Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
322

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

However, for those of us who despise him
[/quote]

LOL. Why do I get the feeling that this made up the majority of the votes against alone?[/quote]

Because it is the same reason most of the votes against bush in 2004 went to Kerry, who is basically Mitt lite, and yet no one on the left had a problem attacking romney for his money.

I would whole heartedly disagree with calling Kerry Mitt-Lite. Romney, though born in privledge, earned his money. Kerry married his. Mitt has run for President the last 6 years, Kerry had been running since Yale. As one of his constituents, I can’t think of one piece of legislation with his name on it. He did go to Vietnam. I’ll give him a ton of credit for that. I don’t care whether his purple hearts are in question or not, the guy was there.

323

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Disagree on CEO. Look at all the CEOs at the financial firms who ruined their business yet still have jobs.

I get it, trust me. We just need to do a much, much better job of reaching out and connecting with the average voter. And more importantly connecting with the 2/3 who didn’t vote.

james[/quote]

This is based on “who you know”, more so than “what you know.”

The hook-up in business is more prominent than ability and achievement, where you and I both live prove this.

324

We did just re-hire an under performing CEO, you have to admit that.

[/quote]

UsMC,

That’s the real issue here, the president either underperformed or staved off an economic and societal meltdown, it is much easier to prove the first (the GOP stance) then the second (the Democrat stance), so how do you lose to a very beatable guy?
Certainly the economy is better than it was in 2009, but nowhere like it was in 1997, sure we didn’t end up with depression style breadlines, but home foreclosures and people un-retiring (because their money disappeared) became commonplace.

Somewhere along the line a little more than half the people bought the Dems explanation over the GOP one, part of it was the messenger (Romney was a flawed candidate) and part of it was his supporting cast (Mitch McConnell and his borderline treasonous remarks,an obstructionist congress, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck the other extreme right wing voices on the radio).

I think unless the GOP abandons its failed “morality” platform and focuses solely on the fiscal issues 4 years from now I will be high fiving all my lefty friends at another election night party, while the GOP decides to go even FURTHER right to solidify their ever shrinking base.

325

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
UsMC,

That’s the real issue here, the president either underperformed or staved off an economic and societal meltdown, it is much easier to prove the first (the GOP stance) then the second (the Democrat stance), so how do you lose to a very beatable guy?
Certainly the economy is better than it was in 2009, but nowhere like it was in 1997, sure we didn’t end up with depression style breadlines, but home foreclosures and people un-retiring (because their money disappeared) became commonplace.
Somewhere along the line a little more than half the people bought the Dems explanation over the GOP one, part of it was the messenger (Romney was a flawed candidate) and part of it was his supporting cast (Mitch McConnell and his borderline treasonous remarks,an obstructionist congress, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck the other extreme right wing voices on the radio).
I think unless the GOP abandons its failed “morality” platform and focuses solely on the fiscal issues 4 years from now I will be high fiving all my lefty friends at another election night party, while the GOP decides to go even FURTHER right to solidify their ever shrinking base.[/quote]

I think Obama gets a lot of credit for stopping the, “melt down,” but Bush already signed the stimulus and ARRA was already being worked on (unless I’m mistakemn) and Obama just had to sign it. That was several years ago.What did he do agter 2009 (the majority of his term)?

My question, and my biggest criticism, is did his policies help the recovery or hurt them?

Edited.

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Exactly. In every era there’s always someone or some group ringing the doomsday bell…and they always reckon they have it all worked out and know just what’s coming. And why.

[/quote]

I agree. I know it felt like doomsday back in '92 when I-Did-Not-Have-Sex-With-That-Woman was first elected.

Now that We-Don’t-Know-What-Happened-We-Are-Investigating-But-We’re-Sure-It’s-Tied-to-a-Video has been reelected it feels apocalyptic once again. But it probably isn’t.

But it really doesn’t look good at this point. Bam most certainly is a freedom thief.

However, for those of us who despise him and/or his policies I recommend that we keep on smiling.

[i]Well you say you got the blues…

Feelin alone and confused,

You got to keep on smilin, keep on smilin

Yeah, you’re about to go insane,

Cause your (electorate’s) playing games

And (it) says that you’re to blame,

You got to keep on smilin, keep on smilin

Keep on smilin through the rain, laughin at the pain

Rollin with the changes til the sun comes out again

Keep on smilin through the rain, laughin at the pain

Rollin with the changes, singin this refrain

Brother keep on smiling[/i]

[/quote]

The demise of America is being seriously exaggerated, I shit you not. While you DO have major issues to deal with, so does the rest of the world, and there is no reason (personally speaking) to believe the USA will lose its ascendancy in the world and its affairs anytime soon…like in the next century. Minimum. And even then, that’s me being pessimistic on America. I don’t even believe that number myself.

