Election 2010

[KCMax]

Just saw it during my lunch break.  They had a former Clinton advisor on, who "shockingly" enough said that Hillary Clinton is a threat to take the nomination.  I love that they are ignoring the fact there are two years of politics and war between now and then.  I love how 90% of the times they interview a Democrat, they are conveniently against whatever Democratic proposal they are discussing.  90% of the Dems, which is 10% of their guests.  They are already trying to demonize their next targets now that Pelosi's influence is probably toast.

Clinton rules out a presidential run through 2016

[mean]

I am optimistic about bi-partisanship! &&&

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

No, idiot, the single most important thing you should want to achieve is to fix the economy. Yeah, everybody wants their guy in the top spot, but if that's the only thing you care about, rather than running the country, you should get the eff out of office and let someone else do it.

[phuqueue]

Yeah.  It's a good thing that the party that lost seats in the House didn't triple the deficit in one month's time.  But, I am sure you are right.  Voters don't care about the deficit.  

The current deficit is an extraordinary response to an extraordinary situation.  Historically the deficit rises under Republicans and falls under Democrats.  The health care bill actually reduced the deficit over the next several years, but Republicans want to repeal it.  Extending tax cuts for everyone will add $4 trillion to the deficit, but exempting the top 2% reduces that figure by $700 billion; Republicans are up front about their opposition to this.  Whether you agree with the wisdom of the stimulus, we are where we are now, no changing that.  One party plans to add hundreds of billions of dollars more to the deficit than the other party.  Guess which party just won.

1. This is just one political miscue without a teleprompter.  Do you remember when the Cambrigde, MA police "acted stupidly"?  Or how about when Republicans were "the enemies," only to say later that he meant, "opponents."  When was the last time a Republican President referred to Democrats as "enemies"?

2. Presidents have to talk a lot.  They are going to make gaffs now and then.  I understand that Obama seems to be making gaffs just as much as Bush did.  That's really no big deal to me.  But do you know what is funny to Conservatives?  This is just another way in which Obama is just 4 more year Bush.  So, it's not really much of a "change over the past 8 years," is it?  Hope and Change, baby!

3. Obama = 4 more years of Bush.  There is no hope.  There is no change.  It's same old Washington as usual.  Obama has out of control spending, isn't listening to the people, high unemployment, and has a low approval rating.  So did Bush.  Obama is one who said he was the change we needed over the past 8 years.  The changes the voters probably do see are changes for the worse.

The Cambridge police did act stupidly.  In context the enemies quote is not nearly as bad as the GOP tried to make it look.  Also I don't care regardless.  The fact that you're continuing to push this suggests to me that you completely missed my actual point when I drew the comparison to Bush's many mistakes and then explained that they don't matter.

I'm not sure why you'd be harping on Obama supposedly representing no change at all, since you seem extremely opposed to his policies anyway.  Health care reform is something that's been kicking around for literally decades -- the bill that Obama got passed isn't terribly different from Nixon's reform proposal from forty years ago.  That's some change right there.  Polls at the time it was passed showed support for reform in general and many (depending on how the question was phrased) even showed considerable support for the public option that ended up getting axed.  I don't know or particularly care what polls say about HCR now -- whether it's popular or not presently (and I think other posts in this thread have pretty well demonstrated that the answer to this question isn't so clearly the resounding no that you're asserting), it had support when it was passed.  Obama and Congress were presented with a problem, they crafted what they deemed to be the best realistic solution, the public supported it, they passed it -- it's not their job or anybody else's to try to predict whether at some point in the future someone peddling snake oil will successfully manipulate public opinion against them.  And even if they do manage to make that prediction, so what?  It's their job to do what they think is best for the country.  I think your argument that Obama is out of touch with the voters has already been properly refuted in other posts, but since you won't let it go anyway, I'll play ball here for just a moment.  Let's say he really isn't paying attention to the voters.  Does it matter?  This is a republic, not a direct democracy.  We elect people to make decisions for us, to take those decisions out of our hands.  Obama has no duty to listen to the voters.  He may choose to do so, knowing that if he crosses them he could be booted out of office.  Or he may, accepting that potential consequence, follow through on what he thinks is best regardless of its present popularity or lack thereof.  Our elected officials have no duty whatsoever to do as we tell them, but they know that if they don't they could lose their job.  It's a compromise between the official and the voter.  This is how our political system works.

I'm also just gonna go back a few pages here real quick and address one other point because relevant news came out today.

We've added jobs?  Do the voters know this?  How about Reid's home state of Nevada?  That's the state with the highest unemployment.

Jump in hiring lifts spirits on economy

(Reuters) - U.S. employment surged much more than expected last month as private companies hired workers at the fastest pace since April, a sign the sluggish economy is finally starting to tick up.

