Obama: A year to Election Day, numbers good and bad

[AdamT]

Bottom line: most Americans do not want the kind of cuts that would be necessary to balance the budget without raising revenue.

And you know that how? The elections of 2010 say differently and what part of revenue enhancement that comes from GDP growth do you not understand?

I know that because poll after poll indicates that Americans do not want major changes to Medicare and Social Security, and you cannot balance the budget with existing tax rates without substantially cutting those programs.

 

[AdamT]

Yes, the deficit does turn to zero when a New President takes office since budgets and deficits are yearly. Please get an education on basic civics.

You know perfectly well that budgets are made for the NEXT year. Thus every President inherits the budget of the previous President when he or she is first elected. Pretending that that is not the case does not enhance your credibility.

 

[Far right dem]

general congressional ballot

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Generic Congressional Vote

Boner/canter's obstructionism is not going to cut it for the american people. They want jobs. Not cuts to medicare and SS. This will spell the end of republicans. I suggest they reject the ryan plan or they will be in trouble come 2012.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

You dont know how economics works. The dificit doesn't magically turn into zero when a new president takes over.

Yet, again, that doesn't hold true with a president named "Bush."

 

[Far right dem]

Yet, again, that doesn't hold true with a president named "Bush."

Bush came in with a surplus and prosperity and turned into deficits by giving tax cuts to the wealthy, passing an expansion of medicare without figuring out how to pay for it, and going the unnecessary wars. That's why he is regarded has the worst president in american history.

 

[apdst]

You dont know how economics works. The dificit doesn't magically turn into zero when a new president takes over.

It will, if that new prez starts making more and spending less.

 

[apdst]

You are confusing what YOU are opposed to with what the average voter is opposed to. Keep in mind that even with the current state of the economy, Obama's approval rating is 45.8% according to the RCP average. That's nothing to write home about, but it hardly spells doom. My general rule of thumb is that an incumbent will almost always be reelected if their approval rating is above 50%, they'll almost always lose if their approval rating is below 45% (unless their opponent is a real nut), and it's only in the 45-50% range where other factors like the identity of their opponent and their campaign strategies really determine the outcome of the election.

So your assertion that Obama is doomed is just as ridiculous as the claim from some others that Obama will certainly win because of a weak GOP field. I would tend to agree with Nate Silver's assessment that the election is more or less a 50-50 tossup at this point. The most important variable in the election outcome will be Obama's approval rating at election time next year...and the most important variable in determining his approval rating will be the state of the economy next summer/fall.

It's going to be damn tough for Obama to win with 45% of the popular vote and his numbers aren't going to go up.

 

[Conservative]

The dems won the governorship in WV.
Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin wins West Virginia special election - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Earl Tomblin's opponent tried to run against obama and it backfired.

And what are you talking about? Dems won district 26 in ny. Kathy hocul won because a conservative district rejected the paul ryan plan to end medicare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/nyregion/democrat-capture-house-seat-in-special-election.html?pagewanted=all

The democrats also picked up seats in the wisconsin legislator. The election in 2012 will referendum on the failed economic policies of boner/canter and the republicans governors in blue states like wisconsin and michigan trying to push true anti union legislation against the will of the people as well as the insistence of the republican candidates to return to the same failed bush economic policies that led to the great recession.

Right, NY 26 was won by a Democrat with 48% of the vote as the T.E.A. Party and Republican got 52%. It was NY 9(Weiner's seat) that was lost by the Democrats in decades and that was my error.

West Va. had a Democrat Governor who became Senator and has voted against President Obama initiatives. Democrats did not regain the Wisconsin Legislature in spite of millions of outside dollars poured into a state to overturn an election. That is what liberals always do.

Now go back to figuring how how deficits are created and why SS funds are in the general fund funding govt. services that you have yet to justify.

 

[Conservative]

I know that because poll after poll indicates that Americans do not want major changes to Medicare and Social Security, and you cannot balance the budget with existing tax rates without substantially cutting those programs.

So you support Obama's program to eliminate payroll taxes for the next year knowing those taxes fund SS and Medicare? Americans like you have outrage over the lack of money in SS and Medicare but have no problem with Presidents using that money for operational expenses of the Federal Govt. instead of where it belongs?

 

[Conservative]

You know perfectly well that budgets are made for the NEXT year. Thus every President inherits the budget of the previous President when he or she is first elected. Pretending that that is not the case does not enhance your credibility.

Yes, we know quite well but what you don't seem to know is that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the 2009 budget and that is why it passed. It was indeed a Democrat budget even though it is assigned to Bush. I don't see a lot of credibility from you at all just diversion, distortion, and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Conservative]

general congressional ballot

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Generic Congressional Vote

Boner/canter's obstructionism is not going to cut it for the american people. They want jobs. Not cuts to medicare and SS. This will spell the end of republicans. I suggest they reject the ryan plan or they will be in trouble come 2012.

And if there are enough misinformed people like you he will win re-election. Too bad that actual facts are ignored and you continue to buy the rhetoric.

 

[Kandahar]

It's going to be damn tough for Obama to win with 45% of the popular vote

A 45% approval rating doesn't necessarily translate to 45% of the popular vote. Another general rule of thumb is to take the incumbent's approval rating and add a few points to it, to account for people who may not like either candidate but like the incumbent better. This is part of the incumbency advantage that helps explain why incumbents get reelected more often than not.

and his numbers aren't going to go up.

This is nothing more than your guess, based on nothing but your wishful thinking. There is very little correlation between the direction in which a politician's approval ratings are moving from one month to the next. It is no more likely to go down than to go up...and the direction that his approval rating moves will be determined by the direction that the economy moves (which is also difficult or impossible to predict).

 

[Conservative]

A 45% approval rating doesn't necessarily translate to 45% of the popular vote. Another general rule of thumb is to take the incumbent's approval rating and add a few points to it, to account for people who may not like either candidate but like the incumbent better. This is part of the incumbency advantage that helps explain why incumbents get reelected more often than not.



This is nothing more than your guess, based on nothing but your wishful thinking. There is very little correlation between the direction in which a politician's approval ratings are moving from one month to the next. It is no more likely to go down than to go up...and the direction that his approval rating moves will be determined by the direction that the economy moves (which is also difficult or impossible to predict).

I am absolutely shocked at the 45% approval rating with the results he has generated three years after taking office. How do you justify voting for someone with these numbers? Don't results matter to you?

25 million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)154.1 X 16.2% Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
14.8 million unemployed PLUS Discouraged workers Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2.2 million fewer jobs(bls.gov) Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
4.3 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site) Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-44% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
“Fast and Furious”, “Wide Receiver”
Solyndra, Fisker, and Crony Capitalism Jobs Panel Member Whose Solar Firm Won Loan Guarantees Raises 'Conflict Of Interest' Concerns | Fox News
Videos | Solyndra

Solyndra solar power company shuts down 15 months after Obama visit

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.
The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.
That's costing us just $16 million per job.

One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).
The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother of Nancy's husband.
But there is nothing wrong here, is there?

U.S. Bridges, Roads Being Built by Chinese Firms | Video - ABC News
Stimulus failure
Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

 

[Kandahar]

I am absolutely shocked at the 45% approval rating with the results he has generated three years after taking office. How do you justify voting for someone with these numbers? Don't results matter to you?

25 million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)154.1 X 16.2% Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
14.8 million unemployed PLUS Discouraged workers Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2.2 million fewer jobs(bls.gov) Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
4.3 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site) Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
rating(S&P)
Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.97 (The United States Misery Index By Year)
38-44% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
“Fast and Furious”, “Wide Receiver”
Solyndra, Fisker, and Crony Capitalism Jobs Panel Member Whose Solar Firm Won Loan Guarantees Raises 'Conflict Of Interest' Concerns | Fox News
Videos | Solyndra

Solyndra solar power company shuts down 15 months after Obama visit

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.
The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.
That's costing us just $16 million per job.

