|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 01:42:40 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  A Democratic lock on the White House?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: A Democratic lock on the White House?  (Read 5337 times)
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,448
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2010, 12:08:11 pm »

There are hundreds of reasons for our deficits. At least when it's spent on weapons and missiles, our country is helping the private sector out being that they are bought from the market. I've heard stories where we blow up rocks and buildings that have already been blown up because we have such an abundance. If we keep buying and benefiting the private sector like this, then the unemployed can work making nuclear weapons and missiles.

I remember a guy who continuously repeated that deficits were always bad. Roll Eyes
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2010, 02:36:39 pm »

There are hundreds of reasons for our deficits. At least when it's spent on weapons and missiles, our country is helping the private sector out being that they are bought from the market. I've heard stories where we blow up rocks and buildings that have already been blown up because we have such an abundance. If we keep buying and benefiting the private sector like this, then the unemployed can work making nuclear weapons and missiles.

I remember a guy who continuously repeated that deficits were always bad. Roll Eyes

They are if they're repeated. Look our debt is about to be greater than the entire net worth of our country soon.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2010, 06:32:24 pm »

There are hundreds of reasons for our deficits. At least when it's spent on weapons and missiles, our country is helping the private sector out being that they are bought from the market. I've heard stories where we blow up rocks and buildings that have already been blown up because we have such an abundance. If we keep buying and benefiting the private sector like this, then the unemployed can work making nuclear weapons and missiles.

I remember a guy who continuously repeated that deficits were always bad. Roll Eyes

They are if they're repeated. Look our debt is about to be greater than the entire net worth of our country soon.

We can thnak Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. for that.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2010, 07:28:29 pm »

There are hundreds of reasons for our deficits. At least when it's spent on weapons and missiles, our country is helping the private sector out being that they are bought from the market. I've heard stories where we blow up rocks and buildings that have already been blown up because we have such an abundance. If we keep buying and benefiting the private sector like this, then the unemployed can work making nuclear weapons and missiles.

I remember a guy who continuously repeated that deficits were always bad. Roll Eyes

They are if they're repeated. Look our debt is about to be greater than the entire net worth of our country soon.

We can thnak Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. for that.

No surprise you only blame Republicans and not democrats. As for a lock on the white house? I think Obama needs to get rid of his tough angry man who talks street before he has a chance at winning in 2012. Everyone sees it in him.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2010, 02:30:01 pm »

I think the only thing that is a "lock on the White House" are: the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk).
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2010, 08:50:44 pm »

I think the only thing that is a "lock on the White House" are: the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk).

Haha well said... clap clap clap. You couldn't be more right. As for democrats; how bout a lock out of the white house is more like it.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2010, 09:13:39 pm »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2010, 10:24:00 pm »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2010, 01:24:00 am »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2010, 01:28:31 am »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2010, 04:34:57 am »

I think the only thing that is a "lock on the White House" are: the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk).

Haha well said... clap clap clap. You couldn't be more right. As for democrats; how bout a lock out of the white house is more like it.

So you agree … but it's okay for Republicans to beholden to "the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk)"?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2010, 04:51:28 pm »

I think the only thing that is a "lock on the White House" are: the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk).

Haha well said... clap clap clap. You couldn't be more right. As for democrats; how bout a lock out of the white house is more like it.

So you agree … but it's okay for Republicans to beholden to "the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk)"?

Nope and the lobbyists would've been done had McCain been elected. If you read my government reform in individual politics I advocate a ban for soft money from corporations and unions as well.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2010, 05:23:35 pm »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.

     Yes, but the more charismatic candidate has typically won general election matchups. For that matter, I don't really view Clinton or either Bush as being charismatic either. It has to do with how the bulk of the electorate views them in comparison to their opponent.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2010, 08:19:15 pm »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.

     Yes, but the more charismatic candidate has typically won general election matchups. For that matter, I don't really view Clinton or either Bush as being charismatic either. It has to do with how the bulk of the electorate views them in comparison to their opponent.

Oh I view them as charismatic but not Obama. Actually I think McCain was underrated but wasn't going to win after the financial meltdown.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2010, 08:29:44 pm »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.

     Yes, but the more charismatic candidate has typically won general election matchups. For that matter, I don't really view Clinton or either Bush as being charismatic either. It has to do with how the bulk of the electorate views them in comparison to their opponent.

Oh I view them as charismatic but not Obama. Actually I think McCain was underrated but wasn't going to win after the financial meltdown.

     McCain was already going to have an uphill battle, but I agree that the financial meltdown sealed the deal. Had it not occurred, I think Obama would have probably won by a margin comparable to Bush's margin in 2004.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2010, 02:12:39 am »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.

     Yes, but the more charismatic candidate has typically won general election matchups. For that matter, I don't really view Clinton or either Bush as being charismatic either. It has to do with how the bulk of the electorate views them in comparison to their opponent.

Oh I view them as charismatic but not Obama. Actually I think McCain was underrated but wasn't going to win after the financial meltdown.

     McCain was already going to have an uphill battle, but I agree that the financial meltdown sealed the deal. Had it not occurred, I think Obama would have probably won by a margin comparable to Bush's margin in 2004.

