Assume you must make a $1,000 bet. You'll forfeit the $1,000 immediately if you don't choose one side or the other right now. You'd better think fast and be honest, because you have a $1,000 stake in getting this right, not expressing your hope-and-change feelings. This isn't about your preference. This is about winning a bet:
४ एप्रिल, २०११
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५९ टिप्पण्या:
Don't bet. Walk away. Never place a bet on fools making decisions.
He'll run against a republican so he has a good shot to win no matter what else happens
I voted "yes". I think that a sitting President against any of the Republicans who might end up the front runner is going to win, especially with the media wind at his back.
In 2016 there will be a better crop of experienced Republicans, and it will be an open election. In the meantime we will have to put up with Bush's third and fourth term on foreign affairs and Carter's on domestic.
He's going to get recalled to Farrakhan's wheelship before he's allowed to be re-elected.
It's a lead-pipe cinch. It'll make Nixon/McGovern look like a squeaker.
You should vote "yes." That way, if he wins, you win. And if he loses, of course that's a win too. This is known as "hedging."
Unemployment will never have gotten below 8%, and the "double dip" recession will be heading downward while inflation soars. Oh, and we'll be in the throes of another oil shock with $5 a gallon gasoline and Libya will still be an issue.
Other than that, things will be fine.
Yeah, I think a Republican will have a chance.
I'd say yes. But I don't bet.
What if he dies before the election? Would I lose the bet?
He will be reelected. One does not have to be a clueless Nepalese like America's Politiho to know that The One's reelection is as close to a sure thing as we can get in this corrupt statist nation.
Presidents don't get reelected in economies like this.
That being said, the big names looking to run against him don't inspire much confidence either.
He'll win by default unless the Republicans can come up with an actual compelling candidate.
Yes.
He's a douchenozzle, but he'll be running against someone from the stupid party.
Stupid loses to douchenozzle.
It's a rule.
"Don't bet. Walk away. Never place a bet on fools making decisions."
Speaking of fools, you just lost $1,000. Reread the hypo.
Republicans are proposing we eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid this week. They can always run on that popular idea. Know hope!
Yes. He will be the first former president re-elected back into his old US Senate seat where he can pontificate for another 20-30 years.
Here's to hoping Sarah Palin is the GOP candidate. Yeah, she'll lose in a landslide, but at least the entire election will be hilarious and really, really entertaining.
He'll be reelected only because the handful of Republicans who can beat him (Christie & Ryan to name two) won't run in 2012.
Obama will win. He's black... well, at least half black.
95% of blacks will vote for him precisely because he's black, but that won't make them racists.
Guilt ridden white liberals will vote for Obama because he's black, but that won't make them racists.
So, he's close to a majority just with the people who will vote for him solely because he's black (or half black).
He'll win because they own the vote-counters, and illegal votes will be counted, often more than once.
Just ask Al Franken.
If it is was actual voting, he would probably lose.
Republicans are proposing we eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid this week. They can always run on that popular idea. Know hope!
Hey, garbage... any idea how the limitless entitlements ought to be paid for?
Or, for a scam artist, does it just not matter?
Sort of answers itself, doesn't it?
While I love Smilin'Jack's idea, I had to vote "no". We can't possibly be that stupid, can we?
Of course, it does depend on who the GOP opponent is. If they nominate the only candidate who can actually beat him, like McCain in 2008, well ... ... ...
OTOH.
Popular opinion is trending like a tsunami to "Anyone But Obama" and can you blame people for thinking that?
It's the worst economy in my lifetime and nothing good happening on the foreign policy front either.
wv= egulls = bytes of birds
Presidents don't get reelected in economies like this.
Out of curiosity, which economic indicator matters most to you Salamandyr? Unemployment rates?
Compared to when Obama took office in January 2009 the unemployment rate is higher now (7.6% in 1/09 versus 8.8% in 3/11) but had been trending up since May 2008. I hope it goes down, and I bet Obama does to.
On the other hand the DJIA was only about 8,100 after Obama took office and it is 12,300 or better today. A 50% increase in the major stock market over two years? Doesn't look too bad for Obama.
For the record, I think he will win re-election for the reason that others mentioned. He has to run against somebody and we haven't seen somebody who could obviously beat him yet.
Obama will be reelected because he's not afraid to lie in order to convince people, and the press doesn't call him on it.
So if his opponent is also a habitual liar, the press will point that out and Obama will win. If his opponent is not also a habitual liar, Obama's narrative will be more attractive, because fiction is usually more attractive than fact, and again Obama will win.
