Could Obama lose?

[JerrySeinfeld]

So has Intrade and they have an Obama win at 60% right now.

Nobody knows for sure, of course, but the consensus right now is that Romney is the underdog.

Yes. yes he is. It doesn't take much imagination to stick with the consensus and say "Obama is going to win". But then again, that's not the topic of this thread now, is it?

[waldo]

Fantasy eh?

These guys have been right since 1980.

well Jer, considering it's a brand new model... and has never predicted anything??? You do know the difference between hindcast/forecast, right Jer? Jer, apparently, 'your' touted model's methodology has taken some serious hits in review. Keep trying Jer, keep trying!

[waldo]

Fantasy eh?

Jer... further to that Nate Silver guy and his '538 Forecast'.

care to go up against his 2008 and 2010 results? About your OP post, 'Could Obama lose'? Just 270 to win, Jer... just 270! What does Nate Silver say? Oh my - not looking so good for your boy Mitt, hey!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jer... further to that Nate Silver guy and his '538 Forecast'.

care to go up against his 2008 and 2010 results? About your OP post, 'Could Obama lose'? Just 270 to win, Jer... just 270! What does Nate Silver say? Oh my - not looking so good for your boy Mitt, hey!

The Dems have started ahead since California and New York became reliable Dem states, yet it hasn't always turned out that way.

[cadfx]

I was talking to some Americans in Florida lately and anything is possible, people are simply not impressed with Obama's lack of results.

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?

[-TSS-]

Of course Obama could lose but Romney is doing his best to level the playing-field for the president. Somehow it is difficult to believe that an experienced politician like Romney could unintentionally make such ill-judged statements as he did this week. I know this election is more than before about getting your core-voters to the pollss instead of trying to woo the centre-ground but insulting 47% of the eelctorate is not very good campaigning.

[kraychik]

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

You obviously don't understand the core of the housing crisis and the broader collapse as it pertains to overregulation. Put simply the taxpayer was forced to cover bad loans that banks were forced to make via regulation from the so-called Community Reinvestment Act implemented during Carter, in 1979 I believe, and then ramped up with Clinton. The false narrative upon which the CRA was built alleged that banks were engaging in racial/ethnic discrimination when determining eligibility of applicants for credit. Since more black and Hispanic applicants were being declined as a proportion of total applicants when compared to white applicants, the banks must've been practising "systemic racial/ethnic discrimination", right? In order to make the banks more secure when lending to people with less-than-perfect creditworthiness, both Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac were established to guarantee that the banks would collect their money in the event that a sub-prime borrower defaulted. Fast forward to 2006, and the system starts breaking with taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions in defaulted loans.

The assertion that deregulation caused the housing crisis and broader economic collapse is the opposite of the truth, and amounts to demagoguery.

*Fun trivia - banks also determine eligibility for secured credit (mortgages and SLCs) based on the "sellability" of the home. The "sellability" of the home is largely dependent on the neighbourhood. Many undesirable neighbourhoods had overrepresentation of blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. So when banks declined applications for credit to purchase (or borrow against) homes in undesirable (and minority-filled) neighbourhoods, the left used this as further evidence of the phantom of "systemic racial/ethnic discrimination" being practised by the greedy banks. In other words, "They turned me down for my loan because my name is Miguel Sanchez!", rather than the fact that Mr. Sanchez only earns $20K a year, has a bad credit history, and wanted to buy a $200K home he couldn't afford in a bad neighbourhood that had recently been experiencing a decline in home values.

Edited September 24, 2012 by kraychik

[Shady]

You obviously don't understand the core of the housing crisis and the broader collapse as it pertains to overregulation. Put simply the taxpayer was forced to cover bad loans that banks were forced to make via regulation from the so-called Community Reinvestment Act implemented during Carter, in 1979 I believe, and then ramped up with Clinton. The false narrative upon which the CRA was built alleged that banks were engaging in racial/ethnic discrimination when determining eligibility of applicants for credit. Since more black and Hispanic applicants were being declined as a proportion of total applicants when compared to white applicants, the banks must've been practising "systemic racial/ethnic discrimination", right? In order to make the banks more secure when lending to people with less-than-perfect creditworthiness, both Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac were established to guarantee that the banks would collect their money in the event that a sub-prime borrower defaulted. Fast forward to 2006, and the system starts breaking with taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions in defaulted loans.

