Support NeoGAF

[tokkun]

That's a funny post. But here's my problem: Let's go on the premise that Obama knew there was a debate Wednesday. Let's just go out on a limb and say that someone told him about it. So he purposely chose that date and time, for what reason? If he wanted to stick it to the GOP, then he should stick it to the GOP and stick hard to the date and make Congress oblige. He's the PRESIDENT for Christ's sake. Instead he acquiesced and is made to look like he is either A) disorganized for not knowing about the debate or B) wanting to pick a fight until Boehner slaps him in the mouth, causing him to give in.

I don't see either scenario being particularly flattering.

I don't think the purpose was to "stick it to the GOP". I think Obama chose that date because it is the first day that Congress is reconvening. He wanted to send a message that he wants to start on his job creation initiatives as soon as possible.

When he saw that his message would be overshadowed by the story of the partisan fight over the date if he continued, he decided to quickly give in.

 

[reilo]

Federal Reserve announces enforcement action against former Goldman Sachs unit for negligent mortgage lending practices.

http://money.cnn.com/

What is an enforcement action supposed to accomplish?

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.hamiltonplacestrategies.com/in-the-news/articles/when-going-negative-isnt-enough/

The only way Obama gets re-elected is if Bachman wins the nomination, or maybe Perry.

I don't know what's worse. The fact that you seem eager to get Obama out, or you believe that Obama will lose SO easily. Jesus.

 

[TacticalFox88]

SANTORUM: I think just because we disagree on public policy, which is what the debate has been about — which is marriage — doesn’t mean that it’s bigotry. Just because you follow a moral code that teaches that something’s wrong doesn’t mean that — are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted? If that’s what you believe, fine. [...] Well, I shouldn’t say — not fine. I don’t think it’s fine at all. I think that is contrary to both what we’ve seen in 2,000 years of human history and Western civilization, and trying to redefine something that has been — that is — seen as wrong…I think is in itself an act of bigotry.

Well, then, that settles it.

 

[reilo]

Well, then, that settles it.

are you suggesting that the Bible and that the Catholic Church is bigoted?

Yes. Glad that's settled.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

You switched the sexes. Obama thinks she can change the boy into a man. The boy only wants to fuck her.

I can't imagine a better analogy than this.

Obama is the naive girl who has somewhat fallen for the "badboy" boyfriend who she thinks she can make his sensitive side come out and have him grow up and take responsibilities in his life. She tries to change him into the man she wants him to be but in reality he's just a piece of shit punk dirtbag who just wants to be with her so that she can spread her legs, so she can never succeed.

Here's another aspect I wonder about for the election..

I honestly wonder if voters will look at things like this and say to themselves:
"This Obama fellow.. he's been dealt an absolutely lousy hand. A crazy-bad economy when he walked in the door, a notable number of natural disasters, suicidal political opponents who are willing to kamikaze the economy in order to take him down. And this Perry/Romney guy sounds a lot like he's pushing a return to Bush's policies. True, we're not getting the economic results that we want as fast as we'd like, but Obama is a nice guy, and I like a lot of what he says. We gave that ass Bush two terms, and it feels wrong to kick this nice guy out."

Most people aren't intelligent or aware of the political world.

A majority of Americans think that the democrats and republicans are more or less equal in demands, aren't familiar with the Bush tax cuts (let alone the policies), aren't aware how the economy is doing or is predicted to be doing, and have no idea who Rick Perry or Mitt Romney are.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't know what's worse. The fact that you seem eager to get Obama out, or you believe that Obama will lose SO easily. Jesus.

How does any president win with 8.5%+ UE, after being elected to fix the economy? I just can't imagine that.

 

[reilo]

How does any president win with 8.5%+ UE, after being elected to fix the economy? I just can't imagine that.

It's been worse...

From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984.

December 2010: 9.4%

EDIT:

July 1983: 9.4%
August 1983: 9.5%

Unemployment numbers are better now than they were during Reagan's respective first term.

 

[AlteredBeast]

It's been worse...


December 2010: 9.4%

EDIT:

July 1983: 9.4%
August 1983: 9.5%

Unemployment numbers are better now than they were during Reagan's respective first term.

Doubtful. Using the same calculation, I am sure reagan's numbers would be far lower. The math has gotten crazy...

 

[reilo]

Doubtful. Using the same calculation, I am sure reagan's numbers would be far lower. The math has gotten crazy...