One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).
The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother of Nancy's husband.
But there is nothing wrong here, is there?

U.S. Bridges, Roads Being Built by Chinese Firms | Video - ABC News
Stimulus failure
Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

I'm not really interested in your copy-paste list of things you don't like about Obama. Suffice it to say that there are obviously many Americans who don't blame Obama for the recession, given that A) it was already unfolding before he even took office, and B) many other developed countries face economic conditions as bad or worse than ours despite not having Obama as their president.

 

[apdst]

A 45% approval rating doesn't necessarily translate to 45% of the popular vote. Another general rule of thumb is to take the incumbent's approval rating and add a few points to it, to account for people who may not like either candidate but like the incumbent better. This is part of the incumbency advantage that helps explain why incumbents get reelected more often than not.

You're right, the propular vote will probably be lower.

This is nothing more than your guess, based on nothing but your wishful thinking. There is very little correlation between the direction in which a politician's approval ratings are moving from one month to the next. It is no more likely to go down than to go up...and the direction that his approval rating moves will be determined by the direction that the economy moves (which is also difficult or impossible to predict).

You're right, it's a guess. Just like it would be a guess for you say that his numbers are going to go up.

I think one thing you can agree on, is that he will need some sort of miracle for his numbers to get any better and, that if he keeps doing what he's doing, they're definitely not going to improve.

 

[Kandahar]

You're right, it's a guess. Just like it would be a guess for you say that his numbers are going to go up.

Right, which is why I haven't done that.

I think one thing you can agree on, is that he will need some sort of miracle for his numbers to get any better

Oh please. Even a slight uptick in his approval ratings (just 3-4%) in the next year would probably be enough to give him a fairly comfortable victory, and no movement at all would probably be enough to at least make the election close. It's not difficult to envision a path to an Obama victory, without any miracle.

and, that if he keeps doing what he's doing, they're definitely not going to improve.

Now what in the world would make you think that's "one thing I can agree on"? Obama's approval ratings, like those of many other presidents, are largely at the whim of economic conditions. Whether he "keeps doing what he's doing" (whatever that means) will play very little role in whether or not the economy picks up or slows down within the next year.

 

[Conservative]

I'm not really interested in your copy-paste list of things you don't like about Obama. Suffice it to say that there are obviously many Americans who don't blame Obama for the recession, given that A) it was already unfolding before he even took office, and B) many other developed countries face economic conditions as bad or worse than ours despite not having Obama as their president.

Then you confirm what I posted, results don't matter. Prove that copy and paste wrong as I gave the sources for the information. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty where someone can destroy the economy and still get your support all because of the rhetoric?

Obama was in that Congress that helped create the mess or didn't you take basic civics? Obama has shown that his resume was correct and he has zero leadership skills. Guess that is what encourages liberals

 

[Kandahar]

Then you confirm what I posted, results don't matter. Prove that copy and paste wrong as I gave the sources for the information.

No. If I wanted to debate with some random hack website, I'd go find it and send them an email. I come here to actually debate politics with people who have thoughts of their own, not to disprove random **** that you posted from some website.

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty where someone can destroy the economy and still get your support all because of the rhetoric?

Like I said, if it's all Obama's fault than it's hard to see why this recession is engulfing most of the developed world. We are the only country that has Barack Obama as our president, so one would think that the problem would be limited to the United States (or at least, the United States would be the hardest-hit). But clearly that's not the case.

 

[pbrauer]

Why did Democrats allow that to happen? You blame Bush whereas I blame both. Bush didn't have the authority to create loans but Congress did. Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick, and ACORN took advantage of the DESIRE for all people to own homes but that fact escapes you. Who controlled the Senate in 2002?