The assertion that deregulation caused the housing crisis and broader economic collapse is the opposite of the truth, and amounts to demagoguery.

*Fun trivia - banks also determine eligibility for secured credit (mortgages and SLCs) based on the "sellability" of the home. The "sellability" of the home is largely dependent on the neighbourhood. Many undesirable neighbourhoods had overrepresentation of blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. So when banks declined applications for credit to purchase (or borrow against) homes in undesirable (and minority-filled) neighbourhoods, the left used this as further evidence of the phantom of "systemic racial/ethnic discrimination" being practised by the greedy banks. In other words, "They turned me down for my loan because my name is Miguel Sanchez!", rather than the fact that Mr. Sanchez only earns $20K a year, has a bad credit history, and wanted to buy a $200K home he couldn't afford in a bad neighbourhood that had recently been experiencing a decline in home values.

She doesn't understand much of what caused the housing crisis. Said financial products weren't fraudulent, they were based on bad mortgages, because of the lowering of mortgage standards in order to facilitate loans to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. In otherwords, a policy she advocates for "helping the poor/" If said financial products were backed with proper mortgages, there wouldn't have been any problem with them. However, like her, some people choose to purposely not understand.

[Shady]

Willard power!!!

POLL: ROMNEY TAKES 14-PT LEAD AMONG MIDDLE CLASS...

In this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

Politico

[dre]

When Syria falls it will be yet another great legacy of GW Bush's vision. You saw the trees, Bush saw the forest.

The problem with this of course is what we are seeing is basically strong-men with theocrats.

The FSA which the west is backing in Syria is a full-on terrorist organization and Alqeada affiliate. If they win they will butcher the nations christians, collaborate with terrorists, and implement a more theocratic rule.

Im actually amazed that there isnt more talk about how the west is backing a terrorist organization that is slaughtering christians and burning churches.

[waldo]

Willard power!!!

did you almost dirty your magic underpants?

hey now... how come RCP shows a different result for your referenced Politico Poll - Obama +3, hey Shady? But, c'mon Shady... judging by question #9 in your referenced Politico Poll, shouldn't RCP actually have the poll at - Obama +6? What gives Shady?

[Shady]

did you almost dirty your magic underpants?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

hey now... how come RCP shows a different result for your referenced Politico Poll - Obama +3, hey Shady? But, c'mon Shady... judging by question #9 in your referenced Politico Poll, shouldn't RCP actually have the poll at - Obama +6? What gives Shady?

I know what the RCP averages are. But they include polls from a long time ago, which were heavily skewed in sampling Democrats. I'm sorry waldo, but this is only the beginning of the end of Obama. The next shoe to drop is on October 3rd, when he gets his verbal beatdown from Mr. Willard Mitt Romney!

[BubberMiley]

The next shoe to drop is on October 3rd, when he gets his verbal beatdown from Mr. Willard Mitt Romney!

Just like all those retired seniors got the beat-down from Romney for not taking personal responsibility? Predictably, Romney has since gone from a 20-point lead among seniors to a 4-point lead.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/24/romney-loosing-support-of-american-seniors/

Let the beat-down continue.

[waldo]

I know what the RCP averages are. But they include polls from a long time ago, which were heavily skewed in sampling Democrats. I'm sorry waldo, but this is only the beginning of the end of Obama. The next shoe to drop is on October 3rd, when he gets his verbal beatdown from Mr. Willard Mitt Romney!

no - RCP updates weekly... if you actually bothered to look at the link I provided (or admit you actually did), you'd see what this weeks RCP includes. As I pointed out to you, if you actually look... look!... you'll see the very same Politico Poll you creamed yourself over. It's there - and it in no way matches your puffery... in fact, I provided a link to your referenced poll, the Politico Poll, and emphasized question #9. What does it say, hey Shady? Have another look at the RCP poll grouping I linked. Have another look at the/your referenced Politico Poll that I linked to. Have a look at question #9. What do you see Shady?

