America's Increasing Optimism May Help Obama
The American public, over the past few weeks, seems to have gotten more optimistic about the future. These recent gains have been somewhat modest and still far below a majority of the public being optimistic, but if this trend continues for the next month or so it will likely help President Obama's chances of being re-elected.
While Obama has been enjoying a post-convention "bounce" in polls which ask which candidate Americans plan on voting for (and also in Obama's job approval numbers), there's another question pollsters ask which hasn't been getting as much attention. This question is usually posed as some form of: "Do you think the country is generally heading in the right direction, or have things gotten off on the wrong track?" It's supposed to measure general optimism and pessimism about the country's near future.
During the 2008 presidential election, the "right track" numbers dropped dismally, hitting single digits at times, while the "wrong track" numbers climbed above 80 percent (to put the rest of this article in some perspective). After Obama took office, the numbers improved until the summer of 2009, when they briefly hit parity, at roughly 45 percent for "right track" and 45 percent "wrong track" alike.
Unfortunately for President Obama, this is the highest point he would ever see on this poll question. Since then (since Obama's "honeymoon period" wore off), the right track numbers slowly fell, and the wrong track numbers climbed, until Obama saw the worst pessimism of his first term in office roughly a year ago. Last October, the Real Clear Politics average for this question hit the Bush-level low of only 17 percent right track to a whopping 76.5 percent who thought America was on the wrong track -- a deficit of almost 60 points.
Since this nadir, however, Americans' optimism has been slowly recovering. As the economic news got better at the beginning of 2012, the right track number grew to a high of 35 percent at the end of February. For the rest of the year, however, the right track number fell back slightly, staying in the low 30s range and never again hitting above 34 percent. At the beginning of this month, right track was at 32 percent and wrong track was roughly double that, at 62.8 percent.
At the end of the first week of September, though, this changed for the better in fairly dramatic fashion. Pollsters started reporting right track numbers of 39, 40, even 42 percent. Wrong track numbers fell to lows not seen since 2009. Within days, the averages hit 38.8 percent right track and 55.2 percent wrong track at Real Clear Politics.
Depending on how you measure it, this represented a 5-to-10 point shift towards optimism inside of a single week -- which is pretty astounding. Seen on a chart, it is a major spike upwards in a very short period of time.
What caused this optimistic shift in the American mood is open to interpretation, as always. Pollsters don't ask things like "Why are you more optimistic now than you were two weeks ago?" which leaves us all to draw our own conclusions. However, two events took place during the week when things spiked, and both likely had an impact. The first was the Democratic National Convention, and the second was the monthly release of unemployment data. Again, how much either influenced people is open to interpretation.
My guess is they both helped. Seeing Bill Clinton explain things (and seeing the Democrats put on a rather optimistic show all around) may have reminded a whole bunch of people why they elected Barack Obama in the first place. The national unemployment rate fell from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and this was trumped as "very bad news" by pundits left, right, and center -- but in this case, Americans may have focused on the actual numbers rather than the pundits.
It is almost impossible to make the argument that this development in optimism does anything other than help Obama's chances for re-election. Now, a sharp spike in optimism can, in certain cases during an election, signal good news for a challenger over an incumbent. If, for instance, the race were an absolute blowout for Romney at this stage, then the rise in optimism might be attributed to the American public knowing Romney will win, and getting more optimistic about a future under President Romney. As I said, though, it's extremely difficult to make this case right now, for the simple fact that Romney is nowhere near the "absolute blowout" level. Most recent polls, in fact, show he's going to lose. In most cases, a more optimistic public right before a presidential election favors the incumbent. As it does in this case.
Of course, this doesn't mean it's time to pop champagne corks and celebrate Obama's second term quite yet. There are all kinds of caveats. Even a split of 40 percent optimistic to 55 percent pessimistic still leaves a 15-point gap in the wrong direction. This is much better than a 2-1 split the wrong way, though, or even Obama's low point of being almost 60 points behind on the question.
Obama's poll bounce may not hold and may fade away -- polling on the right/wrong track question is not done as often as other polling, and Rasmussen seems to have an outsized influence on the averages due to polling the question more than others.
The trend, since it appeared so immediately, may reverse itself, hold steady, or increase in the coming weeks. But there are only so many weeks left before the election. For now, the Obama team has to be pleased at the turn in America's outlook. It's a lot easier to make the "four more years" argument when people are already feeling better about the country's future, to put it another way.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This isn't one of the polls that I follow much. The problem being that it could be low due to other factors - like Congressional approval being low -rather than specifically the President himself. Where as Presidential approval is much more specific.