Hard to say. McCain led both Obama and Hillary until the primary was over for the dems. After that Obama took the lead for the most part until McCain picked Palin. At that point McCain had 2-3 weeks where he led in about every battleground state. Once the financial meltdown happened, McCain had nowhere to go but up.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 15, 2010, 09:21:54 pm »

Neither party has a lock.  If the country improves the incumbent party can retain the WH, if the economy falters they're gone.
If unemployment is still above 8%, GDP growth below 3%, Debt exploding, its not unreasonable to think a Daniels or Thune could beat Obama in 2012.

Also, post the census about 8-10 EVs will shift from the Democratic NE states to the Rep southern states, giving the GOP a small advantage in close elections.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 15, 2010, 09:58:35 pm »

Neither party has a lock.  If the country improves the incumbent party can retain the WH, if the economy falters they're gone.
If unemployment is still above 8%, GDP growth below 3%, Debt exploding, its not unreasonable to think a Daniels or Thune could beat Obama in 2012.

Also, post the census about 8-10 EVs will shift from the Democratic NE states to the Rep southern states, giving the GOP a small advantage in close elections.


Excuse me and it's not just you, but alot of people here think that 7.5 and 8% are the levels for unemployment. I seem to remember unemployment being at 5.4% and our GDP rate being 7.2% in 2003 and 2004 and Bush being blamed for a bad economy. Since when did 8% unemployment become ok?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2010, 10:04:50 pm »

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.

     Yes, but the more charismatic candidate has typically won general election matchups. For that matter, I don't really view Clinton or either Bush as being charismatic either. It has to do with how the bulk of the electorate views them in comparison to their opponent.

Oh I view them as charismatic but not Obama. Actually I think McCain was underrated but wasn't going to win after the financial meltdown.

     McCain was already going to have an uphill battle, but I agree that the financial meltdown sealed the deal. Had it not occurred, I think Obama would have probably won by a margin comparable to Bush's margin in 2004.

Hard to say. McCain led both Obama and Hillary until the primary was over for the dems. After that Obama took the lead for the most part until McCain picked Palin. At that point McCain had 2-3 weeks where he led in about every battleground state. Once the financial meltdown happened, McCain had nowhere to go but up.

If McCain was going to win without the market meltdown, Democrats should be hunting for Hank Paulsen's head for not bailing out Lehman.  Obama's election was a disaster for Democrats and they should want the head of anyone who made it possible by the flip of a switch.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2010, 11:14:08 am »

Neither party has a lock.  If the country improves the incumbent party can retain the WH, if the economy falters they're gone.
If unemployment is still above 8%, GDP growth below 3%, Debt exploding, its not unreasonable to think a Daniels or Thune could beat Obama in 2012.

Also, post the census about 8-10 EVs will shift from the Democratic NE states to the Rep southern states, giving the GOP a small advantage in close elections.


Excuse me and it's not just you, but alot of people here think that 7.5 and 8% are the levels for unemployment. I seem to remember unemployment being at 5.4% and our GDP rate being 7.2% in 2003 and 2004 and Bush being blamed for a bad economy. Since when did 8% unemployment become ok?
It's about expectations and change. Unemployment was still high in 1936, but FDR won 48 states.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2010, 11:25:19 am »

Neither party has a lock.  If the country improves the incumbent party can retain the WH, if the economy falters they're gone.
If unemployment is still above 8%, GDP growth below 3%, Debt exploding, its not unreasonable to think a Daniels or Thune could beat Obama in 2012.

Also, post the census about 8-10 EVs will shift from the Democratic NE states to the Rep southern states, giving the GOP a small advantage in close elections.


Excuse me and it's not just you, but alot of people here think that 7.5 and 8% are the levels for unemployment. I seem to remember unemployment being at 5.4% and our GDP rate being 7.2% in 2003 and 2004 and Bush being blamed for a bad economy. Since when did 8% unemployment become ok?
It's about expectations and change. Unemployment was still high in 1936, but FDR won 48 states.

Hoover didn't.  Neither did Carter (and I think his peak was a fractional point lower that Ford's).
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2010, 02:46:14 pm »

Neither party has a lock.  If the country improves the incumbent party can retain the WH, if the economy falters they're gone.
If unemployment is still above 8%, GDP growth below 3%, Debt exploding, its not unreasonable to think a Daniels or Thune could beat Obama in 2012.

Also, post the census about 8-10 EVs will shift from the Democratic NE states to the Rep southern states, giving the GOP a small advantage in close elections.


Excuse me and it's not just you, but alot of people here think that 7.5 and 8% are the levels for unemployment. I seem to remember unemployment being at 5.4% and our GDP rate being 7.2% in 2003 and 2004 and Bush being blamed for a bad economy. Since when did 8% unemployment become ok?
It's about expectations and change. Unemployment was still high in 1936, but FDR won 48 states.

Hoover didn't.  Neither did Carter (and I think his peak was a fractional point lower that Ford's).
Hoover and Carter lost because the perception was that things were getting worse. My point is that you can't just look at the unemployment number in a vacuum and make a prediction. You have to look at the period immediately preceding it and considering how people are going to judge a president.
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2010, 11:23:46 pm »

they have as much a lock on it as they have on the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 24, 2010, 11:27:53 pm »

they have as much a lock on it as they have on the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

Haha clap clap clap clap. Amen brother. It's ok anyone can buy a truck.
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 25, 2010, 12:16:34 am »

they have as much a lock on it as they have on the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

Haha clap clap clap clap. Amen brother. It's ok anyone can buy a truck.

Not in this economy haha.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines