Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

So, I'm sure within a week or so we'll start to be inundated with coverage from Iowa and New Hampshire about 2012. I remember it used to be that there were relative respites from the political wrangling. Not anymore. It just gets a little shriller at times.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Yes, under Clinton. Before the tax cuts.

Don't forget Newt and the GOP majority that helped make that happen. It was balanced, except for interest on the national debt??

The Republicans had control for 6 straight years and look what happened. What was cut, Bob? Seriously. Name one cut under George W. Bush to spending.

.

Read. The post you respond to says that the Republicans didn't do well during the Bush years. It doesn't make sense to argue something at someone when they've already agreed with the point. That said, your usual myopic outlook, blasting the Republicans deficits, while doing an ostrich on Obama's fiscal disaster, is entirely expected.

..

If we don't start investing in education the right way, science and technology, and new economies we're never going to grow the budget, we're never going to create jobs, and we're going to go bankrupt.

But, what got elected this cycle wasn't a grand plan for American renewal. Instead it was a grand plan for tax cuts. Tax cuts for the productive class which as far as I can tell is mostly a bunch of folks who know how to make money off of other peoples money and not actually produce anything that anybody wants.

Did we "invest" in education when we led the industrial revolution? Seems to me we were doing just fine before Carter paid the teacher's unions back by inventing the NEA.

There was about as much a "plan" yesterday as their was in '06. People flushed deadbeats down the toilet that year just as they did last night.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Intrade has the chances of Obama or "a Democrat" winning in '12 at 61%. That seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Intrade has the chances of Obama or "a Democrat" winning in '12 at 61%. That seems pretty accurate to me.

That bet comes down to "will unemployment be below 7% in summer 2012." I agree with the odds.

OTOH, 30 year mortgage rates will stay low for a while longer, so I have a chance of getting the hell out of Farmville.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Intrade has the chances of Obama or "a Democrat" winning in '12 at 61%. That seems pretty accurate to me.

Doesn't to me.

If the economy does not turn around. Obama will be blamed.
If the economy does turn around. The Republicans who were just elected will get the credit.

I'd flip the numbers and say 39% chance of a Dem winning in '12.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Scooby, I don't think the American people have ever credited the House with anything, since 4 out of 5 of them probably don't know it exists.

The president takes the fall if the economy is bad. So this year the economy was bad and Obama took the fall, but people couldn't vote him out so they took it out on their rep.

All national issue voting is a plebiscite on the president.

Obama will do what every president has done when the economy blows -- try to turn the attention of the country to foreign affairs and hope the cycle rebounds in time. If the deficit hawks are really serious about getting spending under control, the first thing we should be able to agree on is end the Afghanistan war.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Scooby, I don't think the American people have ever credited the House with anything, since 4 out of 5 of them probably don't know it exits.

while I can't argue with this part...I mean Clinton got credit for the 1994 revolution

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I think it would take a pretty strategic bit of posturing by House Republicans to be able to take credit for economic improvement- even if they do deserve it.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/senate-races-2010/1110/Some_Miller_votes_wont_count.html

In another boon for Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, write-in ballots cast for Republican candidate Joe Miller won’t count toward his total vote count. Alaska’s Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell, who oversees elections, told the Associated Press that write-in ballots for Miller will be tossed out.

First question: Why shouldn't they count?
Second question: What kind of idiot is stupid enough to decide not to fill in the circle next to Miller's name, but then write his name in anyway?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I think it would take a pretty strategic bit of posturing by House Republicans to be able to take credit for economic improvement- even if they do deserve it.

Mitch McConnel's plan worked pretty well this time around. His plan now is to unseat Obama and I bet it works.


The California results were the most interesting to me. They elected the Democrats mostly because Arnold was such a failure and they were not going to elect people without experience ever again. Minnesotans didn't learn their lesson on that one even though they were the incubator for it when they elected Ventura.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/senate-races-2010/1110/Some_Miller_votes_wont_count.html



First question: Why shouldn't they count?
Second question: What kind of idiot is stupid enough to decide not to fill in the circle next to Miller's name, but then write his name in anyway?

1)seems dumb to me
2)seems even more dumb than the first one...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/senate-races-2010/1110/Some_Miller_votes_wont_count.html



First question: Why shouldn't they count?
Second question: What kind of idiot is stupid enough to decide not to fill in the circle next to Miller's name, but then write his name in anyway?

They shouldn't count because part of voting is following the rules. Voting is pretty easy. If you're too stupid to pull it off maybe you should stay home?