$1000 is being taken from me to place on a bet that I don't want to make? It's like Obamacare but with gambling.
You'll forfeit the $1,000 immediately if you don't choose one side or the other right now.
Am I betting on the 2012 presidential election - or the Wisconsin state workers???
WV: tediph.
Pogo, if the game is rigged, could you explain how Bush won in 2000 and 2004?
Althouse, may I suggest that you poll your readers about the potential GOP candidate? Maybe a double poll: "Who do you think will win the nomination?" and "Who would you like to win the nomination?"
And maybe we could have a poll about the pivotal states. Going into the 2004 race, everyone knew it was all about Ohio.
It's a losing bet all the way around, because we have to put up $1000 in "todays" money, but if we win, our reward will be in dollars worth far less because of the oncoming inflation. Can I accept the deal only on condition that I get paid in the silver coins minted by thay guy in South Carolina?
"Althouse, may I suggest that you poll your readers about the potential GOP candidate? Maybe a double poll: "Who do you think will win the nomination?" and "Who would you like to win the nomination?""
Don't you get enough of that sort of thing at Right Wing News?
I don't do normal polls. I only do polls that amuse me. They aren't even really polls. They're just blog posts in poll form.
"that guy"
"$1000 is being taken from me to place on a bet that I don't want to make? It's like Obamacare but with gambling."
+1
garage mahal said...
Republicans are proposing we eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid this week.
Hysterical Hyperbole.
I'm picturing Monty Python's Queen Victoria: "We are not amused."
Jay said...
garage mahal said...
Republicans are proposing we eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid this week.
Jay
He's just practicing his talking points received from Schumer and "the caucus" - use eviscerate and extreme when talking about Repubs.
I can't emphasize enough how vitally important it is that Obama be defeated in 2012, but I still voted yes. I think the chances of us nominating a bad candidate are painfully high, and while a number of recent polls show that Obama is beatable, other polls find that the public both (1) demands that the deficit be cut and (2) rejects any cuts that will make a dent in the deficit. We need to cut the federal budget by fifty or sixty percent, and people are getting their panties in a bunch over less than one percent! This doesn't encourage me that the public is open to hearing what any Republican candidate must tell them.
The GOP candidate will go in against strong headwinds, and the media will provide air cover for Obama as several folks have pointed out. The only hope is that we nominate a decent candidate and a large number of the independents who voted for O in 2008 have either realized that it was a mistake or gotten it out of their system. (It's okay! You didn't vote against the first black President; you aren't a bad person! That, surely, sates your conscience; you aren't obliged to prove it a second time by reelecting him!) But that would require people to be honest with themselves, and that is almost as likely as people getting realistic about reforming the federal budget.
The dems will steal the vote. That's how they will win.
The dearly parted will vote in record numbers as will the winos and assorted street bums. The polls will be open until midnight in various key democrat precincts.
Whatever it takes to win never mind technicalities like election rules and laws until they count enough votes.
The question is why does he want to run again? With his policies in place the country will be under water by the start of his second term. If he didn't run, the damage he caused will still play out in 2013 and he could always blame the republicans. Frankly in an honest election its difficult to imagine any republican loosing to Obama.
"Republicans are proposing we eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid this week."
You're lying, of course, garbage. But I expect nothing else.
95% of blacks will vote for him precisely because he's black, but that won't make them racists.
Right: In 2000, Gore, a white man, got 92% of the black vote. What do Obama and Gore have in common? Hmm... it's right on the tip of the tongue... what could it be?
"Pogo, if the game is rigged, could you explain how Bush won in 2000 and 2004?"
2000 is when they discovered they had to cheat to win.
Kerry lost by too large a number to fake, at the time. Their tactics became honed further since then, and now they own the Secretaries of State, the vote-counters.
If it's close, the vote goes to the Democrat, every time. Hewitt wrote a book about it.
No, I do not trust our elections anymore. We've gone full banana republic. Take Wisconsin, for example.
He's just practicing his talking points received from Schumer and "the caucus" - use eviscerate and extreme when talking about Repubs.
Ok, Republicans plan to end Medicare and replace it with a privatized system. Better?
You're lying, of course, garbage. But I expect nothing else.
link.
The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.
garage mahal said...
"Republicans are proposing we eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid this week. They can always run on that popular idea.
Last year, the deficit was $1.29 trillion. Not coincidentally, Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare consumed $1.4 trillion. You can't fix a problem of this scale by cutting the NEA (about $155m) or tinkering with the edges of the defense budget. There are going to have to be real cuts, and eliminating $750bn (Medicare/Medicaid combined) would go a long way toward fixing the problem. We have to eliminate the deficit, and then keep cutting until tax rate can be brought down further. DoL, DoEd, HUD, EPA, HHS—it all has to go, if not because of ideology then because of math.
