CAN ROMNEY WIN....

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by CJ7

last time I checked we were out of Iraq and the bush tax policies havent changed a cent, am I wrong?

being still in place said tax cuts represent a major portion of the deficit and spending has been at the mercy of the house of represenatives for the last two years .. a republican controlled house of represenatives

thought Id point that out ...

The republican controlled house you speak of is the only one to have even voted on a budget in the last two years.... just thought I would point that out. Not saying that it was good or not just that they actually voted on one.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by CJ7

crawling out of a deep seated, bloody recession and keeping the countrys head above water doesnt count ... regardless of the republican house and their every attempt to quell multiple opportunities to help the country stand a little taller, Obama has had every chance in the world to bring unemployment down to 4%, cut the deficit a trillion dollars, and reduce the national debt to post Clinton numbers.

(sarcasim disclaimer for the mental midgets)

I assume your sarcasm means that Obama has not been given every chance in the world to reduce unemployment.

Lets Compare Obama and Clinton records on unemployment (not that I am saying Presidents create jobs)

First two years Clinton had a 258-176 majority in House and 57-43 in Senate. Obama had 257-178 in House and 57-41 in Senate (With Lieberman as an I but really a Democrat and Bob Sanders of Vermont as a Democratic Socialist) effectively a 59-41 majority.

Now lets look at the unemployment numbers.
Clinton started in Jan 1993 with a 7.3% unemployment number which was the highest of his 8 years. Obama started in Jan 2009 with a 7.8% unemployment number which is the lowest of his presidency.

In his first 2 years Clinton's rate went from 7.3 to 5.6%. he then lost the House 204-230 in his second term but maintained a 52-48 majority in the Senate. (Obama lost the House 193-242 maintained 53-47 in Senate). Clintons Second 2 years unemployment hovered from 5.8 to 5.3%. He then lost Senate in his second term and unemployment dropped to 4.0 % and hovered there for his last two years.

Obama in his first two years has unemployment record of 7.8 to 9.1. His peak has been 10.0% It was at 9.8 prior to the election in Nov 2010. His second 2 years unemployment has dropped from 9.1 to 8.2% with an essentially divided congress that has really done nothing.

I hardly think that the blame the Republican House argument holds any water when the Obama was unable to duplicate the success of the Clinton administration given a similar situation in his first 2 years.

I would in fact say that had the republicans not won the house we may actually be in much worse shape.

Once again I would like to re-iterate that I do not believe the President creates jobs. I do believe that the job market is affected by the actions of our government which are negative to the economy.

So CJ7, I know that you had the sarcasm disclaimer and you may already understand this. I guess I just do not know what part of your statement was sarcasm. I just want to clear the air on wether or not Obama had a chance to fix the unemployment situation.

[Fast Gunn]

The amount of fund raising is going to be an important factor in this race as is the state of the economy and numerous other factors.

So far, the Republicans have managed to raise about four times as much as the Democrats. That is not chicken feed. The Democrats can still win even if they are out-raised, but not if the ratio is 10 to 1.

Right now (July 18, 2012) There are 110 days before the election, but the majority of the undecided don't make up their minds until around October. A lot can happen between now and then.

. . . Personally, I believe it is going to be a close election, but we should know by later that evening that President Obama has indeed won a well-deserved second term.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by Submodo

The only thing that will get Mitt a win is the (official) unemployment rate staying where it is now or rising from now to October.

I think in those battleground states of the midwest, his wealth and how he got his wealth are going to sink him.

Not unlikely is a tie in the electoral college numbers.

If it does result in a tie or a failure to win the required number of electoral votes the House will then get to choose the election. Then Romney wins. Of course than the democrats will be all about changing the constitution to prevent that from happening again, especially if Obama wins the popular vote.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

If it does result in a tie or a failure to win the required number of electoral votes the House will then get to choose the election. Then Romney wins. Of course than the democrats will be all about changing the constitution to prevent that from happening again, especially if Obama wins the popular vote.

Electoral College is a joke.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Electoral College is a joke.

Please explain your viewpoint

[Fast Gunn]

The Electoral College should not be dismissed so easily.

It was put in there by the wise Founding Fathers to temper the voices of the howling masses.

. . .It seems like the howling masses are taking control of radio these days and they certainly do need attenuation!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

I assume your sarcasm means that Obama has not been given every chance in the world to reduce unemployment.

Lets Compare Obama and Clinton records on unemployment (not that I am saying Presidents create jobs)

First two years Clinton had a 258-176 majority in House and 57-43 in Senate. Obama had 257-178 in House and 57-41 in Senate (With Lieberman as an I but really a Democrat and Bob Sanders of Vermont as a Democratic Socialist) effectively a 59-41 majority.

