Ah, the Obama derangement syndrome is spreading. Anyone related to someone who has agreed with the guy is Persona Non Granta. Soon the only people you don't denounce as heretics will be able to fit in your living room.

danivon wrote:Ah, the Obama derangement syndrome is spreading. Anyone related to someone who has agreed with the guy is Persona Non Granta. Soon the only people you don't denounce as heretics will be able to fit in your living room.

Please. You are free to start a forum entitled "The Brilliant things President Obama has done."

1. It will be brief.

2. It will be quite funny.

So, please, feel free.

He doesn't have to be 'brilliant' to not be the ogre you believe him to be, Steve. And I won't start a thread because that kind of petty personalised politics centred around one person puts me off, frankly.

You forget that, even in November 2008, some of us who were happy he'd won were not claiming he was going to be the greatest. You, of course, were already telling everyone he was 'to the left of Mao'.

danivon wrote:He doesn't have to be 'brilliant' to not be the ogre you believe him to be, Steve. And I won't start a thread because that kind of petty personalised politics centred around one person puts me off, frankly.

Oh, come on! He needs a cheerleader!

Ultimately, it's not him. It's his policies. He has been consistently wrong--if not about the policies themselves (likely you would support many of them), then certainly about their impact (think Stimulus). When he says something will do 'x,' you can put the family business that it won't do 'x' and will have unintended consequences.

You forget that, even in November 2008, some of us who were happy he'd won were not claiming he was going to be the greatest. You, of course, were already telling everyone he was 'to the left of Mao'.

I'll stand by that. Mao was a pragmatist in comparison.

Oh, going back a bit...

Doctor Fate wrote:Not at all. GHWB won in the shadow of Reagan.

Who in today's climate would be regarded as dangerously liberal, and who was very adept at appealing to the middle ground, to the point that he captured the 'Reagan Democrat' vote. I was actually hoping you'd bring up St Ron as a 'rebuttal point', as of all the recent Republican candidates who appealed to the centre, Reagan is the absolute pinnacle. He did it when Congress was dominated by the Democrats, too, suggesting that the political balance was in a different place to today.

Perot, actually, won a good number of votes from conservatives who were disheartened by what they perceived as Bush moderating FROM Reagan's positions.

Evidence please.

This link suggests that the Perot voters were fairly balanced: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm Wikipedia's source says that in exit polls, 38% of his voters were taken from Clinton and 38% from Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot ... _candidacy

He was pro-choice, pro EPA and protectionist on trade. he called for an increase in gas taxes. In the debates, he challenged Constitutional Originalism "Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it.".

I'm sure that those positions just drew in millions of conservative votes for Perot, Steve. But if they did (or didn't put them off), it looks like he got more than a few moderates as well. Perhaps some liberals. Shocking, eh?

Still, let's see your facts.

danivon wrote:(Reagan) Who in today's climate would be regarded as dangerously liberal, and who was very adept at appealing to the middle ground, to the point that he captured the 'Reagan Democrat' vote. I was actually hoping you'd bring up St Ron as a 'rebuttal point', as of all the recent Republican candidates who appealed to the centre, Reagan is the absolute pinnacle. He did it when Congress was dominated by the Democrats, too, suggesting that the political balance was in a different place to today.

Bonkers. In a time when Carter was declaring "malaise," and cowering in the corner because of the Iranian Revolution, Reagan declared "It is morning in America."

He won because he called Americans to live up to their principles and history. Carter lost because he expected us to get used to the "new normal":

Through the 1970s, the United States underwent a wrenching period of low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates and intermittent energy crises.[10] Reagan was an adherent of supply-side economics, which argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. Accordingly, Reagan promised an economic revival that would affect all sectors of the population. Reagan theorized that cutting tax rates would actually increase tax revenues because the lower rates would cause people to work harder as they would be able to keep more of their money.

Reagan called for a drastic cut in "big government" programs, and pledged to deliver a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. In the primaries, Bush famously called Reagan's economic policy "voodoo economics" because it promised to lower taxes and increase revenues at the same time.

