| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A year left: Obama running against history | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 7 2011, 01:29 PM (882 Views) | |
| Jim Miller | Nov 7 2011, 01:29 PM Post #1 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
LINK |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Nov 7 2011, 08:43 PM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Somehow I doubt if the President is terribly worried about running against history. That was his experience in 2008 when he became the first black to be elected President of the United State4s. But, historically, Truman overcame an even lower rating prior to his election. and the fact is that he3 holds a significant lead in the polls over each currently possible and probable Republican candidate. So, maybe history is on his side. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 7 2011, 09:08 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unfortunately for the opposition, History will not appear on any presidential ballots. History does show the opposition should have a pretty good chance of winning this election *IF* they nominate candidates who appeal to more voters than just the right wing lunatic fringe. Coming up with a candidate that appeals to that fringe is easy; finding one who is palatable by the middle-of-the-roaders and independent voters is the key. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 7 2011, 10:32 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
History looks at IFs? Quantum history perhaps. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 8 2011, 01:10 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
The US jobs picture is looking much better. With a year to go, that will probably determine his re-election chances. This article appeared today in the Canadian Globe & Mail business section. I find their analysis & predictions are a lot more accurate, since they don't have any political irons in the US fire LINK |
|
|
| Chris | Nov 8 2011, 02:38 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nor anything at risk. Their analysis shows job creation barely meets new entrant needs: "The headline job creation number, of late stubbornly below the 100,000 to 120,000 per month needed just to absorb new entrants into the U.S. labour force, has become somewhat misleading. For several months now, revisions that get less attention have made the picture look somewhat rosier. In August, for example, the original report said no jobs were created. The latest estimate is 105,000." Their analysis shows job creation is not result of government actions like stimulus: "Despite lost construction jobs, the private sector added 104,000. The government shed 24,000 jobs, mostly in state-level non-education fields. Total government employment is now back to the level of 2006. Since private sector jobs ultimately pay for much of the public sector, this rebalancing is welcome." No doubt Obama will take credit, not to defeat Republicans, but public opinion against him. Obama's Biggest Opponent: Voters: "...Regardless of the Republican nominee, those on the Obama team recognize that their biggest obstacle is voter disappointment with his performance, particularly on the economy.... In most national surveys, Obama's approval rating is running around 45 percent. (Some top Democrats worry that the actual number among likely voters is lower.) Even more ominous, more than two-thirds of Americans surveyed routinely say the country is on the wrong track, the highest level in decades. On both fronts, those numbers more resemble the profile of presidential losers than of winners.... Things always change in politics, but that would defy history...." |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Nov 8 2011, 02:47 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think there are enough guys like me on election day, to throw all these odds out the window. I won't vote for Obama or any of the current crop of Republican front runners. Ron Paul ha smy vote or if I decide against him next fall, I'll write in somebody. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 8 2011, 03:31 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Or, perhaps, the stimulus wasn't large enough. I've heard people say that Roosevelt's policies were not effective at bringing the US out of the Depression, but it was World War II that finally did it. Wasn't World War II nothing but a HUGE stimulus package putting? It put millions back to work both in and out of uniform and spent billions on military hardware - hardware that was consumed as fast as we could crank it out? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 8 2011, 04:03 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Or, perhaps, the stimulus wasn't large enough." That seems to be the standard liberal and neoKeynesian answer to the failures of government, that or that you just need smarter people as central planners. Despite even Keynes' arguments against large long-term stimuli, Krugman is one who argues that. But it ignores the economic calculation problem Mises raised in the 30s to prove central planning cannot possibly solve it. One reason for this is the knowledge needed to solve economic problems is distributed and dynamic, as argument by Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society". In short, the problem isn't how many resources you throw at the problem, but determining how to allocate resources. The end of WWII lead to the Recession of 1945: "The decline in government spending at the end of World War II led to an enormous drop in gross domestic product, making this technically a recession. This was the result of demobilization and the shift from a wartime to peacetime economy." Edited by Chris, Nov 8 2011, 04:04 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 8 2011, 04:18 AM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think NGC has a good point. Hard to argue with it. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






10:43 PM Jul 11
