Regime change

[JollyRoger]

Most swing state data that I have seen shows that Romney has quite the uphill climb. His best hope is that the voter suppression laws in Florida and Pennsylvania swing those states his way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Obama is on the defensive? What candidate has endured so much heat stateside that he has taken his gaffefest abroad?

I saw that! Who wants to start off their relationship with another country (that happens to be our closest ally) by insulting them?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Can we not make major back-edits please? If you need to spellcheck, fix grammar, that's great. But please don't substantially change a post, even to insert a reference. Add a new post. Rant over.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yep, it looks like Romney won't carry Great Britain. I still think he has the swing states of Switzerland and the Caymon Islands in the bag.

 

[Dreadnought]

And Obama still has a lead in national polls (which are really quite irrelevant this far out).

Oh and he successfully concluded a war, helped overthrow a dictator, got healthcare reform passed for millions of unisured, killed Bin Laden, kept the American auto industry from imploding. I could go on and on. Obama has this in the bag. A rough month from the punditry and a few low polls mean nothing.

First of all, see my signature.

Second of all, to say he has it in the bag, with such dismal economic reports for Q2 is naive at best. Romney's making this an election about the economy. Obama's desperately trying to avoid that type of election, but so far it isn't working.

 

[Dreadnought]

Yep, it looks like Romney won't carry Great Britain. I still think he has the swing states of Switzerland and the Caymon Islands in the bag.

Oh, please. You call that a gaffe?

I'd love to see how Obama takes advantage of it.

 

[JollyRoger]

If Romney wants to make this election about the economy, he should get the releasing of his tax returns over with. Better for him that the first question of the debate is about the economy rather than him being - what is the word I am looking for - oh yeah - defensive - about his tax returns.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Second of all, to say he has it in the bag, with such dismal economic reports for Q2 is naive at best. Romney's making this an election about the economy. Obama's desperately trying to avoid that type of election, but so far it isn't working.

A growing economy is still growing. Could it be faster? Sure. I can't think of any boom economic times that didn't involve massive government spending in one form or another. Right now our country doesn't seem to have the appetite for that, even if it could fix our problems.

How much power do you expect a president to have over a capitalist economy anyway?

 

[JollyRoger]

This is like Kerry-Bush all over again, except for the fact that the Bush starting point from the prior election was one swing state rather than several.

 

[Dreadnought]

A growing economy is still growing. Could it be faster? Sure. I can't think of any boom economic times that didn't involve massive government spending in one form or another. Right now our country doesn't seem to have the appetite for that, even if it could fix our problems.

How much power do you expect a president to have over a capitalist economy anyway?

First of all: the economy isn`t growing fast enough to lower unemployment. It's the slowest economic recovery in history.

Second of all: your second point is irrelevant. We're talking election politics here: bad economy -> ousted incumbent. It's a change in direction that appeals to voters.

This is like Kerry-Bush all over again, except for the fact that the Bush starting point from the prior election was one swing state rather than several.

Kerry-Bush was a foreign policy debate, much more subjective than the raw economy data that can be presented in this election.

 

[JollyRoger]

Kerry-Bush was a foreign policy debate, much more subjective than the raw economy data that can be presented in this election.

If Romney wants to center his campaign on trying to roll out data, he will turn himself into the next Dukakis - a technocrat that the voting public gets bored by at best.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

First of all: the economy isn`t growing fast enough to lower unemployment. It's the slowest economic recovery in history.

Second of all: your second point is irrelevant. We're talking election politics here: bad economy -> ousted incumbent. It's a change in direction that appeals to voters.

The history of the great depression refutes everything you just said. We stuck with a guy for four terms even after his policies didn't have a large impact on the situation until WWII. I'm also pretty sure that was the slowest economic recovery in american history.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

First of all: the economy isn`t growing fast enough to lower unemployment. It's the slowest economic recovery in history.