It's nice to argue in hypotheticals.

 

[gcubed]

Well, then, that settles it.

how come no one has pointed out the "2000 years of human history"

Is Santorum a young earther?!?!

 

[Evlar]

See that increase in the EMRatio from the 1950s to the 1990s? That's women's lib. See the latest drop? That's... an unprecedented business-cycle shock over the term of this graph (back to 1948).

Yes, it's really damn bad.

 

[Cyan]

how come no one has pointed out the "2000 years of human history"

Is Santorum a young earther?!?!

Jesus invented civilization.

Spoiler

Young-earther would be 6000 years.

 

[gcubed]

Jesus invented civilization.

Spoiler

Young-earther would be 6000 years.

then a ultra young earther.

 

[besada]

how come no one has pointed out the "2000 years of human history"

Is Santorum a young earther?!?!

Or does he just think that Jesus wrote the Bible?

Of course, he might just be referring to the Church, which was theoretically formed by Christ when he anointed Peter as his rock.

 

[gcubed]

Or does he just think that Jesus wrote the Bible?

Of course, he might just be referring to the Church, which was theoretically formed by Christ when he anointed Peter as his rock.

true... although thats too many posts dedicated to a nobody that my shitty state once elected

 

[besada]

true... although thats too many posts dedicated to a nobody that my shitty state once elected

It's either that or talk about the bitch fight between Obama and Congress some more. Given the option, I'll stick with discussing Santorum.

How about an article about Dave Carney, Perry's campaign guy, complete with hilarious picture?
http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-outsider

“I wouldn’t vote for me,” Carney once told The Boston Globe, “and I don’t know anybody else who would.” He made headlines in The Dallas Morning News in 2010 when he offended Sarah Palin, calling the logistics of a joint Perry-Palin event “the most retarded thing I’ve ever heard.” He’s not exactly polished.

“He can swear like a trooper,” one of his former clients told me. “I’ve never heard a man say ‘fuck’ so many times in a minute.”

He’d run the experiments four years earlier. Heading into Perry’s 2006 reelection campaign, Carney picked up a book to read on a plane—Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. When he finished reading he promptly ordered copies for everyone he worked with. Then he called one of the authors, Yale political scientist Donald Green. Like many others who read the book, Carney was shocked by its findings: That old-fashioned, door-to-door campaigning is the most efficient way to turn out voters. Volunteer phone calls are pretty good too. But television ads, mailers and robocalls—the mainstays of modern campaigns and moneymakers for political consultants—have virtually no impact on voter turnout.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's been worse...

December 2010: 9.4%

EDIT:

July 1983: 9.4%
August 1983: 9.5%

Unemployment numbers are better now than they were during Reagan's respective first term.

I can't find the post, but Paul Krugman had a good note on his blog a while back about this. He found the absolute unemployment number is not nearly as predictive of the outcome of a presidential election as the direction unemployment is moving in. High unemployment that was dropping at a good clip meant people percieved the economy as improving, and they rewarded the incumbent. High unemployment that was flat or rising meant the incumbent got the boot.

It was an astute observation because of how this conversation usually plays out. We look at a level and say, can he win if unemployment is X%? The real question is whether Obama can point to things getting better in a measurable way. If he can, he's in good shape. If not, he's in deep doo-doo.

Unemployment has been flat for a good six months or so, and I don't see much on the horizon to change that. Obama's internal budget review put it at around 9% through 2012.

 

[Diablos]

http://www.hamiltonplacestrategies.com/in-the-news/articles/when-going-negative-isnt-enough/

The only way Obama gets re-elected is if Bachman wins the nomination, or maybe Perry.

Here you go, man:

https://mittromney.com/donate

Hope you feel better.

I can't find the post, but Paul Krugman had a good note on his blog a while back about this. He found the absolute unemployment number is not nearly as predictive of the outcome of a presidential election as the direction unemployment is moving in. High unemployment that was dropping at a good clip meant people percieved the economy as improving, and they rewarded the incumbent. High unemployment that was flat or rising meant the incumbent got the boot.

It was an astute observation because of how this conversation usually plays out. We look at a level and say, can he win if unemployment is X%? The real question is whether Obama can point to things getting better in a measurable way. If he can, he's in good shape. If not, he's in deep doo-doo.

