. While that was sometimes marked by an overreaching military, that is a symptom and not the disease. The fatal illness is presuming that there is no ceiling on what a nation can spend. Dr. Obama senses we've got a fever and his prescription is "more spending."

Obama will have to spend an awful lot to get to the level of spending that occured the last time the US successfully spent its way out of a horrible depression that was larger in magnitude then the 08 crash and super recession...

Many differences and we've debated it before. We don't have the manufacturing base we did then. We have more global competition than we did then.

Somehow that incredble debt didn't sink the country....rather it launched a long period of sustained growth. Perhaps its that historical precedent that Obama "senses"?

Then he should run on it. "Just like it took FDR a decade to get America back on its feet, I need more time." At least that would be honest. I think he's wrong, but at least it would be honest.

This is a feeble recovery, tottering on the brink of a double-dip. In the midst of that, all of the sudden Obama wants to do what he said would be wrong less than two years ago when the economy was stronger: raise taxes.

I think its commendable that you worry about the country over extending itself militarily and seeking under the debt of sustaining an out sized military. Hasn't Romney sworn to increase military spending substantially and yet still somehow decrease the defict?

Given that we are about to slash military spending because of Obama's lack of leadership, I think Romney has an advantage--fewer cuts, smarter spending will easily seem like a buildup. Plus, if he just does what Obama promised--going through the budget line-by-line--Romney could save hundreds of billions of dollars in a couple of years.

Not everyone is pessimistic about U.S. economy. http://www.economist.com/node/21558576

freeman2 wrote:Not everyone is pessimistic about U.S. economy. http://www.economist.com/node/21558576

Great, but the stats are the stats. And, at best, they are muddled.

Besides, we know not everyone is pessimistic. The President says the private sector is doing fine? After all, once temp jobs are removed, the private sector added a whopping 30K jobs last month alone! And, while he said it would be irresponsible to increase taxes two years ago when the rate of growth was higher, President Obama now supports raising taxes. So, obviously, he is very optimistic that we are spending and taxing our way out of the recession!

Jay Cost has an interesting column today about the differences and accuracy between a registered voter poll and a likely voter poll. He also discusses what this could mean for the President.

Romney has a 35% approval/40% disapproval rating according to latest poll

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... six-points

Can we say weak candidate?

While some point to Obama's weak approval figures, you have to look at both candidates. I believe that no Republican challenger since Dole had negative figures at this stage, and even Dole's were better than Romney's.

Of course, this could simply be down to heavy negative campaigning and that may unwind or at least become less effective over the next 3 months. But it does mean Romney has a job to do.

What all the negative campaigning does is cement previously held attitudes and increase the negatives for both candidates, particularly for the undecided and independents.... Nothing fundamental is being changed by all the campaigning and money spent.

freeman2 wrote:Romney has a 35% approval/40% disapproval rating according to latest poll

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... six-points

Can we say weak candidate?

Yes, yes we can. His name is President Obama.

I was praying someone would post this poll. Thanks for your cooperation. I also appreciate the Left Echo Chamber for jumping in. Maybe you all would like to look just a bit more deeply at it?



Now, does that look anything like the electorate we're going to see in November?

The 2008 national exit poll sample, taken when Hopenchange fever was at its zenith, was 39D/32R/29I, or D+7. This one, after three years of Obamanomics dreck, is somehow D+11 if you include leaners and D+12(!) if you don’t. Anyone feel like taking these results seriously?

Keep jumping up and down boys! Your man is way ahead!

It's funny, some polls just refuse to look at the world as it is.

Now let’s take a look at the partisan breakdown (D/R/I) in the sample data for each state, and compare them to 2008 and 2010 exit polling:

Florida: CBS/NYT 36/27/32, 2008 37/34/29, 2010 36/36/29
Ohio: CBS/NYT 35/27/32, 2008 39/31/30, 2010 36/37/28
Pennsylvania: CBS/NYT 38/32/26, 2008 44/37/18, 2010 40/37/23
The CBS/NYT model has Democrats a +9 in Florida when in 2008 they were only a +3 and an even split in the 2010 midterms. Ohio’s sample has exactly the split in 2008 (D+8), which is nine points better than Democrats did in the midterms. Pennsylvania’s numbers (D+6) come closest to a rational predictive model, somewhere between 2008′s D+7 and 2010′s D+3, but still looking mighty optimistic for Democratic turnout.

In other words, these polls are entirely predictive if one believes that Democrats will outperform their turnout models from the 2008 election in Florida and Ohio. That would require a huge boost in Democratic enthusiasm and a sharp dropoff in Republican enthusiasm — which is exactly the opposite that Gallup found last week.

I get more confident with every skewed poll.

The article from Jay Cost I linked to above talks about the same issue.

Each polling companies vary in details of how they structure their sample, how they arrive at their sample, and how they actually poll. the tendencies you note are often called the house effect. The very best in the business can track that house effect, and don't take individual polls very seriously.
In the US election its the 51 individual elections in each state that count anyway. So national numbers are only directional, not really predictive.
Nate Silver is still the best at combining and parsing all the results and getting to the heart of the matter.... Who's really likely to get the electoral college votes required.
According to him Barry's doing all right.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... advantage/

Moved from another forum.

freeman2 wrote:Fox news poll indicates Obama has big lead
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 ... ort-slips/

I'm not sure if late news on economy will be a big factor--people have already factored that in.I think obama has effectively painted Romney as out of touch with average voter's concerns--if he doesn't change that impression he loses And now I hear there is pressure to add Ryan as VP--that will make it even easier for Obama

Hey, I'm willing to go double or nothing.