Polls now don't mean shit, things could change greatly (or more precisely even a few points change will flip the race around) within the next month and a half.
Yes, and with equal probability they can stay right where they are. And with equal probability they can flip more heavily in favor of Obama. By this analysis, Obama has a 2/3 odds of winning. However, since we have an electoral system we have to look at the huge difference in numbers that poses for Romney. The Huff says 316 to 206. Notice how much worse it gets for Romney: (316/522)(2/3) =0.4036; (206/522)(1/3)=0.1315; 0.4036+0.1315=0.5351 0.4036 / 0.5351 = 75.4%; 0.1315 / 0.5351= 24.6% Yep. That electoral college makes a big difference.
I would hope people haven't forgotten the party responsible for our troubles. Obama has been fighting an up hill battle since he took office. I think it's clear Romney will only bring more of the same pain that hit us several years back, reversing any headway we've made towards recovery. I use to be on the fence and had no loyalty for either party, but I have gained nothing but seething contempt for the Republicans these past years. As I see it, they have done nothing but extend our mystery. If I were rich and didn't give a shit about anybody else, I would probably vote for them, but as it stands, I'm a victim of their domestic and economic policies. Screw the bastards.
Here's a nice table regarding the unemployment under President Obama: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would argue that the above statistic has a lot to do with this: Out of control spending, excessive and imprudent regulations, a lack of respect for property rights and the rule of law , Obamacare................... it all adds up to the worst economic recovery in the post war period. As the above referenced article points out, this slide in freedom didn't start under Obama. It started under Bush. But Obama has done nothing to make things better and, if anything, has actually accelerated the decline in economic freedom. If we are to return to prosperity, we need to return to freedom. Obama promises only more of the same. We need a change, and we need it badly.
Oh shut the hell up already. More jobs were created under Obama than during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration. The reason is de-regulation. Where did all those jobs go? Many of them were in the housing industry which was decimated by the excesses of Wall Street. The other reason is globalization. Our manufacturing jobs went to China and other countries and the Republicans have done nothing to prevent that. Obama's spending was NOT "out of control". What he did is put BUSH'S wars on the budget. It has nothing to do with freedom. We had plenty of economic freedom under Bush and things only got worse. Obama saved the domestic auto industry, so there's something. Getting really sick of all your lying.
Don't be too hard on him, he's just trying to put a brave face on the fact that his party is in disarray and their candidate is going down in flames right now. If you want to sting him, though, I would have pointed out that his article there is actually calling for the USA to emulate Canada, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand - all countries that have universal healthcare systems and higher, more progressive tax rates. Then point out that the article doesn't say anything about "Obamacare" in its list of freedom-destroying developments, but does list the wars on drugs and terrorism (GOP inventions, both).
Sadly, our economic freedom was decreasing under Bush as well. However, you are completely incorrect regarding Obama's record on job creation. You are probably remembering the oft cited (by Democrats) "4 million jobs created" under Obama statistic which, while true, is very misleading. The 4 million figure doesn't start counting jobs until the second year of Obama's presidency and therefore ignores the millions of jobs lost in his first year. I'm sure you would argue that that's only fair because the first year of Obama's presidency was all Bush's fault. However, Obama then went on to compare his record to Bush's and not give Bush credit for the recession he inherited from Clinton. Counting from the day Obama took office, he has yet to enter positive territory in terms of total jobs. To put it another way, there are fewer people working now than were working when Obama took office. So, on net, he hasn't created even one job! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And it is actually even worse than that. Obama said "private sector jobs", but the figure he was actually quoting was private sector payrolls which excludes very small businesses and the self employed. That group has done very poorly under Obama. Watch this short video which demolishes Obama's claim and points out that, at this point, Obama has the worse record on job creation in modern history: [video=youtube;nQLreUCRYXM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQLreUCRYXM&feature=player_embedded[/video] I agree with you that it is pathetic that the US is now behind Canada, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand in terms of economic freedom. We are supposed to be the standard bearers for economic freedom. The cowboys. Yet we're not even as free as Canada? Fuck. It's no wonder that our economy is languishing. As to the war on drugs, I completely oppose it. It's idiotic, counter productive, and does far more harm than good. Legalize everything. Tax and regulate it. Make the really dangerous stuff like heroin available only by prescription. Stop wasting time, money, and human capital arresting and jailing people for a victim-less crime that shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Now regarding the war on terror, well, I certainly supported it in the past but I'm frankly sick of it. Bush over reached in his attempt to remake the middle east in our image. To address you first point last, well, you're pretty confident in what continues to be a neck and neck race. With the economy a wreck, our embassies in the middle east under siege, and the nation seemingly on a downward slide towards decline Obama seems to be going for the full Jimmy Carter experience. With all that against him, one would expect Governor Romney to be 15 points ahead of Obama by now. Yet Obama retains a slight edge. Of course, if we look back to the real Jimmy Carter, he was also ahead in the polls at this point in the election. So I would not count my chickens before they hatch.