Unemployment has been flat for a good six months or so, and I don't see much on the horizon to change that. Obama's internal budget review put it at around 9% through 2012.

So essentially what you are saying is... if it stays flat at 9% through '12 then Obama's fate is already sealed.

 

[gcubed]

It's either that or talk about the bitch fight between Obama and Congress some more. Given the option, I'll stick with discussing Santorum.

How about an article about Dave Carney, Perry's campaign guy, complete with hilarious picture?
http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-outsider

+1, i like that guy

 

[Vanillalite]

Here you go, man:

https://mittromney.com/donate

Hope you feel better.



If it stays flat at 9% through '12 then Obama's fate is already sealed.

Here you go, man:

https://mittromney.com/donate

Hope you feel better.

 

[besada]

+1, i like that guy

Carney's a pretty interesting fellow. A New Hampshire native who's made working in Texas a huge part of his career. A guy who bailed out of the limelight and prefers to hide in the shadows. And, most importantly, a guy who's willing to ignore political conventions for anything that actually works.

 

[Diablos]

Here you go, man:

https://mittromney.com/donate

Hope you feel better.

lawl! Read up again pls.

I must say, it's really amusing to see everyone in here getting fed up over every Obama-related thing that comes down the wire.

His moves a speech to a different date because of a scheduling conflict, and you guys act like he just went on national television and changed his political party to Republican. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

 

[worldrunover]

Obama would need to fuck up a lot more to lose the 2012 election. Have we forgotten how fantastic a campaigner he is? And how utterly meager the GOP field is? And how rare it is for an incumbent to actually lose? Chances are very good Obama wins re-election. I'm much more worried about his policy decisions.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Obama would need to fuck up a lot more to lose the 2012 election. Have we forgotten how fantastic a campaigner he is? And how utterly meager the GOP field is? And how rare it is for an incumbent to actually lose? Chances are very good Obama wins re-election. I'm much more worried about his policy decisions.

I just pray (lol, ironic) that if he wins, he goes balls out in his second term, just not giving a flying fuck.

 

[Diablos]

Obama would need to fuck up a lot more to lose the 2012 election. Have we forgotten how fantastic a campaigner he is? And how utterly meager the GOP field is? And how rare it is for an incumbent to actually lose? Chances are very good Obama wins re-election. I'm much more worried about his policy decisions.

These are some epicly faily times we live in, son.

Anything can happen.

Bush managed to get two terms. Even if the first one wasn't legit, nobody seemed to care since he won a second term anyway.

Really, ever since GWB left the WH it really left me with the impression that anyone can get the GOP nomination. The guy is a walking abortion.

 

[eznark]

Obama will be safe only because some group will fund a massive Perot-like third party campaign. I'm guessing It will be a centrist like Romney or a brilliant, Patriotic, freedom-loving, liberty believing Hero like Gary Johnson (funded by the Koch brothers).

Obama will win with 45% of the popular vote or less.

Book it.

 

[besada]

His moves a speech to a different date because of a scheduling conflict, and you guys act like he just went on national television and changed his political party to Republican. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

A) Not everyone. Learn to use your words. And,
B) You saying something's not a big deal is about the funniest thing I've read all day. You should write that shit on your eyelids and then take a good long blink every time you read a poll.

Obama will be safe only because some group will fund a massive Perot-like third party campaign. I'm guessing It will be a centrist like Romney or a brilliant, Patriotic, freedom-loving, liberty believing Hero like Gary Johnson (funded by the Koch brothers).

Obama will win with 45% of the popular vote or less.

Book it.

I stil think there's a chance that Paul will run third party once he washes out of the nomination process. He's got better support than usual, and he has no Republican home to go to. He's done in the Republican party, no matter what happens, so why not?

 

[Souldriver]

These are some epicly faily times we live in, son.

Anything can happen.

Bush managed to get two terms. Even if the first one wasn't legit, nobody seemed to care since he won a second term anyway.

Really, ever since GWB left the WH it really left me with the impression that anyone can get the GOP nomination. The guy is a walking abortion.

Yeah, but W was president when the US was going to war.

For some ridiculous reason the whole population completely and utterly backs their president when something bad happens and bloods needs to be spilled (i.e.: start wars).

Obama will be safe only because some group will fund a massive Perot-like third party campaign. I'm guessing It will be a centrist like Romney or a brilliant, Patriotic, freedom-loving, liberty believing Hero like Gary Johnson (funded by the Koch brothers).