I'd put the over under at about 35% of the US population. Give or take.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Second question: What kind of idiot is stupid enough to decide not to fill in the circle next to Miller's name, but then write his name in anyway?

The same kind that couldn't figure out the Florida ballots a few years ago?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Shirtless was being snarky but he's sort of right -- Obama will get the most credit if the economy rebounds, even in the incredibly unlikely event that the GOP House does something responsible and productive rather than run political theater for the next two years.

So the GOP has to ask themselves whether their Obama Derangement is so strong that they will deliberately scuttle a recovery in order to defeat "that man." And while many of them may well be that cynical, their paymasters have always been interested only in the bottom line, so unless they're going to short the country for two years to make a fortune, they may be forced to be somewhat sensible.

I expect there will be some big, empty dong-wagging maneuver like Newt's shutting the government down in 95. If Obama faces it down the people will eventually abandon the GOP in that fight. If not, he deserves what he gets.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

They shouldn't count because part of voting is following the rules. Voting is pretty easy. If you're too stupid to pull it off maybe you should stay home?

Right, but a lot of arguments in Alaska, I imagine, are going to center around voters intent. For example, if someone writes in Lissa Murcowksi, that might be allowed, because it's relatively clear they want to vote for Lisa Murkowski. If you're allowed to judge intent in that way, why can't write-ins for Joe Miller be allowed, when the intent there seems to be pretty **** clear?

This is probably a moot point fwiw, just found the story interesting.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Right, but a lot of arguments in Alaska, I imagine, are going to center around voters intent. For example, if someone writes in Lissa Murcowksi, that might be allowed, because it's relatively clear they want to vote for Lisa Murkowski. If you're allowed to judge intent in that way, why can't write-ins for Joe Miller be allowed, when the intent there seems to be pretty **** clear?

I agree. Miller's a boob, but he seems to be getting the shaft here.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Right, but a lot of arguments in Alaska, I imagine, are going to center around voters intent. For example, if someone writes in Lissa Murcowksi, that might be allowed, because it's relatively clear they want to vote for Lisa Murkowski. If you're allowed to judge intent in that way, why can't write-ins for Joe Miller be allowed, when the intent there seems to be pretty **** clear?

This is probably a moot point fwiw, just found the story interesting.

I actually agree that they should count. But, I suppose it as usual is going to depend on who is hearing the case and how they like Miller. Everything ultimately seems to come down to that in the end.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I agree that Obama gets most of the credit, or the blame, for whatever happens the next few years. Probably the only exception is if the Republicans do something really bold and dramatic, like a shutdown or something. But they would be smart to avoid such things, as I think there's a lot more chance that they get blame than credit in such a situation.

That said, if Obama has to have unemployment down below 7 percent in 2012 to get reelected, I'll take the bet against it. That's a lot of new jobs that have to get created in the next year or two, in the face of a very anemic recovery that is producing very few new jobs. To me that's a very steep hill to climb, and why I think it'll be tough for Obama to get reelected absent some Republican mistakes (which is non an unsubstantial possibility).

 

[joecct]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

That bet comes down to "will unemployment be below 7% in summer 2012." I agree with the odds.

OTOH, 30 year mortgage rates will stay low for a while longer, so I have a chance of getting the hell out of Farmville.

There's a house for sale on my street. 20904 zip $500K+ Standard colonial

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I agree that Obama gets most of the credit, or the blame, for whatever happens the next few years. Probably the only exception is if the Republicans do something really bold and dramatic, like a shutdown or something. But they would be smart to avoid such things, as I think there's a lot more chance that they get blame than credit in such a situation.

That said, if Obama has to have unemployment down below 7 percent in 2012 to get reelected, I'll take the bet against it. That's a lot of new jobs that have to get created in the next year or two, in the face of a very anemic recovery that is producing very few new jobs. To me that's a very steep hill to climb, and why I think it'll be tough for Obama to get reelected absent some Republican mistakes (which is non an unsubstantial possibility).

Honestly, I think it's hard to make a mistake from the House, unless you have a figure like Newt who towers over the body and attracts blame. Bohner's just not like that -- at best (worst?) he's a Pelosi-like figure that the other side will try to demonize but mostly not really be able to grip.

The question on unemployment is whether we're seeing a systemic change in the US economy -- unemployment was below 6% for, what, 20 years before the crash of 2006? It's possible that globalization, energy costs and the Gini Coefficient now all weigh more than US productivity and science and the US is on the wrong end of the hill, but I'll only start believing that if the rest of the west starts to recover but the US continues to lag.