Supply-side economics are reaching to the middle? Woo-hoo! Good to know.

Perot, actually, won a good number of votes from conservatives who were disheartened by what they perceived as Bush moderating FROM Reagan's positions.

Evidence please.

You can start with me. It's no secret, generally. Maybe you Brits don't follow our elections too closely because it seems you know little about 1980 or 1992:

Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.

This link suggests that the Perot voters were fairly balanced: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm Wikipedia's source says that in exit polls, 38% of his voters were taken from Clinton and 38% from Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot ... _candidacy

Even if true, consider this: if conservatives stuck with Bush, Bush would have won. Wiki notes that many who voted for Clinton did so because . . . Bush broke his pledge not to raise taxes. Put those who voted for Perot because they were disillusioned with Bush together with those who voted for Clinton on the tax issue, and you have the two-term GHWB.

Another perspective:

First, Perot spent most of 1992 hammering President Bush over his stewardship of the country. He was free to attack the president unabated at a time when Bill Clinton was still batting away fellow Democratic challengers. So effective was his case to the American people that he topped many mid-summer polls in 1992, beating both Bush and Clinton. The wounds inflicted on Bush by Perot certainly helped take the president down several notches, making Clinton’s victory that much easier.

Secondly, Perot was solely responsible for making the national debt a major issue in 1992. No one really cared about the debt over the course of the ’80s, and had Perot not run, the eventual Democratic nominee, even if it were Bill Clinton, would probably not have come up with the issue on his own. As smart as Clinton was, without Perot showing that the debt issue had political legs, the Arkansas governor would likely have reverted to traditional Democratic talking points about how the Reagan/Bush tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich, and that taxes had to be raised in order to “invest in our country’s future,” or whatever drivel Democrats were peddling back then. Perot, by making the debt the centerpiece of his campaign, gave Clinton a new plank to his own campaign once Perot dropped out and flamed out — that taxes had to be raised to close the deficit. This argument, having been made by both Perot and Clinton, seemed a lot more sensible to voters than the usual Democratic argument that taxes had to go up so that Democrats could spend more money.

Finally, Perot siphoned off a lot of Reagan Coalition voters who were displeased with the Bush Administration. Perot’s economic nationalism appealed to Buchananites, who already had one foot outside of the GOP tent given Pat’s run against Bush earlier in the year. Ross’ seeming dismissal of social issues and isolationist stances were attractive to a lot of forgotten New England Republicans, which is why Perot ran so well in states like Maine, which gave Perot second place in the general election. And his focus on the debt made him the favorite of the green eyeshade types who felt that Reaganomics had been irrational in its projections of future growth. Additionally, I suspect there were a significant number of conservative base voters who cast ballots for Perot as a protest against the president’s perceived RINO-ism, even though Perot is pretty much the definition of a RINO, by today’s standards.

To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992. Bush won Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 54 percent, 55 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, in 1988. Bush/Perot garnered 56 percent, 59 percent, and 54 percent of the vote in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, respectively in 1992. All in all, Bush’s share of the vote from 1988 and the Bush/Perot share of the vote from 1992 seem to overlap significantly, and this holds true in every region of the country and in most of the nation’s largest states. As such, it becomes difficult to argue that Perot hurt Republicans and Democrats equally in 1992. What Perot did was shatter the Reagan/Bush coalition, allowing Bill Clinton to pick up the pieces.

I know, I know. Different statisticians come to different conclusions. I guess it depends on whether one believes the country lurched to the left or whether they were so disgusted by GHWB that they chose someone else.

Point was that they didn't abandon Bush for his 'centrism' as much for his betrayal of a key election pledge. It affected everyone, and would have turned off moderates as much as conservatives, because no-one likes paying more taxes (especially when told categorically that they won't).

Most of Perot's voters identified as 'moderate' rather than 'liberal' or 'conservative'. So surely the bigger problem was not getting the moderates, rather than keeping the conservatives. Had more been done to shore up 'the base', how much could GHWB afford to lose from the centre in the effort?

