Could Obama lose?

[JerrySeinfeld]

It seems unfathomable, but he could.

Let's be honest, the next president of the USA will not enact one iota of abortion law.

So, that out of the way, give me three good reasons to vote for this clown again?

[Bitsy]

It seems unfathomable, but he could.

Let's be honest, the next president of the USA will not enact one iota of abortion law.

So, that out of the way, give me three good reasons to vote for this clown again?

For starters, Medicare, ACA, Social Security, expiration of tax cuts for wealthiest 2%, global warming

[Guest American Woman]

While the ACA would be a good reason for many not to vote for him, I'll add SSM to the list of reasons to vote for him; and Romney's platform for an amendment to the Constitution banning SSM makes it a stronger reason.

[sharkman]

The last election we saw Obama referencing when he thought he was off mic those who cling to their guns and their religion, which was wrong to think on so many fronts. It didn't give his followers even one second of pause. His awful performance in the past 4 years hasn't caused his support to wane among his base either, they just stick out their hands to get some of the handouts offered. The economy is still flat with upwards of 20 million no longer working and his base just thinks that it would have been worse without Obama's massive spending, which didn't work.

He goes abroad and starts bowing to foreign leaders, whispering to the Russian president that he will be much more flexible after the election and spending millions on multiple vacations per year. His golf outings are far more frequent than what Bush ever did, and not one word from his base which bitterly bitched about Bush doing it.

So we can see from these and other examples that his supporters will not be swayed by performance or outcome. It's all about ideology. So I suspect that Obama has a better than even chance of winning. Even Carter didn't have it this good.

[punked]

The last election we saw Obama referencing when he thought he was off mic those who cling to their guns and their religion, which was wrong to think on so many fronts. It didn't give his followers even one second of pause. His awful performance in the past 4 years hasn't caused his support to wane among his base either, they just stick out their hands to get some of the handouts offered. The economy is still flat with upwards of 20 million no longer working and his base just thinks that it would have been worse without Obama's massive spending, which didn't work.

He goes abroad and starts bowing to foreign leaders, whispering to the Russian president that he will be much more flexible after the election and spending millions on multiple vacations per year. His golf outings are far more frequent than what Bush ever did, and not one word from his base which bitterly bitched about Bush doing it.

So we can see from these and other examples that his supporters will not be swayed by performance or outcome. It's all about ideology. So I suspect that Obama has a better than even chance of winning. Even Carter didn't have it this good.

Ahhh another empty chair Obama. I get that there is an invisible Obama that only you can see that Eastwood talks to in chair. However to convince the rest of the world about evil he is you should base your arguments on fact instead of the invisible Obama in your delusions.

[sharkman]

Could you please point out which facts I presented were in error?

[punked]

Could you please point out which facts I presented were in error?

You take a shift him playing gold while giving the REPUBLICANS leaders the house a pass because he plays 4 games to Obama's 1. As if how much Obama plays golf has any effect on how he governs. You mention guns as if Obama has tried to pass any gun legislation Ness flash gun regulations have weakened in his years nn office. You go off on things that aren't real. Keep taking shots at your invisible Obama but if you think this election is going to be won your delusions and double standards then you are in trouble

[sharkman]

You take a shift him playing gold while giving the REPUBLICANS leaders the house a pass because he plays 4 games to Obama's 1. As if how much Obama plays golf has any effect on how he governs. You mention guns as if Obama has tried to pass any gun legislation Ness flash gun regulations have weakened in his years nn office. You go off on things that aren't real. Keep taking shots at your invisible Obama but if you think this election is going to be won your delusions and double standards then you are in trouble

What do you mean, "You take a shift him playing gold while giving the Republicans leaders the house a pass because he plays 4 games to Obama's 1"?

I don't think golf affects the way Obama governs. I was making the point that some of his base protested Bush playing golf so Bush stopped. Obama plays more frequently and they say nothing.

I never suggested Obama would try to pass any gun legislation. All these points I made were simply to point out that his supporters are not basing their support on what Obama does, but what he believes, what he is.

[kimmy]

So, that out of the way, give me three good reasons to vote for this clown again?

Leaving aside any discussion of social conservatism, I'll give you 4 reasons:

(1) tax cuts for corporations and the rich.

(2) big increase in military spending.

(3) both of those things will be paid for with the elimination of benefits and programs for regular Americans.

(4) a return to the cult-like devotion to deregulation that played a major role in destroying the economy in the first place.

-k

[punked]

What do you mean, "You take a shift him playing gold while giving the Republicans leaders the house a pass because he plays 4 games to Obama's 1"?