Nonfarm payrolls rose a solid 151,000 in October, the first gain since May and more than double economists' expectations, a Labor Department report showed on Friday. Private hiring rose by 159,000, while the government cut only 8,000 jobs.

...

Data for August and September also was revised to show 110,000 fewer jobs were lost than previously estimated. Private payrolls have grown above 100,000 for each of the last four months and are now up 1.1 million since December.

[AllThingsKC]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that teleprompters were not a big factor in this week's elections, and won't be a factor in 2012.  :lol:

WHAT???  I guess you didn't see the Fox News story about how Obama is using teleprompters that were made in Kenya.  It's a fact: Over 400 million Americans hate it when a president uses a teleprompter made in Kenya instead of the American-made teleprompters.  Teleprompter usage was the #1 issue in the midterms.  That's a fact!

Honestly, I think even that is a stretch. Certainly I'd agree that some voters were rejecting the Obama administration's policies, but I don't think it's more than 30-40%.

30-40%?  Sounds like a lot of that could be independents.  Won't Obama need most of the independents for re-election?  Or, maybe the 30-40% are Tea Partiers?  In which case, he could win without them.

Jump in hiring lifts spirits on economy

Yeah, but the unemployment rate is still 9.6%.  While I'm glad that we added jobs 20 months after the stimulus passed, it doesn't seem to be enough.  The unemployment rate remains unchanged!!!  So, we had a few companies that hired seasonal work for the holidays.  If we're still adding jobs in March then I'd be really happy.

But, my questions remain: When does the unemployment go back to Pre-Obama levels?  Heck, when does it get back to Pre-Bush levels?   When does does it get under 8% (like Obama said it would not go over if the stimulus was passed)?  

[phuqueue]

Yeah, but the unemployment rate is still 9.6%.  While I'm glad that we added jobs 20 months after the stimulus passed, it doesn't seem to be enough.  The unemployment rate remains unchanged!!!  So, we had a few companies that hired seasonal work for the holidays.  If we're still adding jobs in March then I'd be really happy.

But, my questions remain: When does the unemployment go back to Pre-Obama levels?  Heck, when does it get back to Pre-Bush levels?   When does does it get under 8% (like Obama said it would not go over if the stimulus was passed)?  

In trying to pass this off as some paltry flash in the pan job growth you must have missed the part about how it's merely the highest increase since April, that each of the past four months have seen private payrolls grow by at least 100,000, and that we've added 1.1 million jobs since December.  That unemployment is still so high is a testament to how bad the situation was when Obama took office (and maybe to the fact that the stimulus was, if anything, not big enough -- but it was as big as was politically viable).  I'm still not entirely sure why you think that reflects well on the GOP.

[AllThingsKC]

I'm still not entirely sure why you think that reflects well on the GOP.

I don't think that it reflects well on the GOP.  I just don't think it reflects well on Obama right now.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't think that it reflects well on the GOP.  I just don't think it reflects well on Obama right now.

So the argument boils down to "the dude in charge hasn't used magic to fix things as fast as we want, so lets support these other dudes who don't really have any plan at all for fixing things"?

[mean]

So the argument boils down to "the dude in charge hasn't used magic to fix things as fast as we want, so lets support these other dudes who don't really have any plan at all for fixing things"?

I think you just summed up about 60% of voters.

[AllThingsKC]

So the argument boils down to "the dude in charge hasn't used magic to fix things as fast as we want, so lets support these other dudes who don't really have any plan at all for fixing things"?

If the overall consensus of the election results is basically "people are stupid," then yes.

[mean]

So the argument boils down to "the dude in charge hasn't used magic to fix things as fast as we want, so lets support these other dudes who don't really have any plan at all for fixing things"?

I should have added, they do have a plan. Their plan is to eliminate the deficit and pay off the national debt by cutting taxes. Good luck, fellas!

[bobbyhawks]

I should have added, they do have a plan. Their plan is to eliminate the deficit and pay off the national debt by cutting taxes. Good luck, fellas!

Now Rand Paul wants to decrease the number of Federal employees by 10%.  This would cut ~275k jobs from our economy.  202k of the jobs added since 9/11 are direct results of security efforts and veterans affairs numbers post-9/11 (which is 2/3 of the total federal job growth in the last 10 years).  Other big federal job growth areas were Social Security, Education, and Health and Human Services (130k jobs in 10 years).  Check out the table in the following link.  It shows the number of executive branch employees per US populations:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... are_t.html

So, we are evidently going to solve our social security, education, and health system problems by getting rid of resources and repealing the first attempt at dramatically overhauling any single one of them in years.  Somehow, getting rid of 275k jobs and giving tax credits to rich people will encourage unicorns to poop gold, which will then be sent in to a company through the mail and turned into jobs tenfold.

[NDTeve]

So the argument boils down to "the dude in charge hasn't used magic to fix things as fast as we want, so lets support these other dudes who don't really have any plan at all for fixing things"?

sounds much like the 2008 elections.

