Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Maybe he did. I took it more as saying Democrats were supposedly dead after they couldn't beat Bush in '04, then absolutely rolled in '08. In that same vein, Republicans were dead after '08 supposedly, and are looking set to do okay this November.

I viewed his post as saying that 2012 is somehow equivalent to 2004. Given where we're at now, I'd say the GOP has more on its side than the Dems did in 2004 (of course, a lot can change in two years).

If the unemployment rate had been over 9% in 2004, there's no way W would have been re-elected; bad economies tend to unify the middle in opposition to the incumbent.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

. If the economy improves.

How can that happen with the debt we have and no plans to reign it in

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I viewed his post as saying that 2012 is somehow equivalent to 2004. Given where we're at now, I'd say the GOP has more on its side than the Dems did in 2004 (of course, a lot can change in two years).

If the unemployment rate had been over 9% in 2004, there's no way W would have been re-elected; bad economies tend to unify the middle in opposition to the incumbent.

I think the better potential comparison with 2012 might be 1996. Most pundits are expecting a 1994 style beatdown to take place in 2010. The fact that people are even talking about the possibility of the GOP retaking the Senate is mindblowing considering how far behind they are right now, but there are a lot of people acting as though the House may be a fait accompli.

The combination of a GOP-controlled Congress (or at the very least, the House) gives Obama a real foil for the next two years (as opposed to what they have now, the public isn't buying their caterwauling about the GOP because the GOP has no power). In 1995, that played out as a pair of government shutdowns that Clinton successfully blamed on the Republicans (thanks in no small part to Newt Gingrich acting like a child).

The entirety of the GOP field in the 1996 primaries: Bob Dole, Lamar Alexander, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Bob Dornan, Phil Gramm, Alan Keyes, Richard Lugar, Morry Taylor, Arlen Specter, and Pete Wilson, of which only the first four were among the top candidates. It wasn't the most exciting list of candidates and all had some drawbacks.

Fast-forward to 2012. Of the top 11 names on my list, each one of them has some issues:

Romney - Retread from 2008, signed a health-care bill similar to ObamaCare when he was governor
Palin - Retread from 2008 (although to a lesser degree), poisoned among independents thanks to McCain's poor handling of her early on in 2008
Huckabee - Retread from 2008, focuses on social issues in a fiscal-issue environment
Gingrich - Hasn't been terribly relevant in government in almost 15 years
Pawlenty - Name recognition, close ties to McCain, has said some things that have irked the conservative base
Paul - Retread from 2008, supporters often border on cult-like, tough to run as a Congressman
Barbour - Name recognition
Daniels - Name recognition, close ties to Bush
Jindal - Perceived inexperience
Pence - Name recognition, tough to run as a Congressman
Thune - Name recognition, focuses on social issues in a fiscal-issue environment

Then you've got Obama, who apparently can sell ice to Eskimos when it's campaign time. How far down in the pits does his approval rating have to get before one of these candidates becomes a real threat to him, and can it realistically get that far down when he'll have a foil in the GOP House to boost saggy ratings? I don't know. But from what I can see, a redux of the 1994 and 1996 elections could be coming down the pike in the next two federal Election Days.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Many thousands of people are being gassed with mustard gas and Sarin all over? That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen posted around here lately.

The Halabja gas attack is recognized as the largest chemical weapons attack on a civilian population in history. Try again.

So it's less morally repugnant to kill your citizens if you use conventional means?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

See, that's what I like about pawlenty.

Edit: (That he irks a part of the "base")

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I think the better potential comparison with 2012 might be 1996. Most pundits are expecting a 1994 style beatdown to take place in 2010. The fact that people are even talking about the possibility of the GOP retaking the Senate is mindblowing considering how far behind they are right now, but there are a lot of people acting as though the House may be a fait accompli.

The combination of a GOP-controlled Congress (or at the very least, the House) gives Obama a real foil for the next two years (as opposed to what they have now, the public isn't buying their caterwauling about the GOP because the GOP has no power). In 1995, that played out as a pair of government shutdowns that Clinton successfully blamed on the Republicans (thanks in no small part to Newt Gingrich acting like a child).

The entirety of the GOP field in the 1996 primaries: Bob Dole, Lamar Alexander, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Bob Dornan, Phil Gramm, Alan Keyes, Richard Lugar, Morry Taylor, Arlen Specter, and Pete Wilson, of which only the first four were among the top candidates. It wasn't the most exciting list of candidates and all had some drawbacks.