That said, most analysis I have seen of this figure says a gap of 20 good for Romney.
Hmmm seems like my comment didn't post correctly. Should have said:
That said, most analysis I have seen of this figure says a gap of under 20 is good for Obama and over 20 good for Romney....
The national unemployment rate fell from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and this was trumped as "very bad news" by pundits left, right, and center -- but in this case, Americans may have focused on the actual numbers rather than the pundits.
You mean that Americans bought into the Leftist spin about the Unemployment numbers.
Let's face the facts..
The Unemployment number dropping because hundreds of thousands of Americans LEFT the workforce is NOT a good thing, no matter what the spin says..
Looking at the U6 numbers, which is the REAL Unemployment figures, the story is quite sobering. Unemployment at 14.7%...
The Romney Camp has the perfect message for Americans.
Are you better off now then you were in Jan of 2009?
Of course, the answer is no...
That's the point that Camp Romney needs to drive home from now til election day...
Michale.....
Health Premiums Up $3,000; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut
During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.
But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey
http://news.investors.com/092412-626848-health-premiums-up-3065-obama-vowed-2500-cut.aspx
Again.. ARE Americans better off under Obama??
No, they are not...
Michale.....
Micahle,
The Romney Camp has the perfect message for Americans.
Are you better off now then you were in Jan of 2009?
You are still so, so, so lost to reality. They're tried this message and they're still miles behind in the polls. So I think people have given their answer. They're on about Plan D now which is something like: 'maybe we should be specific with our policies'.
Health Premiums Up $3,000
Lololol you really want to argue about healthcare?? Ok I'll just quote Bill to make things easier, pay attention to the last paragraph most Michale:
"First, individuals and businesses have already gotten more than a billion dollars in refunds from insurance companies because the new law requires 80 (percent) to 85 percent of your premium to go to your health care, not profits or promotion. And the gains are even greater than that because a bunch of insurance companies have applied to lower their rates to comply with the requirement.
Second, more than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them.
Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care, all the way from breast cancer screenings to tests for heart problems and scores of other things. And younger people are getting them, too.
Fourth, soon the insurance companies — not the government, the insurance companies — will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with pre-existing conditions who never could get insurance before.
Now, finally, listen to this. For the last two years — after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years."
Lololol you really want to argue about healthcare?? Ok I'll just quote Bill to make things easier,
None of which answers the *fact* that there is a huge increase in premiums when Obama *promised* a reduction...
pay attention to the last paragraph most
Pay attention to what FactCheck.Org says about that last paragraph..
Actually, the major provisions of the 2010 law — the individual mandate, federal subsidies to help Americans buy insurance, and big reductions in the growth of Medicare spending — haven’t yet taken effect. Experts mainly blame the lousy economy for the slowdown in health care spending. As a report by economists and statisticians at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported last year, for example (as quoted in the Washington Post): “Job losses caused many people to lose employer-sponsored health insurance and, in some cases, to forgo health-care services they could not afford.”
Don't tell me, let me guess. After swearing by factcheck.org, NOW you are going to say it's a biased fact checker, right???
:D
You are so predictable...
Michale.....
Lol no I agree with fact check. Notice how they didn't dispute the fact that health premium increases are at their lowest for 50 years? Or they say the BIG REDUCTIONS are yet to come into affect?
So again with you:
- Health premiums go up = Obama's fault
- Health premiums go up by the lowest amount in 50 years = definitely not Obama's fault.
What a surprise. Of course this makes sense in 'Obama=evil Michale world'...
For the past couple years, the Tea Party strain of Republicanism has dominated the competition for visibility. "The American electorate" was seen as the people who vote in off-year elections: the fanatics and the wonks. The far right has more than its share of fanatics, so of course the shellacking of 2010 was worse than typically handed to parties in office in off-year elections. Primaries likewise are mostly the province a fairly small slice of the most-motivated part of the electorate.
Now the sort of identity-politics that's in the air is shifting to presidential-year general-election mode. There's always identity-politics going on, but at least it's now a more inclusive identity.
Lol no I agree with fact check. Notice how they didn't dispute the fact that health premium increases are at their lowest for 50 years?
Which Obama had NOTHING to do with! What part of that don't you understand!??
Health care costs have gone done IN SPITE of Obama, not BECAUSE of Obama...
- Health premiums go up = Obama's fault
"You really are a simple creature"
-Bartleby, DOGMA
I was not slamming Obama for the fact that the premiums have gone up..
I was slamming Obama for ANOTHER broken promise.
I was pointing out that, like gas prices more than doubling and median family income in free fall, the fact that families are paying MORE for health care coverage is simply ONE more indication that Americans are NOT better off under Obama...
Get a grip, dood. You are OD'ing on the Obama koolaid.. You might want to cut back or you'll see SERIOUS withdrawal pains on 7 Nov...
Michale.....
Which Obama had NOTHING to do with! What part of that don't you understand!?
I never said Obama didn't have nothing to do with it! What I said was you can't say he has nothing to do with this (a good statistic) but everything to do with the cost of healthcare (a poor(ish) statistic). As usual, you want to have your cake and eat it too: bad stuff=Obama's fault, good stuff=not his fault.
I was not slamming Obama for the fact that the premiums have gone up..
I was slamming Obama for ANOTHER broken promise.
So Obama said he'd reduce healthcare costs, so he passed Obamacare as an attempt to do this. It didn't do it in time, in 4 years - sure I'll accept this, as the main provisions to achieve this don't come in until 2014. Fine. He didn't manage it in 4 years, since his main healthcare bill doesn't come into effect until 2016. Promise broken. By the way that completely biased liberal conspiracy fact checker website (at least this is how you view it when it disagrees with your biased views) has covered this before: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/
So what's your argument? Obama didn't reduce healthcare costs because the main provisions of his healthcare act don't come in until 2016, so lets him out and elect this other guy who will repeal the whole thing sending us back to square one??? lol.
So what's your argument?
My gods, are you REALLY this slow??
My argument (for the THIRD time) is that Obama made a promise that he did not keep...
My secondary argument is that this increase in health care costs to families is FURTHER evidence that Americans are NOT better off under Obama.
Now, do you have ANYTHING to refute those arguments??
Or is it just going to be more smoke and mirrors crap???
Michale.....
My gods, are you REALLY this slow??
My argument (for the THIRD time) is that Obama made a promise that he did not keep...
My secondary argument is that this increase in health care costs to families is FURTHER evidence that Americans are NOT better off under Obama.
Now, do you have ANYTHING to refute those arguments??
Or is it just going to be more smoke and mirrors crap?
Lol 'Obama has not kept his promise' is not an argument on healthcare. Let me spell this out for you: someone cannot go to their doctor and say 'here is an Obama failed promise will that pay for this procedure?'. That's what I said you have no argument.
So an argument you have MIGHT be: Obama failed to reduce healthcare costs by $2,500 as promised; vote Romney and his plan of X, Y, Z WILL reduce healthcare costs by $2,500. I know - this is not how the world works in Romney-world - this is why he is such an awful candidate.
My argument would be - yes Obama has not kept his promisem sure - but he has passed a pretty big, important healthcare bill which should begin to implement this promise when the main provisions kick in in 2014. This is because massive changes in healthcare take a long time. Thus voting him out and repealing this bill would be disastrous and send healthcare costs sky-rocketing and back to square one (the already broken system).
My argument was NEVER about Healthcare. YOUR's was, as usual completely missing the point...
Obama broke his promise. You have already conceded that this is true..
Americans are NOT better off under Obama.
This is proven fact..
THOSE are my arguments, one of which you already conceded..
Do you want to address the second argument??
Or just throw more crap on the wall hoping something sticks??
Michale.....
"Let us remember Muslims suffered most at hands of extremism."
-President Barack Obama
Yea, I am sure that's a great comfort to the families of Ambassador Stevens, Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg... :^/
I can't WAIT until this clown is out of the White House...
Michale.....
Michale,
There is no point discussing Muslim relations with you since you believe the "great majority" have some affiliation to terrorism...
As there is no point discussing healthcare because you have no argument... Are Americans better off? Both sides have a pretty good case for this. It looks like the American people have decided they believe Obamas.
There is no point discussing Muslim relations with you since you believe the "great majority" have some affiliation to terrorism...
Once again, you are dead on ballz accurate...
The great majority DO support terrorism either by commission or omission..
AND
There IS no point in you trying to discuss it because you speak completely from ignorance..
This is not an insult, just a statement of fact.
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
Like you said, there is no point in trying to discuss it.
Yet you do anyways. :D
It looks like the American people have decided they believe Obamas.
You keep believing that. It will just make 7 Nov so much more enjoyable..