The obvious question Isn't that how it always goes? When a Republican completely screws the pooch, you're down with it? But when a Democrat gets elected, then you get sick of it? This is the path you and yours put us on. You don't get to chicken out just because a Democrat does it better. Seriously. If you want to persuade he left with anti-American hatred of our service people, do it at the outset, before telling the liberals that opposing the war is treason. Quit sympathizing with the terrorists, you hypocritical, treasonous, pathetic excuse for an American. You may have the right to glorify your dishonesty, but don't expect anyone else to buy it. You're a traitor, Madanthonywayne. There's nothing else to say about someone who would sell the country for the sake of his party.
Well for starters, the so called Clinton recession did not begin until well into the George Junior presidency (March 2001). The second George Junior recession began in 2007 and ended in June 2009. Using your methodology, ignoring the president’s first year. George Junior lost 1.5 million jobs in his 8 years in office. President Obama has added 4 million jobs in his first term in office. If you throw in the Obama’s first year and include the 2009 job losses resulting from Bush’s second Recession in Obama’s jobs numbers, then Obama is only down 261k jobs as of last month. So in about 2-3 months no matter how you slice the numbers, Obama’s job creation numbers will be a net positive. That is complete hogwash! The Non Farm Payroll number used by President Obama is the payroll data that is used by investors, businessmen and women each and every month to gauge the health of the economy and it does accurately reflect the state of employment in The United States. That is why it is the measure most used by investors and businesses across the land. The Non Farm Payroll survey only excludes the following: - general government employees - private household employees - employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals - farm employees Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonfarmpayroll.asp#ixzz271BSDvFyy So your claim that the Non Farm Payroll numbers are understating the employment situation is just plain hogwash.
IMHO that is much too strong and worse than useless. Mad is just a believer in an ideology, which is false and destructive. For example GWB´s tax reductions for the very wealth did huge damage to the US. - They are the "job creators" and made jobs where the rate of return was several times higher than could be achieved by building their new, modern factories in the US. As far as US jobs are concerned, GWB´s tax breaks for the supper rich destroyed US jobs, reduced the purchasing power of middle class, and forced a great deal of “out sourcing” (mainly to Mexico which now has greater growth than US and better GDP to debt ratio, etc.) These adverse effects GWB´s policies made, most of which Mad Anthony still supports, will continue long after GWB is dead - Continue so long as Asia has more modern factories and cheaper labor. It is nearly useless to argue, using facts like the above, with one in the religious fervor of their accepted ideology, and calling them names just strengthens their false beliefs. Perhaps when the US is suffering in GWB´s "world´s worst" and inevitable depression Mad Anthony may begin to question if his Republican ideology, which made it "inevitable" was correct, but more likely is that he will just blame Obama. To be a “traitor” one must intentionally be trying to damage your country. I don´t think even GWB was a traitor. He was just not very intelligent, and easily guided by those wanting financial gains, even it that did damage the US. I believe Mad Anthony loves his country, would not intentional harm it; but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When terrorists are knocking down buildings and killing thousands of Americans, hell yes I support a military response. Bush tried to "drain the swamp" of corrupt and tyrannical governments in the middle east that breeds terrorism rather than simply crushing the current manifestation of evil that attacked us on 9/11. In retrospect, that seems to have been too ambitious. We've been there for years now and don't really have much to show for it. Military action was completely justified, but trying to impose democracy by force doesn't work. We should have gone in, kicked some ass, and then left. Let them run their countries as they see fit so long as they don't fuck with us. So let's try to follow your "logic" here. Where can you find, in anything I have ever said, anti-American hatred of our service people? What dishonesty is being glorified? How is it treason to question a strategy that has yet to bear fruit after nearly a decade? Is it your opinion that one must go on forever in the same direction even when it has become clear that what you're doing is not working? Or is this just the typical name calling that you use to derail a discussion when you're not in the mood for a filibuster?