Now lets look at the unemployment numbers.
Clinton started in Jan 1993 with a 7.3% unemployment number which was the highest of his 8 years. Obama started in Jan 2009 with a 7.8% unemployment number which is the lowest of his presidency.

In his first 2 years Clinton's rate went from 7.3 to 5.6%. he then lost the House 204-230 in his second term but maintained a 52-48 majority in the Senate. (Obama lost the House 193-242 maintained 53-47 in Senate). Clintons Second 2 years unemployment hovered from 5.8 to 5.3%. He then lost Senate in his second term and unemployment dropped to 4.0 % and hovered there for his last two years.

Obama in his first two years has unemployment record of 7.8 to 9.1. His peak has been 10.0% It was at 9.8 prior to the election in Nov 2010. His second 2 years unemployment has dropped from 9.1 to 8.2% with an essentially divided congress that has really done nothing.

I hardly think that the blame the Republican House argument holds any water when the Obama was unable to duplicate the success of the Clinton administration given a similar situation in his first 2 years.

I would in fact say that had the republicans not won the house we may actually be in much worse shape.

Once again I would like to re-iterate that I do not believe the President creates jobs. I do believe that the job market is affected by the actions of our government which are negative to the economy.

So CJ7, I know that you had the sarcasm disclaimer and you may already understand this. I guess I just do not know what part of your statement was sarcasm. I just want to clear the air on wether or not Obama had a chance to fix the unemployment situation.

20 months into Reagans first term unemployment hit 10% and held at or above 10% for ten consecutive months .. Reagan averaged 7.5 % over the course of his two terms ... not exactly a far reach where we are today ... the republican house is on record having triple digit filibusters (for two consecutive years) against basically everything that the senate proposed and tried to get a vote from the floor ... death of legislation by stalling

the republicans did pass a budget ... theirs, laden with their special projects that the dems would never agree to ... the house knew that and blame the dems for not passing a budget. The public unaware of the process blame Obie for not passing a budget. Congress passes budgets not presidents ... Had the tide been turned the republicans would have done the same thing and done so in the name of politics.
.
Politics

now more than ever country damning partisan politics.

[fetishfreak]

Your data on Reagans first term is also accurate. He had a dem house with 242 to 192 and a rep senate at 53-46. This is a situation that he has in common with Obama. He also did not ever have a majority in the house and worked with the Democrats to get anything done. There was gridlock on some issues because of the senate majority he enjoyed until his last 2 years. The political situation right now is more like the 90's than the 80's which is why I did not go back into this era.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Your data on Reagans first term is also accurate. He had a dem house with 242 to 192 and a rep senate at 53-46. This is a situation that he has in common with Obama. He also did not ever have a majority in the house and worked with the Democrats to get anything done. There was gridlock on some issues because of the senate majority he enjoyed until his last 2 years. The political situation right now is more like the 90's than the 80's which is why I did not go back into this era.

if you check the congressional filibuster records Reagan had a cakewalk with legislation going to vote compared to this house of rep's Im pretty sure I have the link if you want it


house flys cant make it to the table in congress these days

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by CJ7

20 months into Reagans first term unemployment hit 10% and held at or above 10% for ten consecutive months .. Reagan averaged 7.5 % over the course of his two terms ... not exactly a far reach where we are today

The key is the trend though. UR was 9.5% in 1983, and had slid down to 7.5% in 1984 - people thought Reagan had things going in the right direction.

Plus, in Reagan's first term, the labor participation rate rose. Obama, its been falling.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by CJ7

if you check the congressional filibuster records Reagan had a cakewalk with legislation going to vote compared to this house of rep's Im pretty sure I have the link if you want it


house flys cant make it to the table in congress these days

which is why I did not want to use Reagan as a comparison to Obama. Reagan did have a better political climate. I think that Clinton had a more comparable climate to Obama which is why I choose that comparison.

[CuteOldGuy]

If Romney wants to win, he will need to take of the gloves and really tell the truth about Obama. He can't be like McCain and try to be Mr. Nice Guy. This is going to get dirty. Mitt will have go all in, or forget it.

I think the problem with Palin in '08 was more McCain, and less Palin. McCain wanted to run a "gentleman's" campaign, and Palin wanted to fight. Had they followed Palin's lead, we may not be where we are today. (Wait. President McCain? - God, was that our alternative? Never mind.)

Forget that. Mitt, fight on. And pick Bob Portman for VP, willya?

[Whirlaway]

Romney has been laying some wood on Obama in his recent stump speeches...

Watch it here..., http://www.therightscoop.com/soon-wa...l-in-kentucky/

[CuteOldGuy]

Somehow, I don't think I want to watch Romney "lay wood" on Obama, but that's just me. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But back to the speech, yeah. Romney needs to do more of that.