[mean]

Cutting federal jobs would be a hard sell, and making a few hundred thousand more jobless people right now is retarded, but I think that eventually that could be a pretty reasonable move.

[LenexatoKCMO]

sounds much like the 2008 elections.

Was HW running for a third term in 2008?   

[aknowledgeableperson]

So the argument boils down to "the dude in charge hasn't used magic to fix things as fast as we want, so lets support these other dudes who don't really have any plan at all for fixing things"?

Nope.  It was the feeling that instead of working more on the current problems of jobs and economy the admin and congress was more active cutting deals to "fix" health care, that for the most part would not benefit many for a few years, working on cap and trade that very likely would cost jobs and hurt the economy.

[phuqueue]

Nope.  It was the feeling that instead of working more on the current problems of jobs and economy the admin and congress was more active cutting deals to "fix" health care, that for the most part would not benefit many for a few years, working on cap and trade that very likely would cost jobs and hurt the economy.

You keep singing this song that Obama neglected the economy, but the very first thing he did after taking office was push through an $800 billion stimulus package.  Were you not paying attention when that happened or something?  The only problem with the stimulus is it wasn't big enough, but the GOP was already crying foul over this and wasn't about to roll over for a bigger package to go through.  I'm curious what specific steps you expected or wanted out of Obama/Congress beyond what they already did.

As for health care not benefiting anybody for a few years, what are you expecting here?  You can't just pass a major overhaul of an entire industry and tell everyone "BTW these changes take effect on Monday."

sounds much like the 2008 elections.

I dunno, my memory of the 2008 election isn't so much that the voters booted out someone who didn't fix things fast enough as it was that they booted out someone who had originally come into office with nothing to fix and made an extraordinary mess of basically everything.  Sounds like the opposite of what just happened here.

[aknowledgeableperson]

You keep singing this song that Obama neglected the economy,

No, but many feel just that as unemployment kept going up and then stabilized at over 9.5% (when it was suppose to not exceed 8% by his plans) he should have spent his time and political capital working on that problem instead of the other issues he dealt with.  I guess one could say it was a matter of priorities.

[KCMax]

For two days this week, the President huddled with top aides and key Cabinet secretaries discussing the economic, budgetary and political "realities" facing his presidency.

He heard a virtual litany of troubles ahead. Among them:

* A weak, sluggish recovery from the recession with continued high unemployment for several years.

* Budget deficits for this fiscal year and the next that will range from $175 billion to $200 billion with no decline in sight.

* Financial disaster within many cities because of the recession and cuts in federal aid.

* The demise of of his political coalition in Congress.

The President sat mostly silent at the polished table in the Cabinet Room, asking occasional questions and trying to look on the brighter side. But the President, despite his advisers' gloomy forecasts, made no new moves. Nor was he expected to....

The new chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, opened the Tuesday meeting with the economic overview. He predicted a weak and slow recovery from the recession, and said unemployment would remain high for the next several years.

He generally acknowledged that the recovery had been delayed longer than expected, and that growth rates for the next year or so would be lower than the 4 per cent the administration predicted in September.

The Budget Director followed up with forecasts that the weak recovery and continued high spending would mean that budget deficits for this fiscal year and the next will range from $175 billion to $200 billion with no decline in sight....

The President's assistant for intergovernmental affairs, reported that cuts in federal aid and the long recession had left most of the states and many cities near financial exhaustion.

He also said the defeat of a number of governors from his own party had made it all the more difficult for the administration to sell its his policies to the states.

And on Wednesday, after many of his own party had been beaten at the polls, a White House congressional lobbyist said the President could no longer count on his political coalition on Capitol Hill.

"There has to be more give and take," he said. "And that's the model for the coming two years."

Since last summer, when it became clear that budget deficits were soaring and a recession was around the corner, top aides repeatedly have sought to maneuver the President toward a change of position, but with only limited success.

If the president seeks re-election and if the mood of American voters remains the same, he faces an uphill campaign, according to The Associated Press-NBC News poll.

The survey of about 12,000 voters, taken Tuesday after they cast ballots at 400 precincts around the country, indicated that only 35 percent of the electorate wants to see the President re-elected.

Fifty percent of those responding said they don't want him back for a second term, and 15 percent are unsure.

AP Article, November 6, 1982

I edited out the names. The President of course, was Ronald Reagan, who won re-election two years later in one of the biggest landslides in Presidential history.

[phuqueue]

Man for a second I was like "wait holy hell how did they bring the deficit down to $200 billion for next year, what did I miss"

[aknowledgeableperson]

AP Article, November 6, 1982

I edited out the names. The President of course, was Ronald Reagan, who won re-election two years later in one of the biggest landslides in Presidential history.

And that is why 2 years, even 1 year, is like a lifetime in politics.  Or for that matter what they say about midwest weather - don't like it now just wait change is coming.