Its not going to be as easy as the Left thinks for Obama next year.All I have to say to the Left is stop paying so much attention to the "Texas Miracle",and start hoping for a "Obama Miracle",because that "black cloud" is just getting darker http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_bam_doomed_9F00LyaGY07dRoSiuxPRzI Why Bam’s doomed Unless something extraordinarily dramatic comes along to change the course of the US economy and the sentiments of the American people in the next six months, Barack Obama is finished. That conclusion is inescapable from the history of US presidential politics since 1945. Obama is now below 40 percent in job approval in the Gallup poll. Yes, as the political scientist Larry Sabato points out, almost every president since FDR has fallen to that level. But of those seven presidents, five (Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush) went on either to lose the next election or to not run again. The Truman story is complex: He was at 35 percent in 1946 yet won in ’48 -- but he fell back into the 30s in 1951 and opted against running for a second full term. The exceptions are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. But the essentials of those wins should terrify Obama’s supporters. Reagan hit 35 percent in 1983. By year’s end, though, the economy had lifted out of a dreadful recession to growth at an annual rate of 4.5 percent. In ’84, it grew at a sizzling 7.2 percent. The unemployment rate fell from 10.2 percent in 1983 to 7.2 percent on Election Day 1984 -- and Reagan won 49 states. Clinton hit 39 percent in September 1994, and was slammed with a GOP triumph in the midterm elections two months later. But by the end of ’94, the economy had grown 4.1 percent. Growth dropped to 2.5 percent in ’95, but bounced back to a healthy 3.7 percent in ’96. Plus, unemployment on Clinton’s watch fell from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 5.4 percent in ’96. So how do things look for Obama? Bad -- in every particular. Growth in the first quarter of 2011 was a shocking 0.4 percent. Second quarter: 1.3 percent. Forecasters are dropping their estimates of growth for the year to 2 percent -- and that seems extraordinarily optimistic. Joachim Fels, of Morgan Stanley, said Wednesday that America was “dangerously close” to a recession, around the same time that the president was telling CBS’ Anthony Mason, “I don’t think we’re in danger of another recession.” Oh? Yesterday’s horrible report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia indicates that manufacturing in our region “contracted sharply in August.” As The Wall Street Journal’s Kathleen Madigan reported, “Its factory-sector index . . . fell to -30.7 this month from 3.2 in July.” That index “has never been this low without the economy being in recession.” The consequences of a double-dip recession are nightmarish for the nation and fatal to Obama’s hopes. Aside from everything else, unemployment would certainly rise from its current 9.1 percent just as the election year starts. As we’ve seen over the last few years, even if the economy comes back, there’s no reason to believe the jobs picture will improve much. So Obama will be seeking re-election with the jobless rate far worse than the one he inherited -- and worse than it was in the previous year. He’ll argue that he inherited a crisis. Fine, most voters won’t blame him for the fact that the unemployment rate rose to 10 percent after the 2008 meltdown. But if it returns to that level after dropping to 8.9 percent, he’ll have no convincing defense. To sum up: History says that five of seven presidents whose poll numbers hit the 30s either lost or dropped out. The two who won were able to run on economic numbers that left the public optimistic about the future. Not now. Gallup says just 11 percent of Americans are satisfied with the country’s economic condition. And they hold Obama responsible: Just 26 percent approve of the job he’s doing on the economy. And just 23 percent of independents approve. But Obama needs a majority of independent voters to prevail next November; it’s extraordinarily difficult to see how he gets them. The second big red flag is approval rating data coming out of… wait for it… Pennsylvania! President Barack Obama, who political experts say will need a win in Pennsylvania to retain the White House, dipped to 35 percent approval among the state’s registered voters, according to a Muhlenberg College poll released Friday. The results come on the heels of a bad week in polls for Obama that showed him first dropping to 39 percent nationwide in Gallup’s daily tracking poll. Then another set of Gallup results Thursday showed only 26 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is handling the economy. These numbers are a huge blow to Obama who won the state handily in 2008, and a significant drop in just a few weeks from when Quinnipiac University polled Pennsylvania voters and found the president with 43 percent job approval. The Obama campaign should pay close attention to four states that represent 50 electoral votes – Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Obama easily won these states by an average margin of 13 points in 2008, and together they’ve mustered only one win for a GOP Presidential nominee in the last five Presidential elections (George W. Bush carried New Hampshire with 48% in 2000). But recent polling in these states, and overwhelming GOP victories in 2010, shows Obama isn’t just weaker than he was in 2008, but he is in real danger of losing electoral votes. In Pennsylvania, the biggest electoral prize of the four with 20 electoral votes, Obama’s polling has been dismal. Two surveys conducted in June by Quinnipiac and Susquehanna Polling and Research show his re-elect numbers at 48% and 