Have you even contemplated how much crow ya'all are going to have to ingest?? :D
Michale.....
Lol yes you believe the "great majority" of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims support terrorism and I'M the ignorant one lol!
And yes, I will continue to believe what the polls are saying. You can continue your 'non-ignorant', 'non-biased' way of analysing the election too..
Lol yes you believe the "great majority" of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims support terrorism and I'M the ignorant one lol!
Exactly.. I am glad to see you finally acknowledging reality... :D
And yes, I will continue to believe what the polls are saying.
That's great.. I'll make sure I have plenty of ketchup and mustard on hand for your Crow Banquet... :D
Michale.....
Lol yes you believe the "great majority" of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims support terrorism and I'M the ignorant one lol!
Minor correction..
I have never said "the *WORLD'S* muslims"... I have specifically stated that the majority of the *EASTERN* muslims support terrorism either by commission or omission..
Western muslims (UK, US, etc etc) simply are not as radicalized as eastern/African muslims are...
So, yes.. Based on my extensive experience in the field, the majority of eastern muslims, either by commission or omission, support terrorism.
How else do you explain muslims in Gaza voting in a terrorist group as their official representatives???
Of course, there are exceptions, as there are with any large group. The Libyan muslims who attacked the militia compound, etc etc..
But they are the very small exception that emphasizes the rule...
Michale....
David Brooks today recalls the vision of traditional conservatives, which was the bedrock of conservative thought back when I was one, before the party was hijacked by Goldwater and his YAF (Young Americans for Freedom, c.f.) protégées like Rove and those who brought us Watergate.
Determined to never again go through the trauma of complete repudiation, they misinterpreted "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" to mean "the end is justified by any means." They replaced the traditional conservative values with racism and intolerance, in order to build a base that could be led to vote in pursuit of that toxicity, trumping even their economic interests and the best interests of their communities.
I hope Gov. Romney loses in landslide in this election. The internecine jockeying is apparently already beginning, and the conditions would then be right to begin to bring the party back to those values.
How can a national party have a state Party Chairman who claims he has verified that a sitting President is a Communist because his real father is not the father listed on the birth certificate that he doesn't have? This shit has to stop. If that were to happen, maybe I won't be wandering in the wilderness of La Follette/Teddy R. Progressivism for the rest of my life.
Historical correction: Rove was not involved in hijacking the YAF directly. He was involved in hijacking the College Republicans.
LB, you're absolutely correct: Republicans only have themselves to blame for the mess they created. Instead of (like McCain) pushing back against the demented elements of their party the elected leaders of the Republican party either directly (like Reince) or indirectly (like Mitt, failing to stamp any authority) kept feeding them and making them more demented. They will have to radically change (especially from their backward social Conservative policies) if they lose this election or face a long time out of power - especially with the changing demographics of America...
All I know when it comes to optimism is that the market has been on a tear lately.
And the markets tend to ignore "spin". Pretty good for a socialist, eh?
-David
LB,
they misinterpreted "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" to mean "the end is justified by any means."
I am constrained to point out that the Left has also embodied and epitomized that (actually quite accurate) saying....
Have you forgotten the sausage factory that was Obamacare/Tax???
They replaced the traditional conservative values with racism and intolerance, in order to build a base that could be led to vote in pursuit of that toxicity, trumping even their economic interests and the best interests of their communities.
Do you have any examples of this racism??
Because, if I recall my history correctly, the Democratic Party was the Party of racism up until recently (historically speaking)...
I think the Left tends to be overly sensitive about racism because of their history with it and the collective guilt they must feel about their part in it... Which explains why they drop the accusation of racism at the drop of a dime, even when it's abundantly clear to ANY person with a single objective bone in their body that no racism exists...
As evidence of this, I submit the well-known shooting here in FL in Feb of 2012, the accusations of racism against the Tea Party that were COMPLETELY unfounded, the claims that ANY opposition to Obama's policies "must be racist based" and the Journo List conspiracy that had Left Wing journalists conspiring to make KNOWINGLY false accusations of racists against conservatives..
As examples of racism from the Left, I submit the treatment that Mia Love endured at the hands of Left Wing fanatics after her appearance at the GOP Convention...
I have always maintained and still believe to this day that FALSE accusations of racism are worse than racism itself...
Michale.....
[23] Yes, except that it has little or nothing to do with Obama administration policies. It has everything to do with the Federal Reserve's targeting of asset value increases in their defense against a debt-default induced deflation (the so-called Quantitative Easing, or QE).