I keenly followed the 1992 election in the USA, and our media is much better at covering your nation than yours is at covering ours. The world wide web was just emerging, and the internet already existed, and so information was not slow in coming. I admit I was 6 in 1980, and so knew little of what was going on, but I was pretty aware in 1992.

The difference between your stats and the ones presented by my links is that yours look at a simple combined vote by state analysis (which ignores that 1992 saw a large increase in the total vote) and mine look at how the Perot vote was made up. Yours doesn't tell us where the split in the Bush/Perot vote in those states actually occurred. Was it from the right or from the centre, or all across? In all but one of those examples, Bush88 is less than Bush+Perot92, so while there's an overlap, it's not total.

Besides, the 'Reagan/Bush' coalition was largely based on Reagan's general appeal. When Reagan won in 1980, he got less of the Republican vote than Ford had had in 76. But he made up for that by gaining a larger number of Democrat votes and maintaining a majority of Independent votes. when it comes to conservative-moderate-liberal votes in 1980, the significant change is that Carter lost heavily from the moderates and the liberals. Reagan held nearly half of the moderate vote, which represents nearly a quarter of the entire poll. Perhaps Anderson caused Carter a problem from the left, but Reagan would have won regardless.

Another Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presi ... mographics

Here we can see that 'conservative republicans' broke 88-13-5 for Bush-Perot-Clinton. A rebellion, but hardly an exodus. By mulitplying the size of the demographics by the proportion of votes, it can be seen that:

Slightly more 'conservatives' voted for Clinton than for Perot. 'Moderate democrats' for Perot was larger than 'conservative republicans' for Perot. As many 'moderate republicans' backed Perot as 'conservative republicans'. The largest of the nine subgroups for Perot was 'moderate independents'.

Bush got 66% of the conservative votes (22% of the poll). Clinton got 70% of the liberal vote (14% of the poll). Clinton got nearly half of the moderate vote (24% of the poll), while Bush got less than a third. Had Bush taken the other half, he would have been ahead of Clinton.

If all 'conservatives' or 'republicans' for Perot had instead voted for Bush, he'd have been on 47.5% of the vote. If Clinton gets the 'liberal independents' and the 'liberal democrats' from Perot, he's up to 45.6%. If he gets the 'moderate democrats' from Perot's camp as well, he's on nearly 50%. The 'moderate independents' would be the remaining battleground. Clinton would only need a few of those to get the win. If Perot was, as your link suggests, taking votes from Bush, then he took more decisively from the centre ground.

Comparing with 1980, Bush in 1992 lost 10% of the Republican vote and 6% of the conservative vote. But he also lost 16% of the Democrat vote, 18% of the moderate vote and 22% of the Independent vote. 'Democrat' was larger than 'Republican' and 'Moderate' larger than 'Conservative', so these were even more significant falls.

Sorry, but the stats do not suggest that Bush lost because he appealed to the centre ground. They suggest that he lost because he failed to maintain Reagan's appeal to the centre ground.

An interesting side note is that by 2000, some of the Reform Party groups backed Buchanan, while others backed Nader. What Perot was was a populist, who attracted people from all over the spectrum.

danivon wrote:Point was that they didn't abandon Bush for his 'centrism' as much for his betrayal of a key election pledge.

Perot hammered this and gave the disaffected a place to go.

Most of Perot's voters identified as 'moderate' rather than 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

The dreaded "swing voters." Who knows what happens without Perot? What we do know is Perot would have had zero traction if Bush had not raised taxes.

The difference between your stats and the ones presented by my links is that yours look at a simple combined vote by state analysis (which ignores that 1992 saw a large increase in the total vote) and mine look at how the Perot vote was made up. Yours doesn't tell us where the split in the Bush/Perot vote in those states actually occurred. Was it from the right or from the centre, or all across? In all but one of those examples, Bush88 is less than Bush+Perot92, so while there's an overlap, it's not total.

Again, any analysis is speculative because the entire dynamic is different if Bush does not raise taxes and Perot does not run. However, Bush moving to the center, how successful was that? By your own statements, Perot got a lot of "moderate" voters.