44% respectively. Obama’s job approval in the Susquehanna survey was upside down by 7 points (41% approve, 48% disapprove). This week, Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democrat firm, released a survey showing Obama again upside down in his job approval – 46% approve to 48% disapprove – and showed him tied at 44% in a theoretical matchup against a candidate for the Republican nomination. Democrats were swamped in Pennsylvania in 2010, when an motivated electorate propelled Republicans to take control of the Governorship, a US Senate seat, the State House, and five US House seats. Recent polling in New Hampshire, conducted by the University of New Hampshire for WMUR, also showed the President’s job approval upside down with 46% approving and 49% disapproving. The poll also showed him behind in a theoretical matchup with a Republican candidate. Last month ARG released a survey showing his approval rating upside down by a whopping 15 points (39% approve, 54% disapprove). In 2010 Republicans rolled in New Hampshire as well, knocking off both members of the US House delegation and regaining control of both chambers of the state legislature. Public polling in Michigan and Wisconsin has been less frequent, but the drubbing Democrats took in 2010 cannot be ignored. In states that voted for Barack Obama by 16 and 14 points respectively, Republicans wrestled the Governorship of both states from the Democrats, as well as a US Senate seat in Wisconsin, two US House seats in each state, and three state legislative chambers (resulting in full control of the legislature in each state). That historical perspective combined with Obama’s abysmal economic record and new taxes and regulations on the auto industry should make Team Obama think twice about taking too many states from his 2008 coalition for granted. The president is giving a speech after his vacation that will lay out a dramatic jobs and deficit-reduction plan. That’s nice. But given the ineffectuality of his efforts thus far, his supporters shouldn’t hold out too much hope that he’s going to change the course of the world’s largest economy, which is heading toward the shoals again -- and is far likelier than not to run Obama aground for good.
Since the moveon.org/code pink crowd was so eager to document Bush's trouble in the polls, it's only fitting that I GLOAT because the Magic Negro has lost his charm. And here he thought his rock star image would be enough to carry him into a second term. Nope! In the end, mortgages, unemployment, and all the other things that comprise real life trump "hope and change." Let's see what has changed since the last election: 1. The youth are not energized to turn out in numbers like they were in 2008. 2. Approval among blacks has dropped from the high 90's to 74% and is expected to slide further. 3. Hispanics are impatient for him to work on immigration issues. 4. The anti-war hippie crowd is outraged that we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan and Gitmo is still operational. 5. A possible black conservative candidate is set to neutralize the race card used in the last election. And the list goes on. The planets aren't aligning this election like they did the last. Eventually reality sets in and people recognize that the Obama presidency has been a dismal failure.
How you think Independants(the most important voting bloc) will vote for far-right crazies like Perry or Bachmann is hilarious. If you want to win some key states like Pennsylvania or Florida you need Romney as the GOP nominee or the GOP won't win. You must have a moderate to beat Obama.
It's a race to the bottom. The cons are running on empty and Obama is running on fail. Obama edges out the cons.
No doubt he is in trouble. His approval rating is something like 39%. However, if a Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry were to win, they would have to answer questions about gay rights, evolution, climate change, and their hypocrisy over using government funds they so decry (Perry with Texas' budget and Bachmann with her farm and psychological clinic). They would also have to say something more substantive besides cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires. And overall the public is not in favor of abolishing Medicare and Social Security, so trying to peddle that stuff in a general election for President isn't going to win you any friends. Romney however is in a decent position. He is an actual moderate (as is Huntsman) and if either of them were to win, they could move away from the right-wing positions taken in the primary and more to the center. And if that happens, all I can say is Obama better be ready for a heck of a fight.
If Romeny wins the nomination.....Obama will have a chance. If anyone to the right of Romeny wins the nomination......The pile of Kenyan excrement goes down in a landslide. The last time a conservative ran for President in this country......he carried 49 states. . . . .
Yeah we tried that in 2008 with McCamnesty.......the disgusting center...... .......and McCain lost to an extreme Leftist who never ran so much as a lemonade stand. The Tea Party will decide this election.......just as we did in the 2010 elections. . . .
Nobody likes the **********s. Check the polls. You are hated. And rightfully so you are no different than the nazi party.
The American people are just going to have to be subjected to sustained agony so they get their heads right. No pain, no gain.
Dream on pal, Just the word Tea Party is becoming TOXIC. With the growth of You Tube all the radcal statements by the **********s are out there for all to see. They can no longer hide on Fox News like Sharon Engle or Sarah Palin did. Yes people are frustrated with Obama's lack of progress, But thy actually put the blame on the TEA PARTY.