Fast-forward to 2012. Of the top 11 names on my list, each one of them has some issues:

Romney - Retread from 2008, signed a health-care bill similar to ObamaCare when he was governor
Palin - Retread from 2008 (although to a lesser degree), poisoned among independents thanks to McCain's poor handling of her early on in 2008
Huckabee - Retread from 2008, focuses on social issues in a fiscal-issue environment
Gingrich - Hasn't been terribly relevant in government in almost 15 years
Pawlenty - Name recognition, close ties to McCain, has said some things that have irked the conservative base
Paul - Retread from 2008, supporters often border on cult-like, tough to run as a Congressman
Barbour - Name recognition
Daniels - Name recognition, close ties to Bush
Jindal - Perceived inexperience
Pence - Name recognition, tough to run as a Congressman
Thune - Name recognition, focuses on social issues in a fiscal-issue environment

Then you've got Obama, who apparently can sell ice to Eskimos when it's campaign time. How far down in the pits does his approval rating have to get before one of these candidates becomes a real threat to him, and can it realistically get that far down when he'll have a foil in the GOP House to boost saggy ratings? I don't know. But from what I can see, a redux of the 1994 and 1996 elections could be coming down the pike in the next two federal Election Days.

no Paul Ryan on the list?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

no Paul Ryan on the list?

He's on the extended list at #23 and rising. I took the top 11 to compare to the 11 that ran in 1996.

See, that's what I like about pawlenty.

Edit: (That he irks a part of the "base")

If it were just that, I'd already be behind him 100%. As it is I'd say he's in my top three personally.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If it were just that, I'd already be behind him 100%. As it is I'd say he's in my top three personally.

What's holding him back in your eyes? Other than name recognition?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

What's holding him back in your eyes? Other than name recognition?

His very close association with McCain is going to be a problem in the primaries even after he gains some recognition (because I think he will starting in about 6 months).

If it wasn't for Daniels, T-Paw would firmly be my candidate.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

See, I just don't see that as an issue.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The combination of a GOP-controlled Congress (or at the very least, the House) gives Obama a real foil for the next two years (as opposed to what they have now, the public isn't buying their caterwauling about the GOP because the GOP has no power).

It's an apt comparison if the GOP retakes both houses. Of course, the economy is highly unlikely to be anywhere near as good as it was in '96 - which means whether or not Obama has a Republican foil, he's going to be vulnerable.

Fast-forward to 2012. Of the top 11 names on my list, each one of them has some issues:

How far out from the 2000 campaign did W declare his candidacy? Was he even a candidate or rumored to be one in '98? I *think* I remembered first hearing about him in '99, but I might be mistaken on that.

Then you've got Obama, who apparently can sell ice to Eskimos when it's campaign time.

He ran on "hope and change" in '08. What does he do for act two?

How far down in the pits does his approval rating have to get before one of these candidates becomes a real threat to him, and can it realistically get that far down when he'll have a foil in the GOP House to boost saggy ratings?

If he's under 50% in 2012, he probably won't get a 2nd term unless some spoiler enters the race to syphen off GOP votes ala Perot in '92.

I don't know. But from what I can see, a redux of the 1994 and 1996 elections could be coming down the pike in the next two federal Election Days.

I think the economy and fiscal situation could throw a real wrench in that - and interestingly could create an opportunity for a fiscally-driven third party to take shape should the GOP and Obama not solve anything in the next two years.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ok - I get it you try and refute my points but don't know what points are? I'd ask you to back up your argument for a 2nd time but obviously that won't get me information.

this article and picture (if you need it) illustrates what I'm talking about on deficits with Bush v Obama. And again, I'm no Bush fan but you argued I had no facts so this illustrates Bush's deficits were nothing compared to Obama's real and projected (see CBO numbers)

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

so we've got the debt
the unemployment rate
the takeover of car companies
the takeover of banks
the takeover of healthcare

what about that is fallacy?

Relax, I was just asking for clarification. Lots of people say deficit when they mean debt, and say debt when they mean budget deficit. And then there's the balance of payments deficit . . . it pays to be specific.

So . . . the unemployment rate was 8.5% in 1/09. About 18 months later (6/10), it had risen a point to 9.6%.

Not good. But consider the 18 months prior to 1/09. In 6/07, unemployment was 4.7%. And we haven't even factored in the lag between when someone takes office and when their policies can really be expected to take effect. I'd say we're well into that territory now, but we weren't yet in 1/09. So if you're ****ed about unemployment, you're barking up the wrong tree. You'll get your chance when Obama's up for reelection, and if unemployment is still where it is now, I'll probably join you.

Likewise, the debt increased 213% over Bush's 8 budgets. Obama is off to a roaring start, obviously. He's at 8% debt growth through the first 7 months of his first budget. That may balloon to 400%. Or it might not. Economic forecasts are funny things. I'd use them if they say what I want, but I don't know how much I actually believe them. You can trust them if you want, but I'm going to rule them inadmissible as evidence.

So that's unemployment. And the debt.

Obama nationalized the auto industry? That's the sort of stupid rhetoric that'll kill a debate before it even starts.

There were bailouts, sure. But nowhere close to the level that would be necessary to justify that sort of rhetoric.

Banks? You're aware that Bush signed TARP into law, right?

So there's health care. Which most certainly was not taken over. Again, if you want to take the time to make a reasoned criticism, I'll listen. But I'm not going to waste my time responding to empty rhetoric.

I'd say I called the score about right.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Likewise, the debt increased 213% over Bush's 8 budgets. Obama is off to a roaring start, obviously. He's at 8% debt growth through the first 7 months of his first budget. That may balloon to 400%. Or it might not.