Now, you say it's unpopular. Of course it's unpopular. Bacon is popular. Burgers are popular. Brisket is popular. Garage, my friend: Fat is tasty. If lettuce tasted good and exercise was painless, fewer people would be overweight. The point is, what we like—what is tasty—is not a measure of whether it's healthy. We like entitlements. But if we don't break the addiction, this country's heading for a fiscal coronary.
But to answer the question: Obama-Clinton will defeat Palin-Romney in 2012
Pogo,
My god, you're a friggin' lunatic. By the way, can you tell me who shot JFK? I think it was the Nazis, but my buddy insists it was the aliens. Who's right?
Last year, the deficit was $1.29 trillion. Not coincidentally, Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare consumed $1.4 trillion.
The Social Security surplus has been defraying Reagan's -- and then W.'s -- tax cuts since the mid-80s. The GOP plan to screw people who have paid into the system for 40 years should be unconscionable if they had a sense of shame, which they don't.
On the other hand the DJIA was only about 8,100 after Obama took office and it is 12,300 or better today. A 50% increase in the major stock market over two years? Doesn't look too bad for Obama.
If the President had any control at all over that index, you would be correct. The stock market is at that level in spite of him, not because. Much like Clinton's tech economy.
The GOP plan to screw people who have paid into the system for 40 years should be unconscionable if they had a sense of shame, which they don't.
You're fiddling, Nero. Everyone is going to get screwed and it's both GOP and Democrats' fault. The next ten years is going to full-on suck.
Pogo, I'd say that it's time to go back to voting viva voce, but the thuggish behavior toward Prop. 8 supporters in California and by unions in Wisconsin rules that out. I don't know how to fix that. But as Hewitt pointed out, it's harder to rig when it's not close; the fundamental problem isn't the machinery of voting, it's that two fifths of the country keep voting for Democrats.
I would bet no, but it's basically a coin flip.
The nominee will probably be either Romney or Pawlenty, and with unemployment still over 7% in Nov 2012, I think either of those two would hsve a slightly better than even chance of beating Obama.
If Bachmann is the nominee, then Obama would be favored (she is actually ranked #4 on Intrade now, ahead of Palin!)
Daniels, Huckabee, and Palin probably won't run.
Gingrich has no realistic shot at the nom.
Of the various dark horses, I think the only one that has a realistic shot at the nom is Rand Paul (he's indicated he may run if his father doesn't), and he would probably beat Obama too.
So this question is "assume someone is going to steal $1000 from you"
What if you phrased it like, "someone is giving you $1000 but only on the condition that you use it to bet A or B"
The GOP could win big if the old Brahmins don't stab Sarah Palin in the back and run themselves a sure loser in an unknown white guy so that 2016 can become Jeb Bush's coronation. Therefore I expect that Palin will win based upon her political skill.
FLS, you're not getting it. You talk about surplus as if it's anything meaningful; it isn't. If you wiped out everything from the federal budget except entitlements, it would still be $2.2 trillion. The federal budget needs to be less than half that. And once you consider that DoJ, DoD, and other entities that exercise legitimate and needful government functions must be funded, and can only be pared back so far, it should be obvious that the only way to get to a one trillion dollar cap is not to "eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid" as Garage says, but to eliminate all entitlement spending—period.
You think that's unconscionable, and I don't deny that it's not a very nice solution. But the sleight of hand in your presentation is your refusal to recognize that not doing it also has an unconscionable result: the continued selling into slavery of our posterity, whose birthrights as Americans comes at the cost of inheriting a crippling debt run up by FDR and his successors. Someone is going to have to pay for all this, and no matter who gets stuck with the cheque, someone will say it's unconscionable. My interest is less in parceling out blame and high dudgeon than in fixing the problem.
The GOP plan to screw people who have paid into the system for 40 years should be unconscionable if they had a sense of shame, which they don't.
Hysterical.
Keep your head in the sand. It is safer for you.
The plan would essentially end Medicare,
And replace it with a different benefit.
Keep lying, clown.
I don't think he'll be re-elected. All of the outrage (Gitmo, Iraq, "big oil") that propelled him the first time is now diffused or focused back on him. He has to run on a record of tripling the deficit that he promised to half, unemployment worse than anything under Bush, and with at least one brand new Middle East military adventure to defend. Plus all the happy-crappy stuff like "He's historic!" and "the world will love and respect us again!" has turned out to be so much garbage that people will just tune it out.