Does this video help you remember, Con? :mrgreen:

 

[apdst]

Right, which is why I haven't done that.

Good for you. Me, I'm a bit more vocal with my opinion.

Oh please. Even a slight uptick in his approval ratings (just 3-4%) in the next year would probably be enough to give him a fairly comfortable victory, and no movement at all would probably be enough to at least make the election close. It's not difficult to envision a path to an Obama victory, without any miracle.

But, it's still only a guess. Correct?

Now what in the world would make you think that's "one thing I can agree on"? Obama's approval ratings, like those of many other presidents, are largely at the whim of economic conditions. Whether he "keeps doing what he's doing" (whatever that means) will play very little role in whether or not the economy picks up or slows down within the next year.

Right! And, Obama's economy isn't getting better. Unless there's a massive economic miracle next spring--it won't happen any sooner--Obama's number won't be getting any prettier.

 

[Conservative]

Kandahar;1059937107]No. If I wanted to debate with some random hack website, I'd go find it and send them an email. I come here to actually debate politics with people who have thoughts of their own, not to disprove random **** that you posted from some website.

LOL, random hack website? BLS.gov, BEA.gov, U.S. Treasury? Just admit that liberalism has made a fool out of you? those are non partisan sites

Like I said, if it's all Obama's fault than it's hard to see why this recession is engulfing most of the developed world. We are the only country that has Barack Obama as our president, so one would think that the problem would be limited to the United States (or at least, the United States would be the hardest-hit). But clearly that's not the case.

Good leaders don't try and delegate responsibility, they embrace the challenge. Obama has tried to delegate responsibility and places blame on everyone else but himself. Prove the results wrong

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You miss the point, the only way we have a revenue problem is if you buy that we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget and I don't. When I have a shortfall, I stop spending as I don't have the ability to print money. The best revenue enhancer for the Federal Govt is a growing vibrant economy, not tax increases which destroy incentive. How will raising taxes put the millions of unemployed back to work?

No, your point is incorrect. A 3.7 trillion dollar budget would mean that we have a revenue problem... as would a 2.7 million dollar budget. The revenue problem is not caused by a definitive number. It is caused by the difference between what comes in verses what goes out. And if you have a shortfall, you can get another job... bringing in more revenue. As far as increasing taxes decreasing unemployment, firstly, you are again looking at this as a black/white issue, which it is not. And, if you want to get technical, increasing taxes can increase revenue for programs... requiring more people to work those programs, hence, more jobs.

 

[Misterveritis]

Everyone needs to pay their part of the burdens of government. That's why all deductions and loopholes from everyone need to be eliminated.

Today is a great day to join me in calling for the Fair Tax.

Americans For Fair Taxation:

 

[Misterveritis]

Why can't i call him boner? Republican's call the patient affordability and portablity act "obamacare" as a pejorative to the president.

That is because the actual title of the law is a lie. And it is the one term Marxist president Obama's lie.

 

[Kandahar]

Good for you. Me, I'm a bit more vocal with my opinion.

But, it's still only a guess. Correct?

Correct. I'm not saying Obama will be reelected, I'm saying that it's far too early to make any kind of assessment like that. On InTrade, the betting odds give the Democratic candidate a 50.3% chance of winning the presidential election, and the Republican candidate a 47.1% chance. That sounds about right to me; more or less a tossup.

Right! And, Obama's economy isn't getting better.

Then you should short the stock market and make a bundle. :roll:
The fact is that the future trajectory of the economy is, at best, extremely difficult to predict (if not impossible). You have no idea what the economy will do next year, as there is virtually no correlation between economic performance from one year to the next.

Unless there's a massive economic miracle next spring--it won't happen any sooner--Obama's number won't be getting any prettier.

Like I said, he doesn't need a "massive economic miracle." He's sitting at 45.8% right now under the current economic conditions, which is not terrible. Even a slight improvement would make him a clear favorite to win a second term.