You can't as a party champion freedom and then complain about the jobs lost. Your freedom means the freedom to EXPORT jobs. If you wanted to create good jobs here and not just low wage service jobs, then you would be talking about tariffs and ending free trade deals, but that's not the freedom you endorse. What it means is that your economic philosophy is fundamentally incoherent.
really a person who promotes thuggery is going to label obama as against the rule of law. How anyone as biased as you ever became a mod here is beyond me. your just another rightie who has no clue how the real world works
I'll agree with you but at the same time people have to be responsible for what they support. they can't support policies and than bitch about the negative outcomes for them like they are unrelated.
well one problem with that is the people who attacked us were saudis for the most part believing in an ideology based in saudi arabia. and funded from saudi arabia. a country we allied with and whose ruling family which is a supporter of terrorism is close friends with your boy bush. we attacked Iraq which had exactly fuck all to do with the attacks against us and again your boy bush was just looking for an excuse to invade. and Afghanistan which is a functional unified state in only the loosest of senses which had no real ability to prevent terrorist from using it as a base. so way to screwing the pooch on this one.
You forgot to mention (or did not know?) that while US airspace was still closed GWB arranged for two plane loads of his Saudi friends to fly back home as feared that harm might come to them if they stayed in the US when public learn that the 9/11 attackers came mainly from Saudi Abrabi etc.
I would think that obvious I would think it's obvious. I'm applying the Republican standard of 2002-08. You know, the one conservatives started rejecting because a Democrat won the election. I know, I know. It's so unfair to hold conservatives to their own standards. I can only apologize for being so wrong.
Constant, repeated deception and lack of honesty does reflect a certain distain and hatred of the American people. What do you call the intentional open raids on US public coffers Republicans offered up to their special interest friends when they controlled all branches of government? What do you call the reckless fiscal spending that occurred under the previous Republican administration and congress that took a budget surplus and turned it into trillions in deficits? What do you call reckless deregulation – removing all the lessoned learned legislation from the last great depression - that brought about the worst global economic crisis in nearly a century and threatened to destroy the nation? What do you call threatening the nation and its creditors with an intentional and unnecessary default resulting in a downgrade of its credit? I call that either traitorous or moronic. It certainly is not acting in the best interests of the country. Additionally, you seem not to have noticed that we are moving in a different direction. We have reregulated our financial industry. The economy is better than it was when President Obama took the office of president. Employment is up, the economy is no longer shrinking at almost double digit rates and getting worse with each passing month. Instead, the economy is growing and has been growing for nearly 3 years now. There has been a profound change in direction, you either haven’t noticed despite being repeatedly informed or you are playing another game of deception.
yeah i just kinda of threw that one up to common knowledge though to be entirely fair their were other aircraft given clearance to fly during the grounding the one that I am most familiar with was a flight from San Deigo to Miami.
That is still better than Bush's record by a gigantic margin. There were about half a million fewer people working when Bush left office as when he started. If Obama is re-elected and the general trends hold up, Obama will leave office with a big net increase in jobs, where Bush left office with a big net decrease. So then why on Earth do you steadfastly campaign against adopting the sensible, proven ideas that have put them in the lead, and instead strongly stump for a party determined to run in the exact opposite direction? Canada has plenty of cowboys too (and New Zealand, plenty of... I guess "sheepboys?"). And America never had any cowboys or wild west or any of that stuff until generations after independence. The colonies were a bunch of socialist enclaves and slave plantations. So what is this national myth you are invoking, and why would we imagine that we'll ever be particularly different from Canada in the first place? Well then I hope you are voting for Ron Paul. Because the policies you are criticizing here are exactly establishment GOP things that the mainstream GOP can be depended upon to run stridently against. The surest path to doubling down on those policies is for the GOP to win elections. Why do you support them, if that's the outcome you prefer? What Bush did or did not do in the Middle East is not what is impacting our freedoms here. That consists of stuff Bush did to America. The TSA, the warrantless wiretapping, etc. Where were you when the hippies were out in the streets decrying those innovations? This isn't a "neck and neck race." I'm sure you'll find some poll or another that says that (probably from Rasmussen reports) and likewise no shortage of news programs who will portray it as such to attract viewership, but the people putting their money where their mouths are (intrade.com) and the people who are serious about analyzing the polls (538 blog) are all predicting a clear Obama victory at this point. The Romney campaign is desparately stumbling from gaffe to gaffe - and giving off the repellent stink of a loser - and the conservative pundit set is already writing post-mortems and looking to 2016. The debates are going to be a massacre. Short of some kind of extreme, dramatic surprise Romney is sunk. Is that what you guys tell yourself? That Obama is some ineffectual evangelical, and Romney is supposed to be the next Reagan? We lost all that shit under Bush, and I don't see where any serious number of people are dumb enough to think otherwise, or to cut off their nose to spite their face anyway. See, now, you're circling dangerously close to admitting that reality does not square with your premises there.