The Social Security surplus has been defraying Reagan's -- and then W.'s -- tax cuts since the mid-80s.
Actually dum-dum, after taxes were cut, revenues increased.
That was also true when Clinton, who you conveniently left off your list, cut taxes.
Your continued beclownment is rather entertaining.
Simon, you expect the guys who pumped up Medicare to trim it?
Washington is built on short-term thinking, and until that changes, we're going to be unable to make the long-term fixes that everyone knows we need to make, but no one has the courage to enact.
On the other hand the DJIA was only about 8,100 after Obama took office and it is 12,300 or better today. A 50% increase in the major stock market over two years? Doesn't look too bad for Obama.
How about income?
Real disposable personal income fell 0.1 percent in February. Average hourly wages were flat in March, and have grown at a 1.8 percent annualized rate over the past three months, according to the Economic Policy Institute. With inflation running around 2 percent, this means the average American is falling behind,
Ann Althouse --
"Speaking of fools, you just lost $1,000. Reread the hypo."
But, did he vote for Obama?
Directly: He's only a fool if one values a thousand dollars over resisting the coercion explicit in the bet.
former law student said...
95% of blacks will vote for him precisely because he's black, but that won't make them racists.
Right: In 2000, Gore, a white man, got 92% of the black vote. What do Obama and Gore have in common? Hmm... it's right on the tip of the tongue... what could it be?
Here's the problem with your analysis. If Obama ran against Gore, Obama would get 95%+ of the black vote. Does that make black people racists?
Obama was lucky to have started his first term right at the bottom of a severe recession. An incredible opportunity, since if he did nothing, he still gets credit for riding the inevitable recovery. He had nowhere to go but up. He made a lot of mistakes that killed what could have been an unprecedented recovery with billion of dollars just waiting on the sidelines to invest in new business and jobs. Instead they invested in the stock market which is mostly existing jobs living on improved productivity.
But, even a slow recovery will reelect. The Republicans will fix some of our problems for him, take the heat for the side effects, and Obama will get the credit for the benefits from policies he opposes. Even liberals know this in their souls.
All because Republicans are terrible at communication, and that's even more important than being right in politics. It will all work out for the nation in the long run, but it's a C- rather than an A, America. Mediocrity is our future.
No, I remember Jimmy Carter. Only 3 Demos have won re-election in 100 years; 2 had good times (or the illusion), the other was the Messiah.
Ren said...
Here's to hoping Sarah Palin is the GOP candidate. Yeah, she'll lose in a landslide, but at least the entire election will be hilarious and really, really entertaining.
I see HD is back, whistling past the graveyard, as always.
PS The Demos eviscerated Social Security long ago to pay for the Great Society. Given that it was a scam from the start, no one should be surprised.
Obama will still get at least 90% of the black vote. At least 75% of the hispanic vote and at least 60% of the college student vote.
This is a great cushion for him. And these groups will be highly motivated to turn out for him even though:
1) his policies hurt current college students (by increasing the national debt, it inhibits job growth and will increase taxes for them down the road)
2) the status quo on encouraging illegal immigration hurts blacks by increasing competition for low-skill jobs, which depresses the wages for those jobs. Illegals are also increasing racial tensions in poor neighborhoods.
3) the status quo isn't exactly beneficial for hispanics either. The influx of spanish-speaking people makes it more difficult to get access to enlgish-language classes, for adults and kids.
As far the everyone else, the support won't be as high next time, but too many people will be afraid to oppose him for fear of appearing racist.
FLS said;
The Social Security surplus has been defraying Reagan's -- and then W.'s -- tax cuts since the mid-80s.
No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S.
As these graphs demonstrate we clearly need more taxes to keep SS viable through 2080
Kick the can
Fortunately, much of Obama's base is concentrated in states that the Repubs will almost certainly lose anyway. It makes no difference to the end result if California, Illinois, New York, etc. fall to the Dems by one vote or by millions. The Repubs will need to win in the purple states, which is definitely doable. NC, for one, went for Obama by less than 1% of the vote. Since then, Repubs have taken both houses of the Leg. for the first time since Reconstruction. He will lose NC in 2012. A few more states like us and the Repubs will be in good shape.
The Social Security surplus has been defraying Reagan's -- and then W.'s -- tax cuts since the mid-80s.
Actually, the Social Security "surplus" has been kicking the spending can down the road for more than 50 years.
The party you vote for simply refuses to cut spending.
Said spending has led us to where we are today.
In sum: the opposite of what you said is actually true.
As far the everyone else, the support won't be as high next time, but too many people will be afraid to oppose him for fear of appearing racist.