I don't think golf affects the way Obama governs. I was making the point that some of his base protested Bush playing golf so Bush stopped. Obama plays more frequently and they say nothing.

I never suggested Obama would try to pass any gun legislation. All these points I made were simply to point out that his supporters are not basing their support on what Obama does, but what he believes, what he is.

Sorry on a phone. I say you take a shot at Obama for playing golf while giving the republican leadership a pass. No one protested Bush for playing golf he was the one who said "I can't play because there are troops I Iraq" Bugs said that no-one else. Republicans love to rewrite history don't they.

Just because you don't understand isn't a reason others shouldn't vote for him.

[sharkman]

I see, my iphone makes posting a challenge sometimes too.

Well you have a point, I am not aware of how much golf the Rep leadership plays, but the whole thing has me wanting to play a round right now! Wish me luck, if my wife beats me I'll never hear the end of it.

[punked]

I see, my iphone makes posting a challenge sometimes too.

Well you have a point, I am not aware of how much golf the Rep leadership plays, but the whole thing has me wanting to play a round right now! Wish me luck, if my wife beats me I'll never hear the end of it.

Go easy on her I am sure school starting again is not a good time for her.

[JerrySeinfeld]

For starters, Medicare, ACA, Social Security, expiration of tax cuts for wealthiest 2%, global warming

The United States is the brokest nation in the history of the world. The non-partisan CBO says if they continue on the current path, the economy shuts down in 2027. That's not that far off.

So let's go through your list above line by line:

Medicare. WIthout serious reform, the program is insolvent by 2020. Obama has no answer for this.

Social Security. See medicare above. Obama has no serious answer for this.

Expiration of tax cuts? This is a political game. Raising taxes on the wealthiest gives the USA an extra 40 billion each year. So instead of a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, now you have a $1.56 trillion dollar deficit. Yay!

The earth has warmed and cooled many times. Obama hasn't done a thing to help or hinder this natural fluctuation, nor will he ever. Oh, besides giving money to his buddies at fake companies like Solyndra, of course.

[punked]

The United States is the brokest nation in the history of the world. The non-partisan CBO says if they continue on the current path, the economy shuts down in 2027. That's not that far off.

So let's go through your list above line by line:

Medicare. WIthout serious reform, the program is insolvent by 2020. Obama has no answer for this.

Social Security. See medicare above. Obama has no serious answer for this.

Expiration of tax cuts? This is a political game. Raising taxes on the wealthiest gives the USA an extra 40 billion each year. So instead of a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, now you have a $1.56 trillion dollar deficit. Yay!

The earth has warmed and cooled many times. Obama hasn't done a thing to help or hinder this natural fluctuation, nor will he ever. Oh, besides giving money to his buddies at fake companies like Solyndra, of course.

You gotta be some crazy kind of stupid to think the US today is anywhere close to being more broke then Germany after WWW1 or Russia after the fall of the USSR.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You gotta be some crazy kind of stupid to think the US today is anywhere close to being more broke then Germany after WWW1 or Russia after the fall of the USSR.

I suppose you might have a point. But what was the Debt to GDP ratio of Russia? The USA's is roughly 100%.

More importantly, what's relevant is that Medicare and Social Security are both near insolvent and the President has no plan. You gotta be some crazy kind of stupid to keep driving a bus that's clearly headed off a cliff and instead of steering off course, continue promising the same old lollipops that got you into this mess in the first place.

[August1991]

Leaving aside any discussion of social conservatism, I'll give you 4 reasons:

(1) tax cuts for corporations and the rich.

(2) big increase in military spending.

(3) both of those things will be paid for with the elimination of benefits and programs for regular Americans.

(4) a return to the cult-like devotion to deregulation that played a major role in destroying the economy in the first place.

(1) Do you really believe the Obama line that Romney will only cut taxes "for corporations and the rich"? I suppose you also believe that Romney intends to force the children of poor people into slavery to pay for the shortfall.

(2) Does Romney plan to spend more on the military than Obama?

(3) Leaving aside the fact that US governments transfer more money from rich to poor than at any time in history (mostly with little or no effect except to increase a poverty industry), does Romney have specific plans to eliminate benefits/programmes for "regular" Americans?

(4) So, Kimmy, do you really believe that bureaucrats in Washington can "regulate" the US economy and ensure that people don't get involved in speculative bubbles? We have less (and more disparate) financial regulation in Canada than in the US. (Canada has no federal SEC, we never had a Glass-Steagal and our banks have no minimum reserve requirements.)

