Ray Jay wrote:That's crazy. You cannot predict something like this without an awful lot of hubris and denial and an inadequate understanding of history and how the world actually works.

It's not crazy; it's Ricky.

Normally, he would be rolling his eyes at a Fox News poll or pointing to their methodology (as he has on their particular methodology in the past). However, there is something in that very poll that somehow Ricky misses. It's not that hard to see--because it's the very top line of the poll!

Obama 46%
Romney 39%

Hmm, that's 85%.

When was the last time we had no major third party and the winner got 46% of the vote?

Never?

I think that Fox News poll is an outlier. All the other polls show it close. Worse for Obama: many of the polls show narrowing leads for the President in States he is presumed to have been safe in (like Wisconsin, Oregon, Michigan).

I think the President is in worse shape than most imagine. That does not mean I believe he has "lost." It does mean he is probably far more worried than he was 6 months ago.

The "undecided" vote breaks heavily for the challenger. I think if the election were held today, it would go something like:

Romney 50%
Obama 45%

Romney would win the electoral college in a route. Things can change and they will. If Greece continues its descent, and Europe continues to struggle, the President may find himself in an even more precarious situation.

There are all sorts of reasons to be concerned, including the generic Congressional polling. For months, what we've heard from Ricky and his ilk are how the public holds the GOP-controlled House responsible for all the ills of government. They love the Democrats and can't wait to throw those rascally Republicans to the curb.

We'll see. Right now, I would rather be Romney and the Republicans than the President and the Democrats. It's not over, but I would not be surprised at all to see the GOP control both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

tricky ricky wrote:Oh please Ray. The political environment in the US is poisonous. You've got folks like Steve who have such a hate on that rationale arguement no longer matters.

Very well done!

I'm looking at facts, but I "hate?" You, on the other hand, dismiss concerns about debt, deficit, creeping control of the Federal government, failed energy policy, and complete lack of common sense in this Administration because you believe America is more like you than it is. That is irrational. I know where Americans are. I know that most do not agree fully with me. However, most likely voters know that we cannot continue to rack up trillion dollar deficits every year. They know that is not sustainable. They know the President has not even tried to deal with this. They know they don't like Obamacare. They know solar and wind are not competitive. They see the President wasting our money and giving it to his supporters.

As for the "Mormon" issue, Ricky says:

I think its recognition that for some people Mormons represent a cult that they abhore. His mormonism has always been problematic for a certain percentage of the electorate.

They also would abhor (sic) what the President believes, if it was given the same attention as the "Mormon issue." The funny thing is, the more the President's supporters and sycophants try to make this election about social issues, the worse it will get for them. Americans want solutions to our economic and structural financial difficulties. President Obama has punted. That is his record. That's why he and his team (including the media) are holding up "bright shiny objects" to distract the electorate. If they look too long at the record of the President, he'll lose in a landslide.

Brad,
My comment was in passing, and does bear examination.
I think your analysis is fine. And I think that running up debt in a good economy is a bad idea. Imagine if the US had managed to pay off its debt by 2004? There was a pretty good cahnce of that happening when Bush came to office despite the previous 20 years... . If Reagan and Bush one had maintained a better balance, that would have been easy.
So I generally agree with you.
I give Obama a pass because he had the dumb luck to be elected as the worst recession since the 30s kicked in... I think he had to run deficits to stimulate the economy and the comparison between fiscal policy in europe and the US generally
If the economy gets over 3 % growth it will be time to really reel in the deficit. Thing is, there are some things he could do that would have no effect on the economy and would contribute to narrowing the deficit now. But with a congress that is so dysfuntional ....that won't happen either.
Having signed pledges to Grover Norquist Republicans have painted themselves into an ideological corner....

I'm not a birther. However, I do think this is far more intriguing than the HS hi-jinks of Romney. Let me get this straight: Obama's literary agency said he was born in Kenya?

Now, could they have been lying? Sure, but can you imagine that you are an author and you let your agency representing you lie about you? Could he not have known? Maybe.

In more pertinent news, after surviving the first wave of character assassination by the Chicago hit machine, Romney's favorable rating hits 50%.

What Ricky fails to get is that while Obama and Co are attacking Romney, the electorate wants to know what's going to happen. They see Obama has no plan and they don't really care so much about 47 year-old bullying allegations.

When all the smoke clears regarding religion and biography, we are left with an evaluation: did President Obama do a good job? If the answer is "yes," he will be reelected. If not, he won't.

I know this is a tough one for liberals, but most Americans took the President at his word. He made a lot of promises. He has swung and missed on most of them.

steve

Hmm, that's 85%

Ahh. You can read. Then you know the poll says 4% others and the rest undecided. (Who usually don't break for the challenger...)
So what. The point I was making wasn't about the overall numbers it was about the mindset of the voters....

steve

I'm looking at facts, but I "hate?"