It is a source of optimism, certainly, but for the President, a collateral benefit of Fed policies.
[24]: "Do you have any examples of this racism??"
I was speaking of the opening that was seen in what became known as the Southern Strategy. By Goldwater's libertarian-based opposition to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, those who took power saw they could tap into the bigotry and cultural fear in the white South and industrial Midwest, which they did.
You are right that the Democrats - Dixiecrats - included the professed positions of white supremacy. Those factions were disenfranchised inside the Democrats by LBJ. He saw the time had time had come, yes, he saw his legacy (and maybe in his dreams, his face on Rushmore) yes, but he also saw how to expand the Democratic party demographically and philosophically.
The Republicans did not embrace, or even racism, so long as the historical origins, the positions of the Ripon Society, and the traditional conservatives steered the philosophy of the party. The southern strategy was a Deal with the Devil.
In passing, the identification of, and definition of, abortion as an iconic, wedge issue was another such Deal. (And showed more clearly than anything the casting out of the libertarians) I am, BTW, opposed to unrestricted abortions, but this is not a topic I will discuss, exactly _because_ it is the prefect wedge issue: the confluence of views on personal freedom, religious belief and doctrine, views on the nature of life itself, and, now, contentious self-identification.
Bottom line is: I didn't mean to imply the Republican party _became_ racist. Rather, the architects of the party post-Goldwater saw the opportunity in building a base by implicitly embracing and tolerating the racism among those disenfranchised by the Democrats post-LBJ.
(con't) " implicitly embracing and tolerating the racism among those disenfranchised by the Democrats post-LBJ."
And the fruits of the tree of those seeds is the answer to my rhetorical question, above, of how can a national party have the State Chairman of Alabama hold that absurd position.
I am, BTW, opposed to unrestricted abortions, but this is not a topic I will discuss, exactly _because_ it is the prefect wedge issue...
I guess it would depend on who you are discussing it with.. :D
It's not really an issue with me..
While I cringe at the idea of abortion-on-demand as a way to have consequence-less fun, I firmly believe that until such time as a fetus can survive outside the mother unaided, it is not a life form. Up until that point, it's a woman's choice. Beyond that point, I tend not to dwell on..
In other words, a "wedge issue" is only a wedge if we allow it to be...
"There can be no offense where none is taken."
-Sarek Of Vulcan
As to the rest, in reading your initial post, I had thought you were falling back on the old tried and true (yet ultimately false) "GOP are racists, blaa blaa blaaa" mythos..
I should have known better... :D
Michale.....
"I guess it would depend on who you are discussing it with.. :D"
While I suspect from your post that our positions are probably quite close together on the issue, my point is that the foundations of most people's position - including mine - is so embedded in deeper philosophies, beliefs, and faiths, that all we can do is state our positions, and that's that.
It's not like, for example, debating whether the Federal Reserve should be audited, or whether the President has erred in his North African foreign policy.
This, from Reuters: http://uk.reuters.com/places/iran
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.
This prompted anti-oligarchist John Aziz[*1] to write:
Neoconservatism - and Obama and Romney are both to lesser and greater degrees neoconservatives - is a violent utopian ideology[*2] that seeks to force the entire world - by whatever means and at any cost - to conform to American foreign policy imperatives. As America should have learned a long time ago - and as Ahmadinejad may well soon learn - needlessly pissing off violent utopian ideologues creates blowback.
With three carrier battle groups, 4000 or so special forces, and joint international exercises at Hormuz, I have to agree with Mr. Aziz's assessment of risk.
Comments?
*1 http://azizonomics.com/2012/09/25/blowback-works-both-ways/
*2 http://harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
While I suspect from your post that our positions are probably quite close together on the issue,
Most people on here would simply be AMAZED at how close their positions on things match mine... Or vicie versie..
We did some kind of politics quiz a while back..
http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
On the two that posted their results (michty and ninjaf) I was the same with them 34% (I think) and 60%... :D
I would be willing to wager that I agree with other Weigantians more often then I disagree.. :D
Michale.....
On the isidewith.com quiz, here were my scores..
http://www.isidewith.com/results/92805081
Michale.....
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/258517-romney-appears-with-clinton-to-tout-public-private-partnership-plan-on-foreign-aid-
This is what we need to see more of in politics....
It's a shame we can't...
Michale.....
http://www.isidewith.com/results/130009585
My results are presumably rather inaccurate, because I did a whole bunch of "add your own answer".