Your angst to see the TEA Party go down is premature. Like awful polls of Congress, people individually still like their Congresspeople. So is it/will it be with individual TEA Party candidates. If you cannot distinguish between Nazis and TEA Party candidates, it's a sound denunciation of your critical thinking abilities.
you are very correct, Subderma. It is very obvious from reading a number of posts in this discussion forum that some individuals in this group who constantly attack the Tea Party really know absolutely nothing about the Tea Party. For example, do these people know the word "TEA" actually stands for "Taxed Enough Already"? Here is a very good discussion of what the Tea Party Patriots are and what they support and what they are not and want to change. As a matter of interest, I am a moderate and a centrist and I am not a Tea Party member. First of all I believe the wealthy should be taxed more to help pay down our national debt and I believe the 49% of us who pay absolutely no income tax at all should instead pay a moderate amount of tax to help the wealthy pay down our national debt. It annoys me to no end when some individuals in this forum unceremoniously attack an entire group of people whom they know absolutely nothing about. This is NOT the America way, folks! Please allow me to clarify what the Tea Party Movement is really all about.
The Tea Party uses stuff like this because it is easy to agree to it. Their beliefs on more substantive issues are incredibly unpopular (when they decide to voice them). A majority of Americans do not favor abolishing the EPA (like Michele Bachmann loves to talk about) or changing Medicare into a voucher program or privatizing Social Security. Does the Tea Party favor Ryan's plan? Well the Tea Party House members voted for it, so I can go off of that. And Ryan's plan has been analyzed and it will increase costs for seniors. So we'll see how that goes when people get older and sick and have to pay more from their own pocket for their medical bills when they have no way to do so. Really awesome plan actually, balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest members of society. People said he was courageous for putting forth such a plan, and in some sense he was because he knew he would be attacked for proposing such a plan. But at the same time instead of making more balanced choices, it's all done on the people who can least afford to pay, and that shows no courage at all.
People know that Obama didn't bring on the recession, and that the non bipartisan folks in House of Reps and Senate are largely responsible for it not getting much better will deliver Obama a win.
You people are seriously deluding yourself and have no clue how the planets are not aligning for Obama this time. Nobody is blaming Obama for causing this recession, but people certainly ARE blaming him for how he's handling it..or not handling it. Even liberal talking heads are commenting on Obama's deplorable lack of leadership when we need leadership more than ever.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20110408. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ower-seniors-to-seek-cost-cuts-ryan-says.html. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/April/06/CBO-Seniors-Pay-More-Medicare-Ryan-Plan.aspx. http://www.businessinsider.com/medi...raq-war-costs-more-than-a-school-lunch-2011-4. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...ould-pay-most-of-their-income-for-health-care. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...m-ryan-says-rep-paul-ryans-medicare-proposal/. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/April/06/ryan-plan-and-medicare.aspx. http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/05/27...ors-and-increase-bonuses-for-insurance-ceo’s/.
So your assertion comes down to a claim by the "nonpartisan" CBO? The CBO was started by a Democrat. It is not nonpartisan. It is also wrong a whole lot. Your second link explains why the CBO's analysis is wrong. Ryan's plan would put the control of costs in the hands of the seniors themselves, so they can shun inefficient or expensive providers.
Carter had a terrible economy.He lost,and Reagan inherited it and turned things around. Bush Senior had a bad economy.He lost and Clinton inherited it and turned it around. Whats Obamas excuse? And lets not forget the Democrats failed to pass a budget for over 800 days now. How is the Senate rejecting everything the GOP proposes to try and fix things helping?Obama is so hell bent on raising taxes that he rejects any proposals that dont include extra revenue.I agree with this.We shouldnt give this wreckless spending President another single penny of tax payers money to splurge with.Hes already wasted too much on failed green jobs and shovel ready projects.Thanks to the stimulus,the Goverment has increased while the private sector shrank.No way should he get any more money to blow.Just enough to pay towards the debt and the essentials(SS,Medicare,troop pay,etc,Nothing more!
Richard Nixon signed it into law, unless you think he is a Democrat. The CBO also lays out all of their assumptions and what they think will happen based on keeping current law or whether the law changes. You could have a complaint that the CBO seems to be saying that costs are not going to significantly be controlled by Ryan's plan (which seems to be the crux of the debate), which is why seniors end up paying more. But they are anything but partisan. Republicans and Democrats both like to cite them when the opportunity arises.http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/08/the-gatekeeper. That's an article about the health care bill, but it gives CBO history also. I used that site to show you, since it is run by a guy named NIck Gillespie. He is a libertarian, which is even farther right than most conservatives, to show you this isn't just liberals calling the CBO reliable. http://reason.com/people/nick-gillespie/all
