Senator McCain: Of course Palin can beat Obama

[BioDefenseGrad]

Who knows, maybe by the time the election rolls around somebody from the republicans will break out, but I have a feeling Obama isn't exactly sweating any bullets thinking about facing any of them including the ones you mentioned. :dunno:

Agreed.

 

[lurkingdirk]

As the economy tanks even more on a daily basis, Obama is in trouble. Real clear politics has Romney and he in a dead heat. Still much time before the nomination and election, however, 4 dollar a gallon gas will get you every time.

The economy isn't taking more on a daily basis, though.

 

[darthtexan]

This conveniently overlooks the fact unemployment was in free fall as Bush was leaving office, and quite naturally wasn't going to miraculously bottom out the day he left.

And no to the last statement as well. Unemployment has been hovering around 9% for quite a while now, not 10. Which as Hot Mega has pointed out is still better than Reagan's unemployment rate at this point in his first term.



The Bush administration didn't include the cost of either war in their deficits.

We will never know what the unemployment rate would have been if Obama wasnt president. I have no doubt that atleast half of the job losses on his watch were not his fault. But the stock market was relitively calm in Bush's last 2-3 months after the SEPT/OCT fall panic of 2008. The market crashed almost as much under Obama as it did Bush, inspite of a lack of bad news coming out of the financial markets - certainly not as bad as the news in SEPT and OCT of 2008. It is reasonable to speculate that the economy had already fallen far enough when Obama took office in January 2009. What Obama ist definately responsible for is the unemployment rate staying at 10% for 20 months. Totally unacceptable.



The unemployment rate is likely higher than 9.1% when you account for the labor force participation rate being at a 40 year low. Reagan was re-elected at a 7.3% unemployment rate, the best Obama can hope for is 8% - and that is optimistic. At this comporable point in Regan's presidency, the economy had been growing rapidly for 6 months. In 1983 and 1984, we experienced some quarters with rediculously high rates of growth - some as high as 8%!!! I dont think that is going to happen in the next 18 months. Also, Reagan had to kill inflation his first 2 years - by jacking up interest rates and causing the unemployment rate to rise up to 10%. Obama had to do no such thing. Interest rates are virtually 0. He dicked around with health care his first 2 years.

Even when you include the war costs, Bush's deficits are very managable and historically low. Definately far better than Obama's deficits. Today, when most people analyze Bush's deficits, the war costs are included. its not like Standard and Poor and bond holders arent going to take that in account.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Who knows, maybe by the time the election rolls around somebody from the republicans will break out, but I have a feeling Obama isn't exactly sweating any bullets thinking about facing any of them including the ones you mentioned. :dunno:

Surely you have now seen the poll that just came out with Romney ahead of The Savior?

If people on the left think this is so comical and that it will be a walkover, they are sorely mistaken.

I don't particularly like Romney for a number of reasons, but the fact remains...

I am fairly loyal to Pawlenty because he balanced my state's budget (and for other social and fiscal policies), but I don't even know if I will vote for him or if he will even get the GOP spot. I will probably vote independent again (Ron Paul, but that's no ones business :tongue

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Surely you have now seen the poll that just came out with Romney ahead of The Savior?

If people on the left think this is so comical and that it will be a walkover, they are sorely mistaken.

I don't particularly like Romney for a number of reasons, but the fact remains...

I am fairly loyal to Pawlenty because he balanced my state's budget (and for other social and fiscal policies), but I don't even know if I will vote for him or if he will even get the GOP spot. I will probably vote independent again (Ron Paul, but that's no ones business :tongue

In 2012, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

In 2012, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama.

I was told that in '04 and '08 as well and it never stopped me.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Surely you have now seen the poll that just came out with Romney ahead of The Savior?

If people on the left think this is so comical and that it will be a walkover, they are sorely mistaken.

I don't particularly like Romney for a number of reasons, but the fact remains...

I am fairly loyal to Pawlenty because he balanced my state's budget (and for other social and fiscal policies), but I don't even know if I will vote for him or if he will even get the GOP spot. I will probably vote independent again (Ron Paul, but that's no ones business :tongue

Yup, it is not going to be a cakewalk, but I still think that the GOP is going to lose ground when they get into the debates and when they are forced to produce a platform that is more substantial than "not Obama."

 

[Will E Worm]

In 2012, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama.

I was told that in '04 and '08 as well and it never stopped me.

It is time for that idea to stop.

A third party that stands by the Constitution is needed.

Republicans and Democrats have done nothing for us. All they care about is staying in power.

 

[lurkingdirk]

I just saw this, and thought it was too good not to share.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

We are a torn and divided people on issues that mean nothing. Every debate is a distraction every opinion is pointless. UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL!!!!! It means something ladies and gentleman. As long as we bicker back and forth and lose sight of who we really are and let greed and corruption make our choices for us we will lag behind more and more. In the end it is up to us. We our are greatest hope and our greatest threat. Educate yourself listen to what is being and not being said. An informed vote is a good vote, The choice you make on who governs you is not a fad it is not a burden it is a right won with BLOOD!!! Take it to heart and use your head. America and whats good for America is all you should consider not what you pay not what you get and surely not because the canidate is or is not in my political party. We are Americans and we can do better.

 

[lurkingdirk]

UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL!!!!!