So Michale, you've accused me on various occasions of something along the lines of being a blindly-partisan Democrat (pardon if the paraphrase isn't perfectly accurate), while claiming to be independent yourself. But your answers on this quiz show you as a 94% check-the-boxes Republican, whereas I match both Green and Libertarian candidates more closely than Democratic. It's just that I agree with the Republicans on almost nothing.
My results are presumably rather inaccurate, because I did a whole bunch of "add your own answer".
And another Jill Stein devotee... :D
Ninjaf and Michty ALSO were tops with Jill Stein..
Maybe ya'all should be voting for Jill Stein instead of Barack Obama, eh??
Sheeya right.. Like THAT would ever happen!! :D Gotta keep the Democrats in power. Even if ya don't agree with them.... :D
But your answers on this quiz show you as a 94% check-the-boxes Republican,
My answers also show 43% with Obama and 53% with Libertarian..
So Michale, you've accused me on various occasions of something along the lines of being a blindly-partisan Democrat (pardon if the paraphrase isn't perfectly accurate),
Close enough..
While it's true I have on occasion done so, in the most recent http://FTP....
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/21/ftp227/#comment-27378
... I have noted that you have taking some surprising positions against Democrats. Thus, I put you into the David/Joshua category of actually being able to have a run of independent thought that goes against the dogma/ideology of the Democratic Party..
Yer welcome.... :D
Michale....
Hmmmmmm
That's weird...
The comment I made in #37 has only one link. And it's a CW.COM link to boot..
But it was still held for moderation..
Hay CW, I think we have a glitch... :D
Michale.....
whereas I match both Green and Libertarian candidates more closely than Democratic.
And yet, you are going to vote for Obama...
You don't see the inherent contradiction there??
“You find nothing contradictory in a society that outlaws suicide but practices capital punishment?”
-Tuvok, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, Deathwish
:D
Michale.....
With three carrier battle groups, 4000 or so special forces, and joint international exercises at Hormuz, I have to agree with Mr. Aziz's assessment of risk.
Now THAT was funny!!! :D
"Dr Fraiser has advised that you should stay in bed."
{O'Neill attempts to get out of bed and falls flat on the floor.}
"Dr Fraiser is usually correct in such matters."
-Teal'c, STARGATE SG1
:D
Michale.....
Something just occurred to me..
What if Obama's "October Surprise" is a combined US/Israel Shock/Awe attack on Iran??
What if all the reported conflict between Netanyahu and Obama was simply a ruse to fool the Iranians into thinking that an attack is not imminent??
Yea, I know I know.. Highly unlikely..
But, ya gotta admit... Such an audacious plan, were it to succeed in catching Iran off guard, would probably make Obama un-beatable in November...
Hell, *I* might even take back some of the bad things I have said about Obama. :D
Like I said. I doubt it's going to play out that way.. But it's interesting to contemplate...
Michale.....
Oops, 93%. Dunno why I said 94%.
An election is first and foremost a process for, y'know, electing officials. As such, it's a choice between a Democrat and a Republican -- 64% versus 15% according to that quiz. No point in trying to convince me to sit it out and cast a protest vote instead.
I think the quiz overstates my agreement with Republicans and Greens. It said I side with Mitt Romney 15%, on science issues. But the Republican Party is virulently anti-science, even if Romney didn't give the full flat-earther treatment in whatever statements that quiz got his positions from.
An election is first and foremost a process for, y'know, electing officials. As such, it's a choice between a Democrat and a Republican -- 64% versus 15% according to that quiz. No point in trying to convince me to sit it out and cast a protest vote instead.
So, in other words, you don't see a problem with compromising your principles in order to further SOME of your agenda..
Hay, don't get me wrong. I am, pretty much, doing the same thing.. I just don't deny it..
But the Republican Party is virulently anti-science,
It's this kind of bigoted statement that would lead me to believe what I believe about you..
I could give you MANY examples of the Democratic Party being "virulently anti-science".
It's simply a case that Democrats believe the science that suits their agenda and disregards the science that DOESN'T suit their agenda..
Republicans are the same..
Ergo, both Partys CAN be described as "virulently anti-science" depending on what criteria one uses..
Michale...
LB [30]
I also agree with Mr Aziz's comments. Foreign policy is probably the one area that I agree most with libertarians (assuming you don't include Foreign Aid in Foreign Policy as I agree with them very little on this!).