I don’t take the issues you face lightly, just like I also take the current European crisis very seriously indeed, but I believe a way through WILL be found. Expectations may have to be reduced for many, but there will still be massive opportunities for all willing to work. It’s unreasonable and unsustainable to believe that any society will never have readjustments, temporary setbacks and struggles. Just like all us middle age people know, that’s not how life works, and countries, even great ones , are not exempt or immune to these cycles.

I find the doomsday brigade to be childish in this regard and of not more than amusement value. They add nothing to the debate or effort required to steady the ship. History shows us that every rise has a decline, some longer and some shorter, but all over a period of many many years. And many empires and countries have had crises and dipped slightly, only to come back stronger after.

So that sums up my view of the current situation of the USA.

Take a step back. See it in context. Act accordingly. All will be well.

327

[quote]BCFlynn wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

However, for those of us who despise him
[/quote]

LOL. Why do I get the feeling that this made up the majority of the votes against alone?[/quote]

Because it is the same reason most of the votes against bush in 2004 went to Kerry, who is basically Mitt lite, and yet no one on the left had a problem attacking romney for his money. [/quote]

I would whole heartedly disagree with calling Kerry Mitt-Lite. Romney, though born in privledge, earned his money. Kerry married his. Mitt has run for President the last 6 years, Kerry had been running since Yale. As one of his constituents, I can’t think of one piece of legislation with his name on it. He did go to Vietnam. I’ll give him a ton of credit for that. I don’t care whether his purple hearts are in question or not, the guy was there.
[/quote]

I’m in MA as well.

I agree with everything you said, lol.

I was just making a point that the left hated Romney’s money, when they ran money against Bush in 2004. OH and they still hate Bush, so acting like it is some major source of controversy or news that people hate Obama is silly.

328

Didn’t Kerry park his yacht in another state to avoid paying taxes on it ? I recall a story like that.

329

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Didn’t Kerry park his yacht in another state to avoid paying taxes on it ? I recall a story like that.[/quote]

Yeah, he put it to port in Rhode Island I believe. He avoided paying taxes on it that way. But that’s no big deal the media didn’t mind a bit he is a democrat after all.

330

He put it in Newport, RI. In MA, if you like, on the income tax form, you can pay extra if you check off the box. Warren and Kerry want us to pay a little more, but they don’t check the box.

I know a couple of hard core liberal Mass Teacher Association types who would rather go through electric shock treatments vs. vote for a Repbulican.

Lo and behold, they are retired, getting their pensions and spend 6 months and 1 day living in FLorida so they don’t have to pay state income tax. Both cars have FL plates and are registered in FL even though one sits idlly in MA so they don’t have to pay the excise tax.

At least if you want people to pay a little more, put your money where your check mark goes. The hypocrisy is astounding.

331

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BCFlynn wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

However, for those of us who despise him
[/quote]

LOL. Why do I get the feeling that this made up the majority of the votes against alone?[/quote]

Because it is the same reason most of the votes against bush in 2004 went to Kerry, who is basically Mitt lite, and yet no one on the left had a problem attacking romney for his money. [/quote]

I would whole heartedly disagree with calling Kerry Mitt-Lite. Romney, though born in privledge, earned his money. Kerry married his. Mitt has run for President the last 6 years, Kerry had been running since Yale. As one of his constituents, I can’t think of one piece of legislation with his name on it. He did go to Vietnam. I’ll give him a ton of credit for that. I don’t care whether his purple hearts are in question or not, the guy was there.
[/quote]

I’m in MA as well.

I agree with everything you said, lol.

I was just making a point that the left hated Romney’s money, when they ran money against Bush in 2004. OH and they still hate Bush, so acting like it is some major source of controversy or news that people hate Obama is silly.

[/quote]

If we step back and take a look at all of the second terms of modern day Presidents I’d say Obama is in for a very bumpy ride.

-Ike had heatlh problems.

-Nixon had Watergate.

-Reagan had Iran/Contra.

-Clinton had Monica Lewinsky.