[punked]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about?

I know what the RCP averages are. But they include polls from a long time ago, which were heavily skewed in sampling Democrats. I'm sorry waldo, but this is only the beginning of the end of Obama. The next shoe to drop is on October 3rd, when he gets his verbal beatdown from Mr. Willard Mitt Romney!

From all the way back to Sept 16th they do. You just want to Use the 1 poll out of 20 that is wrong because it makes you guy look good. That is a bad idea Shady. Pretending you are up when you are down will only help so long. Someday Nov 6th will come, you will lose then you will claim voter fraud because the "Polls were always on your side". We saw this game it was the 2008 election.

[punked]

She doesn't understand much of what caused the housing crisis. Said financial products weren't fraudulent, they were based on bad mortgages, because of the lowering of mortgage standards in order to facilitate loans to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. In otherwords, a policy she advocates for "helping the poor/" If said financial products were backed with proper mortgages, there wouldn't have been any problem with them. However, like her, some people choose to purposely not understand.

Yes Shady the markets were so over regulated that banks loaned to those dirty poor people at a rate that was 100 times what the government asked of them. That makes so much sense. The government said "You have to lend to so many poor people" and the banks said "Fine if we have to then we will loan to WAY MORE THEN YOU regulate" because the government had so much to do with. The EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT YOU or your rewritten history.

[CPCFTW]

Haha 100M.. Sounds very "independent"

[-TSS-]

According to conventional political wisdom an incumbent President seeking re-election during a time of economic uncertainty loses. That is what happened to Bush senior against Clinton 20 years ago. However, these are not normal times; even though people may regard Obama as incompetent they might still consider him less harmful than Romney who is tarred with a stigma of belonging to the corporatist elite whose fault the whole financial crisis is considered to be.

[Mr.Canada]

So America would rather have a president who gives fancy speeches over one candidate who has built and run multi million dollar business from the ground up. uh, ok.

[dre]

So America would rather have a president who gives fancy speeches over one candidate who has built and run multi million dollar business from the ground up. uh, ok.

Being a successful businessman does not make you any more qualified than anyone else.

[Mr.Canada]

Being a successful businessman does not make you any more qualified than anyone else.

if you say so. The last four years has proven that being able to make fancy speeches reading from a teleprompter doesn't make for an effective president. If Obama was doing such a great job he wouldn't have lost in the mid terms so badly.

[-TSS-]

Well, what we have here is the classical question: How long can a government or a president blame the previous government or the previous president for all the problems?

Not forever, obviously, but it must be said that Obama had some rotten legacy from W. However, he has been elected to his job to fix things. If he can't fix things then he should go even though he is not to be blamed for how things stood when he came in.

[cybercoma]

Can a president even make any sort of substantial progress in 4 years? That goes for any of them. Bush's first term was predicated on much of the decisions that Clinton made.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Mr.Canada]

Obama has made no progress at all. he failed to get anything accomplished that he said he would 4 years ago. So the people should just give him a mulligan? Come on CComa.

[dre]

Well, what we have here is the classical question: How long can a government or a president blame the previous government or the previous president for all the problems?

Not forever, obviously, but it must be said that Obama had some rotten legacy from W. However, he has been elected to his job to fix things. If he can't fix things then he should go even though he is not to be blamed for how things stood when he came in.

Well its all horseshit anyones. Both the idea that Bush single handedly destroyed the economy, and that Obama can fix it in a few years. They are both pretty much at the mercy of economic events, not in control of them. THe only people sitting around waiting for the president to fix the economy or saying he didnt "create enough jobs" are people that dont understand economics.