Yes. You have an irrational hatred of Obama that has you labelling him as a socialist and spending a great deal of time and energy defending that conclusion. Its not as dumb as the large percentage who still think he's a Muslim or not native born, and trot out their absurd notions of evidence for those "facts" but its of the same ilk. Utter nonsense that precludes there being a rationale debate about matters of real substance.
The poll says that the main reason people would vote for Romney is "He's not Obama".
Does that tell you they are concerned with issues of substance are all they simply dipped in the sewage of birthers, racists and John Birch type hyperbole....
So little inspires them about the isses of the day, that thats what decides them. Mitt ain't a black, muslim kenyan socialist


The issue that threw me into this rant was the Time story about the proposed "Reverend Wright" negative ad capaign. $10 miilion was proposed to dredge up that nonsense. Turns out that after a day of dealing with the poison Romney disasscoiated himself. Indeed the millionare that was going to fund the campaign walked away... Trouble is, with current campaign finance laws any nut with enough money can insert this vile crap into discourse.

rickyp wrote:Imagine if the US had managed to pay off its debt by 2004? There was a pretty good cahnce of that happening when Bush came to office despite the previous 20 years... . If Reagan and Bush one had maintained a better balance, that would have been easy.

Hmm, so when President Obama took office did he know all this or not?

Or, are you saying he should also blame Reagan--in addition to Bush?

I give Obama a pass because he had the dumb luck to be elected as the worst recession since the 30s kicked in...

If the economy was good, he would not have won. So, there's that.

I think he had to run deficits to stimulate the economy and the comparison between fiscal policy in europe and the US generally

If true, he should not have over-promised and under-delivered.

Further, I think if he had given me $2T I could have created more jobs than he has with $5T. We know you think he's done a good job. The question is more broad: what do Americans think? Do they think restricting coal and oil production and attempting to raise carbon-based energy prices so that alternative energy can compete is a good energy policy? Is shoveling money to "shovel ready projects" that you later admit were not good policy? Is it smart or right to give hundreds of millions of dollars to those who support you? Is it leadership to continually blame everyone else when things go poorly and take all the credit when something goes well?

If the economy gets over 3 % growth it will be time to really reel in the deficit. Thing is, there are some things he could do that would have no effect on the economy and would contribute to narrowing the deficit now. But with a congress that is so dysfuntional ....

Ah, so it's Congress' fault? Interesting. The President hasn't submitted a budget that has received a single DEMOCRATIC vote in Congress in two years.

All he does is threaten Republicans with political mayhem and then marvel that they don't want to cave into him? His idea of a "grand bargain" was spending cuts that are "baked in" (cuts in Iraq and Afghanistan) and alleged Medicare cuts, but he wants more taxes up front. Why? A political victory. He can go to his constituency and tell them he gave up nothing and got tax increases. Meanwhile, Republicans have to explain how they got no real cuts and agreed to violate their principles.

That's why Congress is "dysfunctional." Because the President and Democrats have consistently said "Elections have consequences." Translation: "our way or the highway."

rickyp wrote:steve

Hmm, that's 85%

Ahh. You can read.

Yes, and spell.

Then you know the poll says 4% others and the rest undecided. (Who usually don't break for the challenger...)
So what. The point I was making wasn't about the overall numbers it was about the mindset of the voters....

Let me help you: this means that Obama is at 46% max. He won't win at that level. Another poll shows them even. Undecideds either don't vote or break overwhelmingly for the non-incumbent. They won't go running back to the Failure-in-Chief.

Yes. You have an irrational hatred of Obama that has you labelling him as a socialist and spending a great deal of time and energy defending that conclusion.

Mmmm, interesting that you can now read minds.

His policies are terrible. His capacity for blame-shifting and lying are mind-boggling.

However, he seems a nice man. He is kind to his kids, seems happily married, and even likes his dog. I don't hate him. I just don't want him for President because he is incompetent and hires incompetent people.

The poll says that the main reason people would vote for Romney is "He's not Obama".
Does that tell you they are concerned with issues of substance are all they simply dipped in the sewage of birthers, racists and John Birch type hyperbole....

That is irrational. There is nothing to support it, just your own bias. This is the same bunch of "nuts" who voted for him 4 years ago.

People support "anyone" but the President because he's doing a bad job.

The issue that threw me into this rant was the Time story about the proposed "Reverend Wright" negative ad capaign.

Oh, well, good to know it was so well reasoned on your part.

The Wright thing is just as pertinent as the Mormon thing. That doesn't seem to offend you though. Why is that?

It would have even been better Brad if you would have factored in the fact that Obama inherited a financoial catastrophe and two wars. Funny Monte that you fault RickyP for excessive certainty about the election but give Steve a pass for his near certainty that Romney is going to win. By the way, where is the conservative (Tea Party) critiquie of the Romney plan to cut taxes that is certainly to drive up the budget deficit TThe silence is deafening.

Obama is doing the right a favor. His policies will placate the middle-class just enought so that they will not revolt. The middle-class is not going to tolerate their wages going down, access to higher education being cut-off their kids, and social programs like social security and medi-care being "reformed" while the top 1% or top 5 ot let's the top 10% get an increasing percetage of the nation's wealth while constantlyinsiisting on paying a lower rate of taxes.