Obama will win with 45% of the popular vote or less.

Book it.

That would be so awesome. Not because it makes the chances of Obama winning bigger, but also because I think it would make for a hilarious presidential campaign.

 

[TacticalFox88]

These are some epicly faily times we live in, son.

Anything can happen.

Bush managed to get two terms. Even if the first one wasn't legit, nobody seemed to care since he won a second term anyway.

Really, ever since GWB left the WH it really left me with the impression that anyone can get the GOP nomination. The guy is a walking abortion.

And the candidates now are even worse. So what are they? Abominations?

 

[eznark]

I stil think there's a chance that Paul will run third party once he washes out of the nomination process. He's got better support than usual, and he has no Republican home to go to. He's done in the Republican party, no matter what happens, so why not?

If libertarian money decides to back someone, they aren't going to back Paul. My guess is it would be a Johnson-Paul ticket, to bring along the Paul-ites. If that happens (and some soft money gets seriously behind them) I predict the ticket gets 10%.

I think it will be interesting because I think the GOP is going to focus significantly more on the senate, which is clearly in play, than the Presidency, which will open the door for a right-leaning third party candidate to siphon off some of the national donors.

That would be so awesome. Not because it makes the chances of Obama winning bigger, but also because I think it would make for a hilarious presidential campaign.

Now you know why I am rooting for it!

 

[BotoxAgent]

Obama will be safe only because some group will fund a massive Perot-like third party campaign. I'm guessing It will be a centrist like Romney or a brilliant, Patriotic, freedom-loving, liberty believing Hero like Gary Johnson (funded by the Koch brothers).

Obama will win with 45% of the popular vote or less.

Book it.

I've been praying that it would be Trump :-(


a man can dream

 

[gcubed]

If libertarian money decides to back someone, they aren't going to back Paul. My guess is it would be a Johnson-Paul ticket, to bring along the Paul-ites. If that happens (and some soft money gets seriously behind them) I predict the ticket gets 10%.

I think it will be interesting because I think the GOP is going to focus significantly more on the senate, which is clearly in play, than the Presidency, which will open the door for a right-leaning third party candidate to siphon off some of the national donors.

they should also focus on not losing the house then

 

[eznark]

they should also focus on not losing the house then

I haven't looked much at house races. I assumed redistricting after the big GOP state gains took care of that for awhile.

 

[Jackson50]

So essentially what you are saying is... if it stays flat at 9% through '12 then Obama's fate is already sealed.

No; however, his prospects would be diminished. If growth remains tepid, it would probably be a coin toss from an economic perspective. Therefore, marginal variables, such as a candidate's ideological polarization and campaign strategy, would be important factors.

 

[besada]

I haven't looked much at house races. I assumed redistricting after the big GOP state gains took care of that for awhile.

Depends on how many of the redistricting plans are in effect -- rather than in court -- when the election rolls around. I predict the Texas redistricting plan will be held up by a court battle, but that's not much of a prediction, since it happens nearly every decade.

You seriously don't think the Lib money will jump at Paul if he's still posting 10-12% when he washes out? I know they don't love him, but they want to break 5% and I'm not sure Johnson (or any other Libertarian candidate) can do that.

Hell, I'd like to see Paul run on his own party. It'd be wonderful to watch that conservative vote split three ways.

 

[Diablos]

And the candidates now are even worse. So what are they? Abominations?

Romney is actually pretty decent (for a Republican), unfortunately (as we have already seen) he's selling his soul to the devil just like McCain did and then some.

 

[Puddles]

Obama would need to fuck up a lot more to lose the 2012 election. Have we forgotten how fantastic a campaigner he is? And how utterly meager the GOP field is? And how rare it is for an incumbent to actually lose? Chances are very good Obama wins re-election. I'm much more worried about his policy decisions.

What is he going to campaign on?

A healthcare bill that will be an improvement on the status quo, but mostly doesn't go into effect for years and doesn't even contain the public option that most Americans wanted?

A financial reform bill that didn't get rid of the "too big to fail" problem, didn't re-implement Glass-Steagall, and doesn't do much of anything?

Not taxing the banker bonuses?

A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that might be completely gutted by then?