I'd put money on obama blowing by 213%.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

It's an apt comparison if the GOP retakes both houses. Of course, the economy is highly unlikely to be anywhere near as good as it was in '96 - which means whether or not Obama has a Republican foil, he's going to be vulnerable.

He could still be vulnerable, for sure. Whether the GOP will be in a position to take advantage of that vulnerability is debatable. Never underestimate the importance of a foil when it comes to winning the battle for public opinion, though. The constaint strains of "it's Bush's fault" are really only happening because they don't have anyone else more convenient to blame other than themselves, which they can't do. They've had Congress for four years and the White House for two, he's the only shot they have and people aren't buying it. If he can spin a GOP controlled House as a source of blame, that could potentially be something some people would buy since it's something that would be current.

How far out from the 2000 campaign did W declare his candidacy? Was he even a candidate or rumored to be one in '98? I *think* I remembered first hearing about him in '99, but I might be mistaken on that.

He was always a popular potential candidate after the '96 elections were over, and I believe he declared sometime in mid-'99. Of course, these days, we should be expecting top candidates to start declaring in a little over five months from now. Yeah. It's a two-year process to elect a President in the information age. Not fun.

He ran on "hope and change" in '08. What does he do for act two?

I'm sure he'll come up with something. He's always got that racial blunt object that he can wield if all else fails.

If he's under 50% in 2012, he probably won't get a 2nd term unless some spoiler enters the race to syphen off GOP votes ala Perot in '92.

I think the approval rating's got to be at least where it is right now for the GOP to have a shot. Bear in mind that Obama still wins practically any head-to-head matchup you throw at him, even with his popularity around 40%.

I think the economy and fiscal situation could throw a real wrench in that - and interestingly could create an opportunity for a fiscally-driven third party to take shape should the GOP and Obama not solve anything in the next two years.

That's why the GOP needs to be walking the straight and narrow. They can't put themselves in a position where the Democrats can seize upon something and make an issue out of it, but at the same time they need to wake up and realize that they need to pay attention to the tea party movement. They're getting one last chance in 2010 and possibly 2012 to be the fiscal conservatives they have often claimed to be, if only because the Democrats have proven themselves unwilling to even try. If the Republicans don't do any better, expect the tea party movement to move into full-blown third party mode, under the rationale that neither of the established parties are going to do what needs to be done, and as the only truly effective way of punishing the GOP while sticking to principle.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Well, here's some good news for liberty. Although, fishing sinkers are still on the table. What's the fisherman's equivalent of the NRA?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Cripes... Maybe there's a shred of sanity left in government...

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Well, here's some good news for liberty. Although, fishing sinkers are still on the table. What's the fisherman's equivalent of the NRA?

The funny thing is that lead shot can harm the very resources those against the ban use it on. I'm a bit confused as to how this is a gun control issue as opposed to an environmental one, however.

Edit: The first time through I missed that this was an across the board ban. At a minimum I think it should not be permitted for certain uses (such as waterfowl hunting for which it's already banned). Not sure how I feel about a complete ban as it certainly can cause its share of environmental issues.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

He could still be vulnerable, for sure. Whether the GOP will be in a position to take advantage of that vulnerability is debatable. Never underestimate the importance of a foil when it comes to winning the battle for public opinion, though. The constaint strains of "it's Bush's fault" are really only happening because they don't have anyone else more convenient to blame other than themselves, which they can't do. They've had Congress for four years and the White House for two, he's the only shot they have and people aren't buying it. If he can spin a GOP controlled House as a source of blame, that could potentially be something some people would buy since it's something that would be current.

He will be vulnerable, but unless the GOP puts forth a candidate that gets people beyond the base to vote for them it probably wont matter. More than likely the moderates and independents will stay home as opposed to voting for any of the 11 you put forth (or Obama for that matter) so I just dont see any GOP candidate being able to win.

I wonder what Fox News would do if the Tea Party split with the GOP. (which I am guessing is a foregone conclusion especially if a Romney like candidate gets the nod) I mean this seriously too, would they abandon the GOP who is their bread and butter, or turn their back on the Tea Party who they have embraced from the very beginning? It could be very interesting.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

He will be vulnerable, but unless the GOP puts forth a candidate that gets people beyond the base to vote for them it probably wont matter. More than likely the moderates and independents will stay home as opposed to voting for any of the 11 you put forth (or Obama for that matter) so I just dont see any GOP candidate being able to win.

I wonder what Fox News would do if the Tea Party split with the GOP. (which I am guessing is a foregone conclusion especially if a Romney like candidate gets the nod) I mean this seriously too, would they abandon the GOP who is their bread and butter, or turn their back on the Tea Party who they have embraced from the very beginning? It could be very interesting.

True. Terrifyingly true. If they don't pick a social conservative it'll hit the fan. Which is sad.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

True. Terrifyingly true. If they don't pick a social conservative it'll hit the fan. Which is sad.

Wrong. The GOP nominee will pander to them best they can while at the same time trying to avoid flip-flopping accusations. Odds are the bulk of that sector of humanity won't ask too many questions about it. How it plays to the middle 20% might be another issue.