We have a safety net in place thanks to largely democratic initiatives that have kept the majority of the populace from falling into destitution and homelessness. The employment situation sucks. But unemployment has been ticking down for what, a year?

How much power do you expect a president to exert over a capitalist economy?

As for change in direction - Romney hasn't offered any substantiative initiatives that don't involve cutting taxes for the rich. I don't see how that is a change in direction from what we have had in place as economic policy since the 80's. As long as Romney avoids big ideas, he cedes the 'change in direction' label to Obama.

 

[Dreadnought]

If Romney wants to center his campaign on trying to roll out data, he will turn himself into the next Dukakis - a technocrat that the voting public gets bored by at best.

See, it doesn't require you to be a technocrat to get the point across. "Hey, the economy sucks, vote for me in November." And it doesn't take too much economic training to realize it does.

The history of the great depression refutes everything you just said. We stuck with a guy for four terms even after his policies didn't have a large impact on the situation until WWII. I'm also pretty sure that was the slowest economic recovery in american history.

Roosevelt at least gave the illusion that he was working to get the economy back on track. That's what kept him reelected.

We have a safety net in place thanks to largely democratic initiatives that have kept the majority of the populace from falling into destitution and homelessness. The employment situation sucks. But unemployment has been ticking down for what, a year?

How much power do you expect a president to exert over a capitalist economy?

As for change in direction - Romney hasn't offered any substantiative initiatives that don't involve cutting taxes for the rich. I don't see how that is a change in direction from what we have had in place as economic policy since the 80's. As long as Romney avoids big ideas, he cedes the 'change in direction' label to Obama.

Please. That fact alone can help the GOP in the coming election -- more people than ever are on Disabilities and Foodstamps. That's not something Obama can campaign on.

Regardless of the possible powers of the President, the economy is the driving force in the election; it's just the way politics works. If it's looking good, you can put it on your resume. If it sucks, it'll become a liability for you.

This election is Obama vs. his opponent, not necessarily Obama vs. Romney. That's how things are shaping to pan out.

 

[BvBPL]

Second of all: your second point is irrelevant. We're talking election politics here: bad economy -> ousted incumbent. It's a change in direction that appeals to voters.

That may be, but Romney is utterly rudderless. He has demonstrated that he lacks any core political beliefs as he's more than willing to distance himself from the political expertise he does have. He doesn't have a direction, he just goes where the wind blows like some sort of political tumbleweed. Ted Kennedy once observed that Romney's not pro-choice, but multiple choice.

A change in direction implies that the new guy has some sort of direction in the first place. That's not the case with Romney and voters recognize it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Roosevelt at least gave the illusion that he was working to get the economy back on track. That's what kept him reelected.

So Obama's doing nothing? Tax cuts for small businesses. Hire a veteran initiatives. Keeping a major american industry in business. I am pretty sure he is doing everything he is constitutionally allowed to do.

Please. That fact alone can help the GOP in the coming election -- more people than ever are on Disabilities and Foodstamps. That's not something Obama can campaign on.

The people on food stamps are not going to vote for the person/party that wants to take them away. I think that many of us who are fortunate to not be on these programs are glad they exist nonetheless. Despite the attitude of the pundit class on the right, these programs are popular, for good reason. They keep people alive and give them a shot to overcome adversity.

Regardless of the possible powers of the President, the economy is the driving force in the election; it's just the way politics works. If it's looking good, you can put it on your resume. If it sucks, it'll become a liability for you.

People seem to still blame mostly Bush for the economy. Rightly so. Obama has also had other initiatives to help the economy. The republicans turned them all down save the hire a veteran initiative. I don't see how this is Obama's fault and I do not believe the American populace is so naive they can't see how this is obstructionism. As I said before, constitutionally there is only so many things a president can do without a split congress.

This election is Obama vs. his opponent, not necessarily Obama vs. Romney. That's how things are shaping to pan out.