I'm curious to know if you think that sentiment is unique to the USA? The origin is generally attributed to Aesop in his fables, just FYI. And do you think there are other nations that sit around thinking, "You know what? I think we as a nation really don't need to be united. That's not an important issue."

Just curious.

 

[Hot Mega]

anthony weiner can beat palin

Doubtful. Demos at least hold most of their leaders responsible for being stupid. GOPers usually rush to accept excuses in some cases and create excuses for their behavior in others.

I just saw this, and thought it was too good not to share.

Why play that game (blame the media) with GOPers (ever)?? Dontcha see...if the media didn't cover Palin...it would be the old lib media ignoring a former VP candidate and not giving her the coverage they would be giving Obama or some other Demo...

 

[Rey C.]

We will never know what the unemployment rate would have been if Obama wasnt president. I have no doubt that atleast half of the job losses on his watch were not his fault. But the stock market was relitively calm in Bush's last 2-3 months after the SEPT/OCT fall panic of 2008. The market crashed almost as much under Obama as it did Bush, inspite of a lack of bad news coming out of the financial markets - certainly not as bad as the news in SEPT and OCT of 2008. It is reasonable to speculate that the economy had already fallen far enough when Obama took office in January 2009. What Obama ist definately responsible for is the unemployment rate staying at 10% for 20 months. Totally unacceptable.



The unemployment rate is likely higher than 9.1% when you account for the labor force participation rate being at a 40 year low. Reagan was re-elected at a 7.3% unemployment rate, the best Obama can hope for is 8% - and that is optimistic. At this comporable point in Regan's presidency, the economy had been growing rapidly for 6 months. In 1983 and 1984, we experienced some quarters with rediculously high rates of growth - some as high as 8%!!! I dont think that is going to happen in the next 18 months. Also, Reagan had to kill inflation his first 2 years - by jacking up interest rates and causing the unemployment rate to rise up to 10%. Obama had to do no such thing. Interest rates are virtually 0. He dicked around with health care his first 2 years.

Even when you include the war costs, Bush's deficits are very managable and historically low. Definately far better than Obama's deficits. Today, when most people analyze Bush's deficits, the war costs are included. its not like Standard and Poor and bond holders arent going to take that in account.

I don't want to (nor have the time to) nitpick your post. You do make some interesting points. But the portion highlighted in red ignores how monetary policy is implemented in the United States. Presidents, whether Reagan or Obama, have NOTHING to do with monetary policy or pegging interest rates. Under Reagan, that was done by Paul Volker. Under Obama, it has been Ben Bernanke. As I'm sure you know, the Executive and Legislative branches are able to decide fiscal policy, and that may influence interest rates. But the decisions by the Fed (totally independent of the President and/or Congress) more directly influence interest rates, whether through quantitative programs or pegging the discount rate to a particular range. Paul Volker snuffed out inflation/stagflation. Ronald Reagan had very little, if anything, to do with that.

On unemployment, you also left out the devastation that would have resulted had GM (and Chrysler) gone into Chapter 7, instead of the government financed, pre-packaged Chapter 11 - which everyone from Corker to Shelby said was unworkable. How wrong they were. How lucky we were. Even conservative economic models had unemployment rising to 15-20% had that taken place. And it would be wishful thinking to imagine that we would be in recovery right now, had that happened.

We would also disagree on Bush's deficits being "manageable" or "historically low". Whether measured nominally or as a percentage of GDP, neither characterization would be true. But of course, the deficits under Obama have been worse. Of course, without the Great Recession, Bush's Middle East wars and the Bush tax cuts (the tax cuts alone have added about $2.4 trillion to the debt and about $400 billion in interest costs over the decade), "Obama's deficits" wouldn't be as bad. But he still has to take ownership of what his proposals have done to the deficit.

But again, you've made some interesting points. Hopefully we can continue this (good) discussion at a later time. :hatsoff:

 

[Rey C.]

Surely you have now seen the poll that just came out with Romney ahead of The Savior?

From now til election day, every news site and blogger will have a poll up. Yes, there is one which has Romney ahead of Obama. And there are others which have Obama ahead of Romney by double digits (the Reuters/Ipsos poll, I believe it is). But from every poll I've seen, right now, Romney is the only GOP candidate even within striking distance. Of course, that could change.

If people on the left think this is so comical and that it will be a walkover, they are sorely mistaken.

And by the same token, we have some here (apparently on the right) who say that a dead dog could beat Obama. So apparently, over-optimism is wide spread and isn't exclusive to any political philosophy.

I am fairly loyal to Pawlenty because he balanced my state's budget (and for other social and fiscal policies), but I don't even know if I will vote for him or if he will even get the GOP spot. I will probably vote independent again (Ron Paul, but that's no ones business :tongue

I thought Ron Paul was lining up as a Republican this time. Anyway, if he doesn't make it through the GOP primaries, I doubt he runs as a 3rd party candidate this time. But who knows? :dunno:


And hey, I just got a news alert that Newt Gingrich's campaign manager and staff has pretty much resigned en masse! Rats leaving a sinking ship?

 

[lurkingdirk]

And hey, I just got a news alert that Newt Gingrich's campaign manager and staff has pretty much resigned en masse! Rats leaving a sinking ship?

It isn't terribly uncommon at early stages like this to rebuild a staff if people aren't working out or aren't working well together. It's better to do it now than 3 months from the vote.

Though, more likely, you're right. Rats jumping ship.