----

I give Obama a 90% chance of winning, or a 10% chance of losing. He could lose, but it's unlikely. I watch his re-election price on Intrade and he's been around 55 cents for the past few months.

He has a core loyalty vote of about 30% (including teh black electorate) that few politicians enjoy. He's like Trudeau in Canada: he starts the race ahead of anyone else.

I still think Romney knows that the Republicans need a name at the top of the ticket like Mondale in 1984, Dole in 1996 or Kerry in 2004. I reckon Romney is a good actor given his convention speech.

Nevertheless, Obama could lose.

Edited September 3, 2012 by August1991

[JerrySeinfeld]

August I agree with you Obama is the favourite.

But polling is very close. The single biggest determinant of victory could end up being voter turnout.

If the Democrats are too confident in victory, it could end up being their downfall if they don't show up at the polls because they think they "have it in the bag".

In 2010, the Republicans, to quote Obama, "shellacked" the Democrats because the conservative base was fired up. If we see a repeat of that, Romney could quite easily win.

A lot of "ifs", but this is a bad economy for a sitting President. If you are some poor black guy in urban Detroit, are you as motivated to go out and vote as you were in 2008? The answer is no.

[kimmy]

(1) Do you really believe the Obama line that Romney will only cut taxes "for corporations and the rich"? I suppose you also believe that Romney intends to force the children of poor people into slavery to pay for the shortfall.

They've promised tax cuts for corporations. They've promised to extend tax cuts for the wealthy ("the job creators!" in Republicanese.) They've promised to reduce capital gains taxes, which helps rich-guys an awful lot more than it helps regular Americans. None of this is secret. I'm not sure why you're trying to dismiss it with some crack about me believing they're in favor of child slavery. Don't you take them at their word?

(2) Does Romney plan to spend more on the military than Obama?

Yes, they've been very explicit on that point. They're very proud of it, in fact.

(3) Leaving aside the fact that US governments transfer more money from rich to poor than at any time in history (mostly with little or no effect except to increase a poverty industry), does Romney have specific plans to eliminate benefits/programmes for "regular" Americans?

Let's face it, Romney doesn't have "specific plans" for anything. There's been much talk about "entitlements reform", which is basically a code-word for the same thing. Your boy Paul Ryan came up with a budget slashing virtually every program to pay for these corporate tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts.

But really, August, all you need is simple math. They've promised tax cuts for corporations. They've promised reduced capital gains taxes. They've promised to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. They've promised to increase spending on the military. And they've promised to reduce the deficit.

Get back to me when you have worked out how they can keep all those promises without eliminating benefits/programs for "regular" Americans.

(4) So, Kimmy, do you really believe that bureaucrats in Washington can "regulate" the US economy and ensure that people don't get involved in speculative bubbles? We have less (and more disparate) financial regulation in Canada than in the US. (Canada has no federal SEC, we never had a Glass-Steagal and our banks have no minimum reserve requirements.)

Deregulation was a major factor in the the financial collapse, particularly in allowing "too big to fail" to happen, erasing the line between traditional banking and investment banking, and in allowing the creation of the fraudulent financial products that were at the center of the collapse.

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

They've promised tax cuts for corporations. They've promised to extend tax cuts for the wealthy ("the job creators!" in Republicanese.) They've promised to reduce capital gains taxes, which helps rich-guys an awful lot more than it helps regular Americans. None of this is secret. I'm not sure why you're trying to dismiss it with some crack about me believing they're in favor of child slavery. Don't you take them at their word?

Yes, they've been very explicit on that point. They're very proud of it, in fact.

Let's face it, Romney doesn't have "specific plans" for anything. There's been much talk about "entitlements reform", which is basically a code-word for the same thing. Your boy Paul Ryan came up with a budget slashing virtually every program to pay for these corporate tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts.

But really, August, all you need is simple math. They've promised tax cuts for corporations. They've promised reduced capital gains taxes. They've promised to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. They've promised to increase spending on the military. And they've promised to reduce the deficit.

Get back to me when you have worked out how they can keep all those promises without eliminating benefits/programs for "regular" Americans.

Deregulation was a major factor in the the financial collapse, particularly in allowing "too big to fail" to happen, erasing the line between traditional banking and investment banking, and in allowing the creation of the fraudulent financial products that were at the center of the collapse.

-k

The United states has higher corporate taxes than Canada, by far. Their corporate taxes are uncompetitive with the rest of the world, which makes the US a relatively unattractive place to do business - ie. Create jobs. Cutting corporate taxes simply puts the US in line with other countries on corporate taxes. A smart thing to do.

Reducing capital gains tax is also a good thing. It encourages investment in business, which, again, creates jobs.