Frankly I find it amazing that the US, with all it's budget deficit 'problems', still finds a way to spend more money on it's military than the rest of the world put together (although they may be hovering at around 46% of world military expenditure given China has started spending now...)
I'm also shocked Michale skipped over your comment, he clearly didn't see it or you would've got a rant in reply from him.
dsws
But your answers on this quiz show you as a 94% check-the-boxes Republican, whereas I match both Green and Libertarian candidates more closely than Democratic.
I think I was something like 94% Jill Stein, 93% Obama, 40% Libertarian and 6% Romney. I'm actually surprised my Obama number was so high, they must be testing me against Obama the candidate (who, for example, wants to raise tax on the wealthy) not Obama the President (who did not raise tax on the wealthy) as I am far left of Obama the (centre-right) President.
I'm also shocked Michale skipped over your comment,
Yer powers of observation never ceases to amaze me.. :D
Michale.....
I was expecting a much bigger rant from you Michale ;)
As for your comment in [40]:
What if all the reported conflict between Netanyahu and Obama was simply a ruse to fool the Iranians into thinking that an attack is not imminent??
Yea, I know I know.. Highly unlikely
Funny I had similar thoughts recently when I saw Netanyahu appearing on American news interviews. I was wondering if he had the same suspicions and was trying to counter them - we'll see what he says at the UN today... But I also agree this is highly unlikely.
I was expecting a much bigger rant from you Michale ;)
Touche' :D
Funny I had similar thoughts recently when I saw Netanyahu appearing on American news interviews. I was wondering if he had the same suspicions and was trying to counter them - we'll see what he says at the UN today... But I also agree this is highly unlikely.
It would be a pretty big coup for Obama and, as much as I would hate to admit it, it would likely sew up the election for him. :D
Michale.....
But, getting back to "optimism" in America???
67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.
69 percent of small business owners and manufacturers say President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers.
55 percent say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current environment.
54 percent say other countries like China and India are more supportive of their small businesses and manufacturers than the United States.
washingtonexaminer.com/55-percent-of-small-business-owners-would-not-start-company-today-blame-obama/article/2509069#.UGMooFFNuNJ
Now, if ya put any stock in polls (which I know ya'all do) that would seem to support the claim that Americans are NOT better off under Obama...
That first percentage was VERY interesting as it has been saying what I have been saying all year.. Businesses are afraid to expand, so they are sitting on their cash instead of hiring new workers and expanding their business...
I guess when it comes to this economic stuff I am not as think as I dumb I am!! :D
http://www.investors.com/image/WEBhsld0926.gif.cms
Another indication that Americans are not better off under Obama...
Polls won't decide this election... Facts like above is what is going to decide this election..
And the facts are against Obama...
Michale.....
BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-26/politico-s-paul-ryan-satire-the-joke-s-on-them.html
See...
This is EXACTLY what political bigotry gets you!
A WHOLE lot of egg on the face!!! :D
Michale.....
Michale
Actually household median income peaked in 2000. Can't imagine why it's been on a downhill slope since then? Hmmmm. Perhaps we should go back to the policies of 2000 - that'll fix it!
Actually household median income peaked in 2000.
You have a unique (maybe not so unique) habit of answering facts with non-sequitors..
Even if it's true..... So???
The FACT is, Household Median Income has dropped under Obama...
That means that saying "Americans are NOT better off under Obama" is a factual statement...
Now, maybe you can explain why Obama's policies aren't helping Americans???
We hired Obama to make our lives BETTER...
He's making our lives WORSE...
So, he should be fired...
It's really THAT simple....
Michale.....
Michale
Sure you want to know why median income has declined since 2000? Because in 2001 the top wealthy Americans were giving a massive tax cut THAT HASN'T BEEN STOPPED. I wrote a whole article about it on here. When you pass the social burden down to the poorer people in society by giving the wealthy tax breaks then MEDIAN INCOME FALLS.
So why on earth would this be an argument for voting for Romney??
THAT was my point.
Sure you want to know why median income has declined since 2000? Because in 2001 the top wealthy Americans were giving a massive tax cut THAT HASN'T BEEN STOPPED.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Unless you can SHOW a *direct* correlation between the tax cuts and the median income, yer just throwin crap on the wall and hoping something sticks...
Michale.....
Unless you can SHOW a *direct* correlation between the tax cuts and the median income, yer just throwin crap on the wall and hoping something sticks...
Hmmmm... Let's see..
Is there ANYTHING else that might have happened in 2000 or 2001 that MIGHT have had an impact on median income??