-Bush had the press on his back for a multitude of reasons some of which were even good.

Obama will have his problems and like all two term Presidents the people will have regrets in the not too distant future. And unlike the President’s listed above Obama actually got less votes going for his second term than his first. And that is a precedent for two term Presidents in our modern era.

There will be a great amount of “buyers remorse” in the not too distant future unless of course he out performs those listed above…um …not happening.

332

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BCFlynn wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

However, for those of us who despise him
[/quote]

LOL. Why do I get the feeling that this made up the majority of the votes against alone?[/quote]

Because it is the same reason most of the votes against bush in 2004 went to Kerry, who is basically Mitt lite, and yet no one on the left had a problem attacking romney for his money. [/quote]

I would whole heartedly disagree with calling Kerry Mitt-Lite. Romney, though born in privledge, earned his money. Kerry married his. Mitt has run for President the last 6 years, Kerry had been running since Yale. As one of his constituents, I can’t think of one piece of legislation with his name on it. He did go to Vietnam. I’ll give him a ton of credit for that. I don’t care whether his purple hearts are in question or not, the guy was there.
[/quote]

I’m in MA as well.

I agree with everything you said, lol.

I was just making a point that the left hated Romney’s money, when they ran money against Bush in 2004. OH and they still hate Bush, so acting like it is some major source of controversy or news that people hate Obama is silly.

[/quote]

If we step back and take a look at all of the second terms of modern day Presidents I’d say Obama is in for a very bumpy ride.

-Ike had heatlh problems.

-Nixon had Watergate.

-Reagan had Iran/Contra.

-Clinton had Monica Lewinsky.

-Bush had the press on his back for a multitude of reasons some of which were even good.

Obama will have his problems and like all two term Presidents the people will have regrets in the not too distant future. And unlike the President’s listed above Obama actually got less votes going for his second term than his first. And that is a precedent for two term Presidents in our modern era.

There will be a great amount of “buyers remorse” in the not too distant future unless of course he out performs those listed above…um …not happening.
[/quote]

I agree that second terms are historically an uphill battle, but many of those examples are difficult to generalize: health problems, sex scandals, Watergate, etc. were all case-specific. I doubt very much that Obama’s been banging any White House aides, for instance.

I do hope he has a good second term, and by that I mean that this economy improves.

333

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I do hope he has a good second term, and by that I mean that this economy improves.[/quote]

I have a client, whom without, many of you wouldn’t have a smart phone right now, and a couple very popular movies wouldn’t have been made. (They are in venture capital, and were pivitol in the evolution of the cell phone).

They are having a very hard time raising a new fund.

I have a second VC client that hasn’t raised 200m in a year, and raised more than a billion in 16 months in 2006-2007.

What I’m trying to say is we haven’t even gotten back to 9/11 recession activities, and just lost a quarter’s worth of growth in the market yesterday. (All of QE3’s inflation of the market really, so the real loss is much bigger than the #'s say.)

People are going hard after RE right now and bonds. Bonds that will have a hard time covering inflation in 5 years. People are scared. Consumer confidence may be up, but they are the same idiots that kept spending levels constant as incomes dropped… (At least as of June.)

Things aren’t great, not even good, and obama’s re-election has crushed hope. Before the end of the year you’ll see some deals because people want to lock in 15% gains, and you’ll see a good sell of of equities. Most advisors have been talking about this for awhile now. If people buy back in after the first of the year rather than go off shore will be dependant on tax changes.

So until that is fixed, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

334

Zeb, BCFlynn, don’t worry, if you saw the tax breaks that Hollywood got while screaming for higher taxes you might fall over. Libs all over the GLOBE love to talk about talking the rich, corporations, and industry, just not the ones they work in.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday approved a two-year extension of the state?s tax credit for films and television shows shot in California, providing up to $200 million in breaks.

335

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BCFlynn wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

However, for those of us who despise him
[/quote]

LOL. Why do I get the feeling that this made up the majority of the votes against alone?[/quote]

Because it is the same reason most of the votes against bush in 2004 went to Kerry, who is basically Mitt lite, and yet no one on the left had a problem attacking romney for his money. [/quote]

I would whole heartedly disagree with calling Kerry Mitt-Lite. Romney, though born in privledge, earned his money. Kerry married his. Mitt has run for President the last 6 years, Kerry had been running since Yale. As one of his constituents, I can’t think of one piece of legislation with his name on it. He did go to Vietnam. I’ll give him a ton of credit for that. I don’t care whether his purple hearts are in question or not, the guy was there.
[/quote]

I’m in MA as well.