Noit that elities getting most of the economic pie while shifting the tax burden to the poor is new--that is pretty much the history of the planet since agriculture allowed centralize states to develop. The aberatoin is what happened in the 20th century when in westernized states the majority started to share in the wealth

The idea that our country is heading towards socialism is laughable. Yeah, socialist countries tend to have their wealthiest people get increasing amount of societal wealth whiloe their taxes come down. Oh and socialist countries privatize government functions so corporations can benefit. The Citizens Unitied decision basically ensures that large corporation and very wealthy people have a huge disproportionale effect on elections while the average middle-class voter (without unions) has been atomized into separate individual voters who cannot compete against the power of corporations and the wealthy. You are going to have social unrest unless you stop the wealthy from getting more and more of the nation's wealth while paying less and less taxes, getting more and more benefits from governmental expending while shifting the tax burden to the middle-class And your rich candidate Romney wants to do more of the same! it's outrageous. I guess Republicans just think American's are stupid, that they will not mind the rich getting richer while they get poorer, pay higher percentage of taxes, and have their social programs dismantled The Occupy movement was nothing. If Romney gets in and tries to cut social programs and cut taxes for the rich, like Mach said, better start stocking up on your emergency supplies

Yeah, and Reagan inherited a Cold War and financial issues as well. Clinton had Bosnia and financial issues also.

EVERY PRESIDENT HAS ISSUES.

It is what you do with those issues that show your leadership and presidential skills.

Concerning the Corporations vs Unions in election funding statement; to say that corporations should not be allowed to donate to elections and Unions can is one-sided and very RickyP like of you. I expected better from you, Freeman2. I do not think America is socialistic, or Obama is a socialist. He is closer that Romney on the spectrum, though.

I asked earlier, and did not get an answer from you or RickyP or Danivon. How much should the top 1% pay as a percentage of wage in taxes? Is 35% enough? How about 70% like France. Maybe 100%? What is the top amount that a "wealthy" person should pay?

The tax rate for corporations is 35% but we are only getting 21% or so because of tax dodges--if we collect 28% I am satisfied. As for indiividuals, I think rolling bacfk the Bush tax cuts would suffice for me.

With union membership down to 8% they cannot hope to compete against corporate power (at least not at the national level). This Citizen United decision is probably the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott decision. You have billionaires setting up super-pacs to effect elections--you already saw this in the Republican primary. We need a constitutional amendment to oiverride that decision.

And, fundamentally, we need poliicies that will ensure the middle 60% of the electorate (between the top 20% and the bottom 20% who are poor) are not excluded from the American dream. It is not fair that the wealth that is created in this country increasingly goes to the wealthy. It is not fair, they don't deserve it, and the effect of having all of this wealth go to the top is to undermine the stability of our society. A healthy democracy has to reward those people that do most of the hard work--and we're not doing that right now.

freeman2 wrote:With union membership down to 8% they cannot hope to compete against corporate power (at least not at the national level).

Well, considering 3 of the 5 top donors in 2010 were Unions I think you are incorrect in your assumption above.

For 2012, according to Opensecrets/org 6 of the top 25 so far are Unions. How much you want to bet they end up in the top 5 again?

You ignored anonymous sources and you iginored the fact that the biggest problem is PACs spending large amouts of money on ads, which unions are able to do only to a limited degree. The article was intentionally was written to try and get the reader to think that unions and Republican groups cancel eafch other out with regard to these PACs but that is clearly not the case.

This part of the article is important:

"The political debate over spending by outside groups has focused largely on advertising buys by those Republican-oriented groups. Unions have mostly escaped attention in that debate, in part
because they traditionally have spent much of their cash on other kinds of political activities, including get-out-the-vote efforts."

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election"

Freeman:

Funny Monte that you fault RickyP for excessive certainty about the election but give Steve a pass for his near certainty that Romney is going to win.

Ray Jay in an earlier post (to Ricky and Steve):

One of you is an optimist and one of you is a realist. Beats me who is who.

Actually, you are both optimists. There's no way either of you can argue with such certainty based on what we know right now and what can happen over the next 6 months.

Perhaps you see what you want to see.

Sorry I forgot that one...Just focused on the latest one... My apologies

Though to be totally accurate there was a certain vehemence in the latter critique of Ricky that was missing in your earlier critique of both Ricky and Steve which was somewhat mild. But my statement was inaccurate, hence the apology.

I thought about this overnight. The funny thing is that I think it is more likely that Obama will win, and I will probably vote for him (but for Republicans for Senate and House where my vote matters). I like divided government and think that is the better option to keep the deficits down. I'm a social liberal. Democrats are less likely to get involved in wars, and the Republican congress is less likely to spend money. I don't think that Romney has a plan to fix the deficit which is my #1 issue.

But, you are right that I come down hard on Ricky. I have very little patience or respect for Ricky. He distorts people's quotes; he has no courtesy at all for the reader; he makes arguements that are patently false; and he keeps calling Americans idiots. Basically he think that people who disagree with him must be ignorant, when in fact there are very intelligent people -- and more intelligent than him -- on both sides of the aisle..