I guess he got the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights through, and he was in charge when we got Osama bin Laden. I'd point to the stimulus as being somewhat effective, since it immediately turned the trend of 750k/month job losses into small monthly job gains, but he never pushed that message, and so most Americans think the stimulus was a massive failure.

 

[eznark]

Depends on how many of the redistricting plans are in effect -- rather than in court -- when the election rolls around. I predict the Texas redistricting plan will be held up by a court battle, but that's not much of a prediction, since it happens nearly every decade.

You seriously don't think the Lib money will jump at Paul if he's still posting 10-12% when he washes out? I know they don't love him, but they want to break 5% and I'm not sure Johnson (or any other Libertarian candidate) can do that.

Hell, I'd like to see Paul run on his own party. It'd be wonderful to watch that conservative vote split three ways.

Oh, I don't think anyone will run as a Libertarian. They'll come up with something mildly patriotic. The Freedom Party or some such. I think Paul will sign on to gain (and add) relevance to a message that is finally starting to catch on.

 

[mckmas8808]

What is he going to campaign on?

A healthcare bill that will be an improvement on the status quo, but mostly doesn't go into effect for years and doesn't even contain the public option that most Americans wanted?

A financial reform bill that didn't get rid of the "too big to fail" problem, didn't re-implement Glass-Steagall, and doesn't do much of anything?

Not taxing the banker bonuses?

A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that might be completely gutted by then?

I guess he got the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights through, and he was in charge when we got Osama bin Laden. I'd point to the stimulus as being somewhat effective, since it immediately turned the trend of 750k/month job losses into small monthly job gains, but he never pushed that message, and so most Americans think the stimulus was a massive failure.

What will the GOP run on? And you mean he made the call to kill Bin Laden right?

 

[thekad]

I just pray (lol, ironic) that if he wins, he goes balls out in his second term, just not giving a flying fuck.

LOL

 

[jamesinclair]

Seriously, who the fuck cares what day the speech is or that Obama moved it. This is the epitome of making a mountain out of a molehill.

Yeah. This scheduling thing is a non-story.

Yeah, it's a non story. Not like it's front page news or anything.

 

[mckmas8808]

Gotta sell more paper huh? If Obama farted the media would say it didn't stink as bad as Boehner's. Therefore should he be President instead.

 

[jamesinclair]

Gotta sell more paper huh?

I dont get this line.

Dont most people subscribe? It's not like I call the paper, ask what the headlines are, and then tell them if I want it delivered or not.

 

[GhaleonEB]

What is he going to campaign on?

I'm still waiting to hear what his platform is. When he announced his candidacy for President, Obama gave a speech explaining why. With the re-election, all we really got was the news that his campaign committee was formed and fundraising again.

What's the platform? If re-elected, he will try and do X. What's X? I have no idea.

 

[timetokill]

I just pray (lol, ironic) that if he wins, he goes balls out in his second term, just not giving a flying fuck.

I dunno, it kind of feels like Obama already doesn't give a flying fuck about us already.



Anyway, I can't imagine that a presidential slogan of, "Hope that I change my style of governance" is going to bring people to the polls.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm still waiting to hear what his platform is. When he announced his candidacy for President, Obama gave a speech explaining why. With the re-election, all we really got was the news that his campaign committee was formed and fundraising again.

What's the platform? If re-elected, he will try and do X. What's X? I have no idea.

He will run a "I'm not GOP" campaign and it will stick as long as public still blames Bush for our woes. Then he's going to make one epic "when the going gets tough" speech in rain in the middle of Pennsylvania and everything will be fine and dandy with the left.

 

[mckmas8808]

I dont get this line.

Dont most people subscribe? It's not like I call the paper, ask what the headlines are, and then tell them if I want it delivered or not.

Newspaper stands maybe?

 

[PhoenixDark]

What will the GOP run on? And you mean he made the call to kill Bin Laden right?

The GOP will be running solely based on the economy and Obama. Considering he doesn't really have a platform to run on it won't be hard. Clearly voters have given up on Obama. Luckily there isn't a great GOP candidate out there, so voters aren't thrilled about any of their choices. Maybe that changes once voters get a better look at Romney, or maybe his flip flops scare them back into Obama's arms.

 

[tokkun]

Yeah, it's a non story. Not like it's front page news or anything.

[.IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_1822.jpg[/IMG]

Look at it this way: it got less space than an article about wildflowers being pretty