Hmmmmmmmm
Was there a single catastrophic event that MIGHT have influenced things beyond the tax cuts...
Hmmmmmmmmmm
I'll have to mull that over....
:^/
Michale.....
Michale
Unless you can SHOW a *direct* correlation between the tax cuts and the median income, yer just throwin crap on the wall and hoping something sticks...
Lol sure. Here is a chart of inflation adjusted median income (Wikipedia):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/InflationAdjustedMedianIncomeHistory.jpg
Lets examine the peaks and dips from 1980s when Trickle Down (tax decreases on the wealthy) was invented as policy:
- Reagan tax DECREASE (1986): median income goes slightly up then shoots DOWN
- Bush/Clinton tax INCREASE in the 90s: median income shoots UP
- Bush II tax DECREASE in early 2000s: median income shoots DOWN
Doesn't take rocket science to see the pattern since 'Trickle Down' was invented...
Is there ANYTHING else that might have happened in 2000 or 2001 that MIGHT have had an impact on median income??
Hmmmmmmmm
Was there a single catastrophic event that MIGHT have influenced things beyond the tax cuts...
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Yup same old stuff:
- When it was Republicans it wasn't our fault - there was a big crash! Don't you remember it??
- When it was Democrats it is totally their fault! What crash? I don't remember a crash! Worst recession since the Great Depression? Why that's just the Democrats making excuses, no such thing exists!
Yup same old stuff:
- When it was Republicans it wasn't our fault - there was a big crash! Don't you remember it??
- When it was Democrats it is totally their fault! What crash? I don't remember a crash! Worst recession since the Great Depression? Why that's just the Democrats making excuses, no such thing exists!
So, what YOU are saying is that, when it was a big crash, it was the Republicans fault..
And it's been the Republicans fault ALL the years of the Obama Administration..
I mean, I am an economics dullard.
YOU are supposed to be IN the field..
Yet, YOU are saying the EXACT same thing I am saying, except in reverse..
Obviously, I am talking out my ass because I am ignorant of the field..
What's YOUR excuse??? :D
Michale.....
Michale
Nope what I am saying is you want to avoid blame when the economy is bad under a Republican President ('it was the crashes fault!') but assign blame to Obama ('it's all his fault, no excuses!')
And if your criteria for election is: 'is median income higher than 4 years ago?' then Republicans shouldn't have been in the White House since 1988 lol.
Nope what I am saying is you want to avoid blame when the economy is bad under a Republican President ('it was the crashes fault!') but assign blame to Obama ('it's all his fault, no excuses!')
The crash wasn't Obama's fault..
The fact that Americans are WORSE off **IS** Obama's fault..
That's the fact that you simply refuse to accept because you are drunk on the Obama kool-aid...
"If I can't fix the economy in 3 years, I don't deserve a second term"
-President Barack Obama, Jan 2009
I say we heed Obama's own words....
Michale.....
The crash wasn't Obama's fault..
The fact that Americans are WORSE off **IS** Obama's fault
I don't think you realise how much those 2 statements contradict each other. Median income levels all over the world are all below the 08-09 Great Recession - is that Obama's fault too??
"If I can't fix the economy in 3 years, I don't deserve a second term"
-President Barack Obama, Jan 2009
Americans are WORSE off today than they were in Jan 2009...
Now, you claim it's not Obama's fault...
OK, fine..
It's NOT Obama's fault..
But WHO do you think that Joe SixPack is going to blame???
"I'll give you three guesses but yer only gonna need one."
-Chick, ARMAGEDDON
:D
Michale.....
Michale
But WHO do you think that Joe SixPack is going to blame?
Well judging by the polls and Obama's favourability rating, there are no signs that Joe is blaming Obama. In fact Obama is ahead of Romney on the economy in every single poll now...
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/ahmadinejad-meets-with-nation-of-islam-leader-louis-farrahkan/
Oh great.. Achmedjihadist meets with Farrahkan..
Where's a car bomb when ya need one!? :D
Michale.....
Well judging by the polls and Obama's favourability rating, there are no signs that Joe is blaming Obama. In fact Obama is ahead of Romney on the economy in every single poll now...
IF you believe the polls. The polls, which we have AGREED, are skewed to further a desired agenda..
YOUR problem is you pick and choose which polls you believe and which polls you discard, SOLELY based on who the poll is supporting...
Polls are shit.. They don't mean squat...
Think for yourself, fer christ's sake!!
Michale.....