Sorry, but the stats do not suggest that Bush lost because he appealed to the centre ground. They suggest that he lost because he failed to maintain Reagan's appeal to the centre ground.

Funny. I don't know many liberals who argue Reagan was a moderate. I think this is just wrong.

Was Reagan a moderate? Not by the standards of his day. But he appealed to moderates, as evidenced by getting their votes, and compared to today's GOP he was socially liberal and fiscally pretty moderate. You want to claim he cut the deficit?

And I'm not a liberal ( )

Point is that Democrats win when they not only get the 'Liberal' vote but also a large amount of the 'Moderate' vote. Republicans win when they get the 'Conservative' vote and most of the 'Moderate' vote. Because the 'base' for each party is less than a majority, they have to appeal to people in the middle. If the Republicans pick someone to shore up the Conservative vote, it's a massive risk.

Bush tried to move to the center because he was losing votes there. He wasn't dumb enough to assume he could carry the election without them.

And yes, it is the swing voters. They are called that for a reason - they swing elections. I know you hate to pander to the middle ground, but that's how to win general elections in a two-horse race.

danivon wrote:Was Reagan a moderate? Not by the standards of his day. But he appealed to moderates, as evidenced by getting their votes, and compared to today's GOP he was socially liberal and fiscally pretty moderate. You want to claim he cut the deficit?

No, but then again, he was "fighting" the Cold War.

And I'm not a liberal ( )

On the American scale, you are so far to the Left, President Obama would fear a primary challenge from you.

Point is that Democrats win when they not only get the 'Liberal' vote but also a large amount of the 'Moderate' vote. Republicans win when they get the 'Conservative' vote and most of the 'Moderate' vote. Because the 'base' for each party is less than a majority, they have to appeal to people in the middle. If the Republicans pick someone to shore up the Conservative vote, it's a massive risk.

I don't agree. While you are right each party has less than 40%, the truth is the natural proclivity of voters is center/right. Obama has proven he is no centrist, whatever you and Richard think. So, the fact is that any Republican perceived as "Presidential" will have an excellent shot at winning.

Bush tried to move to the center because he was losing votes there. He wasn't dumb enough to assume he could carry the election without them.

That's why he kept that centrist, what was his name? Oh yeah, Cheney, as his running mate--a real draw for the mushy middle.

And yes, it is the swing voters. They are called that for a reason - they swing elections. I know you hate to pander to the middle ground, but that's how to win general elections in a two-horse race.

I like our chances. Obama is trying to bribe them. Yes, bribe them. That's what's behind the release of some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He will litter money all over the place in an effort to convince target groups that he gets it.

He doesn't. The number one thing that occupies the middle right now is spending. And, Obama has never been a fiscal hawk, or even a moderate. He's like an ex-wife with her ex-husband's credit card: he'll keep spending until the card stops working.

Again, why should Christie run? Because he makes Obama look like the man-child he is.How pathetic is it that the President could not be bothered to either put out a real budget or participate in the talks to avoid "financial Armageddon?"

That is just feeble.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Was Reagan a moderate? Not by the standards of his day. But he appealed to moderates, as evidenced by getting their votes, and compared to today's GOP he was socially liberal and fiscally pretty moderate. You want to claim he cut the deficit?

No, but then again, he was "fighting" the Cold War.

So was Carter - look at how much the Defence budget went up between 1976 and 1980.

On the American scale, you are so far to the Left, President Obama would fear a primary challenge from you.

Mate, I'm so far to the Left, that there are parties in the USA who call themselves 'socialist' that I regard as middle-of-the-road sellouts. The Democrats (and Obama) are right wing as far as I'm concerned. However, saying all that, I'm aware that in order for either side in the USA to get a majority, it needs to appeal to the centre.

I don't agree. While you are right each party has less than 40%, the truth is the natural proclivity of voters is center/right. Obama has proven he is no centrist, whatever you and Richard think. So, the fact is that any Republican perceived as "Presidential" will have an excellent shot at winning.