I think Kimmy is right that the GOP wants to maintain a strong defence while the Dems want to cut it. So what? The first job of any real nation is to have a strong military.

As for "gutting programs that help regular Americans", well this is just simply political boilerplate. Look at the growth of entitlement spending in the united states. It has grown 757%, adjusted for inflation, since 1962. I would hardly say the US government is want for enough "programs" "helping" "regular" people.

The problem most Democrats have is that they don't know the meaning of the word "no", or "off". The only responsible direction of any government spending on "programs" is "up". Reverse this trend even a small amount and you are being "unjust".

Edited September 3, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[punked]

August I agree with you Obama is the favourite.

But polling is very close. The single biggest determinant of victory could end up being voter turnout.

If the Democrats are too confident in victory, it could end up being their downfall if they don't show up at the polls because they think they "have it in the bag".

In 2010, the Republicans, to quote Obama, "shellacked" the Democrats because the conservative base was fired up. If we see a repeat of that, Romney could quite easily win.

A lot of "ifs", but this is a bad economy for a sitting President. If you are some poor black guy in urban Detroit, are you as motivated to go out and vote as you were in 2008? The answer is no.

You do know the polling is only close because most Likely voters models give Republicans a 4 point turn edge. Something that hasn't happened in 40 years. The polls are already giving the republicans a turn out edge so saying it will put republicans over the top isn't only redundant it is how the media has sold you a close race is not close at all.

[punked]

I suppose you might have a point. But what was the Debt to GDP ratio of Russia? The USA's is roughly 100%.

More importantly, what's relevant is that Medicare and Social Security are both near insolvent and the President has no plan. You gotta be some crazy kind of stupid to keep driving a bus that's clearly headed off a cliff and instead of steering off course, continue promising the same old lollipops that got you into this mess in the first place.

WRONG Social Security IS FULLY FUNDED until 2040. If they raise the tax cap for those who earn over 100,000 dollars that makes Social Security good for at least the next 80 years. I don't know if you only get your facts from Shady but someone is clearly lying to you and you are to lazy to actually check them on the facts.

Edited September 3, 2012 by punked

[JerrySeinfeld]

WRONG Social Security IS FULLY FUNDED until 2040. If they raise the tax cup for those who earn over 100,000 dollars that makes Social Security good for at least the next 80 years. I don't know if you only get your facts from Shady but someone is clearly lying to you and you are to lazy to actually check them on the facts.

The non partisan CBO warns that raising taxes in the delicate recovery is likely to drive the US economy back into a recession. The single worst thing a government can do during an economic recovery is raise taxes.

[punked]

The non partisan CBO warns that raising taxes in the delicate recovery is likely to drive the US economy back into a recession. The single worst thing a government can do during an economic recovery is raise taxes.

How about raising taxes in 2020 the year would have to raise taxes because the Non partisan CBO says that is the year SS will stop taking in more then it gives out. I know you think Social Security is insolvent but where I come from that term does not mean taking in more then you give out. Where I come from we call that a surplus.

You have already proved throughout this thread your "facts" are as good as the republican ticket. Why would anyone care what you have to say when it is quite obvious you are at worst lying through your teeth or you are so misinformed that when you say something we all have to go fact check it because you are caught in lie after lie after lie?

Edited September 3, 2012 by punked

[JerrySeinfeld]

How about raising taxes in 2020 the year would have to raise taxes because the Non partisan CBO says that is the year SS will stop taking in more then it gives out. I know you think Social Security is insolvent but where I come from that term does not mean taking in more then you give out. Where I come from we call that a surplus.

You have already proved throughout this thread your "facts" are as good as the republican ticket. Why would anyone care what you have to say when it is quite obvious you are at worst lying through your teeth or you are so misinformed that when you say something we all have to go fact check it because you are caught in lie after lie after lie?

What are you talking about? Are you putting social security into some kind of non-reality bubble? If you're raising taxes to pay for social security, what is going to pay for the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit? Mre taxes? Is it ever enough for you commies?

[punked]

What are you talking about? Are you putting social security into some kind of non-reality bubble? If you're raising taxes to pay for social security, what is going to pay for the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit? Mre taxes? Is it ever enough for you commies?

I AM TALKING ABOUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW. Your idea to close the deficit is to never raise taxes again? Good luck with that. You do know cuts lead to less taken in, in taxes. Again you make no sense you don't understand anything you are saying. You are a know nothing. You have never posted one number, cited one paper, linked to one website. I AM NOT GOING TO TRUST YOUR GUT. Sorry you know nothing!