Don't you see how that works in Obama's favor?

 

[Cutlass]

I heard that as many as 3 Justices may retire in the next term.

There are always rumors. But I really don't think you can predict that. Scalia is 76, but that's hardly an exceptional age for a justice, and I think he's still too angry to leave by choice. Kennedy, same story. Thomas is only 64. Ginsburg is 79, and has had some health issues. She's the only one I would expect to retire. Breyer is 73, and I don't think he's likely to leave soon. And the others are all relatively young and haven't been on the court long.

That being said, here is my prediction. I apologize for not providing links, I'm at work and can't dabble in this for too long.

I think there's a significant chance that Obama is unseated in November. The economic numbers today were pretty dismal. Romney has been catching up in polls (even winning in some: see my sig). Most disconcerting of all: polling in Iowa (one of the two states that'd put Romney over 270) shows Romney either in a tie or beating Obama (those results honestly surprised me; perhaps we need more data before drawing a significant conclusion). The GOP is also making strides in Wisconsin and Michigan. Midterm elections in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Virginia went to the GOP, perhaps signifying a significant trend in those areas.

Obama has had several noticeable gaffes over the past few months; most recently, the "You didn`t build that" slip is becoming a major focus for the Romney campaign. Heck, we might look back on that and say, "Wow, that really helped out his election."

That's not really a gaffe. Just bad wording, and only works when taken out of context. Romney said the same thing with different words, after all.

The thing is, Obama is on the defensive this election. The economy is not going to go his way. Obama's attacks on Romney are not working (and costing him hundreds of millions of dollars for no effect). Romney is outspending Obama; Romney is outraising Obama (if you include SuperPACs). These are all significant trends here.

I will gladly talk more about this when I have more time.

Romney is on the defensive as well. The tax returns and Bain issues are both becoming serious problems for him.

I think Romney only wins if no one is looking at Romney, and it is only a referendum on Obama. Once you compare Romney to Obama, Romney comes off poorly.

 

[Ajidica]

I think Romney only wins if no one is looking at Romney, and it is only a referendum on Obama. Once you compare Romney to Obama, Romney comes off poorly.

True that, at least Obama can conjure up some tepid enthusiasm this election. The only person I know who is even vaguely excited about Romney was VRWCA.

 

[Dreadnought]

So Obama's doing nothing? Tax cuts for small businesses. Hire a veteran initiatives. Keeping a major american industry in business. I am pretty sure he is doing everything he is constitutionally allowed to do.




The people on food stamps are not going to vote for the person/party that wants to take them away. I think that many of us who are fortunate to not be on these programs are glad they exist nonetheless. Despite the attitude of the pundit class on the right, these programs are popular, for good reason. They keep people alive and give them a shot to overcome adversity.




People seem to still blame mostly Bush for the economy. Rightly so. Obama has also had other initiatives to help the economy. The republicans turned them all down save the hire a veteran initiative. I don't see how this is Obama's fault and I do not believe the American populace is so naive they can't see how this is obstructionism. As I said before, constitutionally there is only so many things a president can do without a split congress.



Don't you see how that works in Obama's favor?

Oh, come on now. If Obama could deliver an economic recovery, he would have, instead of passing healthcare and keeping his Jobs Council on the afterburner for six months.

This "blaming Bush" tirade isn't going to work anymore. Obama's had his time. It's now going to come down to the voters. We'll see how the initiative goes, especially after the debates, but Romney still has his VP card left to play.

 

[Ajidica]

Oh, come on now. If Obama could deliver an economic recovery, he would have, instead of passing healthcare and keeping his Jobs Council on the afterburner for six months.

It would be easy enough to 'fix the economy'. Large domestic spending increases stimulate an economic recovery (inflation is low enough we can safely ignore it for the time being) which can be offset with increased taxes on the super-wealthy. If I remember Integral's posts right, we are in a demand side recession, so why not address the demand issue?