While the natural 'proclivity' is centre-right, that's really a heavy 'centre'. A lot of those voters may not be too happy about a far-right challenge. Especially one from the hardcore social conservative side. I can see a lot of right wing Americans like RJ and Min X who are economically conservative but socially fairly liberal not wanting to have to choose between the two. It may be that economics trumps social policy, but only if the economic policy coming from the candidate looks sound.

Bush tried to move to the center because he was losing votes there. He wasn't dumb enough to assume he could carry the election without them.

That's why he kept that centrist, what was his name? Oh yeah, Cheney, as his running mate--a real draw for the mushy middle.

I was still talking about Bush Sr, who had Dan Quayle as a running mate both times.

And yes, it is the swing voters. They are called that for a reason - they swing elections. I know you hate to pander to the middle ground, but that's how to win general elections in a two-horse race.

I like our chances. Obama is trying to bribe them. Yes, bribe them. That's what's behind the release of some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He will litter money all over the place in an effort to convince target groups that he gets it.

Well, if that's what you think, and you have a low opinion of swing voters, how are you so sure they'll not buy the bribe?

Bachman and Romney tied in latest Gallop poll in Iowa...

South Carolina likely to move from primary to caucus because the Republican governor is trying to save money by defunding the primary...
Pawlenty at 6% in Iowa after spending an enormous amount of time there... 1 point behind Gingrich

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Was Reagan a moderate? Not by the standards of his day. But he appealed to moderates, as evidenced by getting their votes, and compared to today's GOP he was socially liberal and fiscally pretty moderate. You want to claim he cut the deficit?

No, but then again, he was "fighting" the Cold War.

So was Carter - look at how much the Defence budget went up between 1976 and 1980.

No thanks. You obviously researched it, then decided to get cute instead of posting it. Play games in the gaming forum.

Mate, I'm so far to the Left, that there are parties in the USA who call themselves 'socialist' that I regard as middle-of-the-road sellouts. The Democrats (and Obama) are right wing as far as I'm concerned. However, saying all that, I'm aware that in order for either side in the USA to get a majority, it needs to appeal to the centre.

This is not quite accurate. You keep blabbing about how Reagan appealed to the center. I think he appealed almost passively in this sense: Carter had so lost the nation that a strong leader easily won over the center. Carter was seen in 1980 as a bit of a hapless figure--too small for the office.

It may be that economics trumps social policy, but only if the economic policy coming from the candidate looks sound.

Well then, slam dunk for the Republican. All he/she has to do is not propose Obamanomics.

. . . .Bush Sr, who had Dan Quayle as a running mate both times.

Quayle was certainly no centrist. Bush the Elder was defeated when . . . he tacked to the middle.

Doctor Fate wrote:I like our chances. Obama is trying to bribe them. Yes, bribe them. That's what's behind the release of some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He will litter money all over the place in an effort to convince target groups that he gets it.

Well, if that's what you think, and you have a low opinion of swing voters, how are you so sure they'll not buy the bribe?

Because even the uninformed (and not all true swing voters are uninformed), can see when policies are not working. Even clueless Obama drones will realize there is a problem. Look at this video about 4:20. It's from 2009.

The One says if things don't turn around in three years, he's a one-termer. You might see that in an ad next year. Just maybe.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, but then again, he was "fighting" the Cold War.

So was Carter - look at how much the Defence budget went up between 1976 and 1980. [/quote]

No thanks. You obviously researched it, then decided to get cute instead of posting it. Play games in the gaming forum.[/quote]I didn't 'obviously' research it, I remember it from an old debate on Reagan's period of office. In the middle of his term, and by the end of it, Carter signed in plans to reverse earlier cuts in defence spending and to increase it further. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan caused a lot of pressure.

However, on games (and games on Redscape), we are trying to fill a world-variant on Otto. You are welcome to come in on it if there's still time.

It may be that economics trumps social policy, but only if the economic policy coming from the candidate looks sound.

Well then, slam dunk for the Republican. All he/she has to do is not propose Obamanomics.

Surely they may have to present an alternative as well? Or is oppositionalism enough - Is it 'presidential' to [i]not[i] propose anything?