I agree with everything you said, lol.

I was just making a point that the left hated Romney’s money, when they ran money against Bush in 2004. OH and they still hate Bush, so acting like it is some major source of controversy or news that people hate Obama is silly.

[/quote]

If we step back and take a look at all of the second terms of modern day Presidents I’d say Obama is in for a very bumpy ride.

-Ike had heatlh problems.

-Nixon had Watergate.

-Reagan had Iran/Contra.

-Clinton had Monica Lewinsky.

-Bush had the press on his back for a multitude of reasons some of which were even good.

Obama will have his problems and like all two term Presidents the people will have regrets in the not too distant future. And unlike the President’s listed above Obama actually got less votes going for his second term than his first. And that is a precedent for two term Presidents in our modern era.

There will be a great amount of “buyers remorse” in the not too distant future unless of course he out performs those listed above…um …not happening.
[/quote]

I agree that second terms are historically an uphill battle, but many of those examples are difficult to generalize: health problems, sex scandals, Watergate, etc. were all case-specific. I doubt very much that Obama’s been banging any White House aides, for instance.

I do hope he has a good second term, and by that I mean that this economy improves.[/quote]

Why doubt that he’s been banging White House aids? He’s a fairly young guy. But the Monica Lewinsky scandal speaks to a larger issue. Maybe Clinton was stressed out because a second term is too much for any man, so he “exploded”? Maybe that’s why Ike had a heart attack? Maybe Reagan got over confident as he didn’t have an electorate to answer to? I do know from history and not just modern day history that second terms are difficult and sometimes disastrous. Obama will not be an exception to this rule. For starters he will be hounded by FOX and talk radio, the only conservative voices in the media. And while they could not get Romney elected, they can be far more powerful in attacking a sitting President. And I would be willing to bet that if there is a scandal the press will even turn on him in the end. Just as they did Bill Clinton.

Sure I’d like to see him hammer out a deal with the house republicans but he couldn’t do it over the past two years. And he squandered his first two years when he had both houses of congress democrat. So, quite honestly I don’t see it happening. He’s too ego driven and arrogant for anything good to come from him sitting down with republicans.

But he will push plenty of left wing changes that are even unpopular with most of his base. And what will the people say?

336

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Zeb, BCFlynn, don’t worry, if you saw the tax breaks that Hollywood got while screaming for higher taxes you might fall over. Libs all over the GLOBE love to talk about talking the rich, corporations, and industry, just not the ones they work in.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday approved a two-year extension of the state?s tax credit for films and television shows shot in California, providing up to $200 million in breaks.

Gov. Jerry Brown signs two-year extension of film tax credit [/quote]

As I’ve said on many occasions, the democrats know how to take care of their own. And they do it far better than republicans. Silly republicans think that people should be free of heavy tax burdens and just go make it on their own.

They’re going to have to learn how this game is played.

Obama and your lefty Governor know the ropes.

337

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Why doubt that he’s been banging White House aids? He’s a fairly young guy.
[/quote]

Even if he is OK with screwing around (and that’s a big ‘if’), he strikes me as the kind of guy who’d be willing to accept an 8-year self-imposed dry spell given that his place in history is at stake.

Re: the rest of it, yes, I’m sure stress has contributed to these Presidents’ second term problems. But, as I said, let’s hope this term goes alright. I’m not saying everybody should start liking Obama.

338

@ Beans are you consulting for David Aronoff?

339

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Why doubt that he’s been banging White House aids? He’s a fairly young guy.
[/quote]

Even if he is OK with screwing around (and that’s a big ‘if’), he strikes me as the kind of guy who’d be willing to accept an 8-year self-imposed dry spell given that his place in history is at stake.

Re: the rest of it, yes, I’m sure stress has contributed to these Presidents’ second term problems. But, as I said, let’s hope this term goes alright. I’m not saying everybody should start liking Obama.[/quote]

I would imagine he is more afraid of his wife than history books with it comes to interns. She looks like a damn strong woman would would rain down the furry of a 1000 hot suns.

She is not the woman to cross.

I pray for Obama’s health every day. Mainly because I’m not a scumbag and would never wish illness on anyone, but also because Biden in control of the button is scary.

340

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
@ Beans are you consulting for David Aronoff?[/quote]

no.