Most of the formerly timid, non-racists I know believe that things have gotten to the point where how they are perceived by the other side is no longer as important as rescuing the national economy from the hands of an administration that made no qualms about tripling our debt.
$4 billion a day borrowed. Staggering.
Obama will be reelected because the Democratic machine is more media savvy and because the GOP is a clown factory.
Obama will probably win again because Americans have become stupid and selfish.
Conservatives want to (America NEEDS to) cut spending and pare back entitlements or we will head toward fiscal disaster. However, the people WANT government to pay for their stuff and guarantee them security and comfort. So they'll be easy prey for the predictable adds the Dems will run about how 'extreme' and 'mean spirited' the Repub cuts are. And they'll say 'hell, yeah' whem Dems say that we don't need to cut bennies, just need to increase taxes on 'other people' to pay for the goodies.
Sorry to be so negative, but I've come to the unhappy conclusion that too many of my fellow citizens act like entitled teenagers
54 - 46 split, at least.
He'll be re-elected.
Given some of the poltroons wanting to be elected (Gingrich, Barbour, Huckabee?) I'd vote for Obama ahead of them.
Which is quite a change for me.
I have always believed that the debates are extremely important to American citizens that don't track this stuff every day like we here. The Obama/Clinton debates reinforced that belief.
Assuming everything remains somewhat constant (lol) between now and the national conventions, if a GOP candidate can go after the President, hard, the debates will seal the deal. I don't believe he did very well against Hillary and, frankly, I think she held back when she could have been much more aggressive, probably due to the racial thing.
If the GOP candidate cedes that they're not going to get but table scraps from the chief Democratic blocs, and really goes after the President, it could really damage Obama's re-election bid.
None of this, of course, takes into account what the effect of a SCOTUS rebuke of the individual mandate will have on the contest. Given that fact, and again with everything remaining somewhat stable as-is, I don't see how he pulls it out.
Obama can win by sheer demographics alone.
Last demographic breakdown by Gallup Obama has the black vote by 82& that's actually surprising because the last poll had him at 89%.
Then look at the demographics of some big electoral vote states considered swing:
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina...
Obama gets a 9% advantage in almost all of those states except for North Carolina where you would have to spot him-
16%
It's over before it begins.
The Republican needs to get sixty percent of the white vote....a greater percentage of the white vote in most states is female.
Do you see a Republican candidate capable of that kind of consolidation out there now?
So as of right now it looks like Obama.
Peter, for my reply to make sense, I have to invert your comment:
"Washington is built on short-term thinking, and until that changes, we're going to be unable to make the long-term fixes that everyone knows we need to make, but no one has the courage to enact."
It's not going to change. And so:
"Simon, you expect the guys who pumped up Medicare to trim it?"
No, but I expect that guys who took political advantage in pumping it up are more likely to have a change of heart and at least trim it back than is the alternative, a party that is ideologically wedded to pumping it up even more. Given a choice between bad and worse (and that is the choice—don't let anyone con you with this third party horse-hockey), choose the bad every time.
And we don't even want to "discuss" the Latino vote because that's gotten me banned off all other blogs-save Althouse.
madawaskan, does your model take account of people who don't actually vote? If Obama polls highly with people who don't actually turn out to vote, that could limit the effect of his demographic advantage.
I have to admit that I find it incomprehensible and worrisome that blacks (who are largely social conservatives in my experience) and latinos (who are, at least on paper, largely Catholics, statistically-speaking) remain locked in a death-grip with the party of abortion and entitlements. It makes no sense to me. What is going on with these voters? It's more acute with Obama, but as someone pointed out upthread, it's not as if they weren't already wedded to the party. Can it really be the soft venality of low aspirations, expecting to resort to the welfare system? That would be doubly tragic.
Honestly, it's gotten so bad that at this point the GOP needs to pass an amnesty just to limit the political damage, even if it won't entirely unlatch latinos from Democrats.
I really dont give a shit who wins the presidency--my fondest hope is for a republican Congress (sen and HR) that will be solidly republican with a very weakened democratic president who is a total douchenozzle--with any luck our government wont be able to do a thing and will all be better for it.
Now if Mr Obama loses in 2012 the historical meme will be because he was our half black asshole--I am guessing the one thing mr obama will do is to ensure NO black president will ever be elected for 50 years--Mr Obama has set back the line for decent black candidates by being a lying pontificating and lecturing MF.
Sorry to have that burden laid on blacks in this country.
And by the way professor--these polls are absolutely stupid except to encourage blog traffic--
Lawyers dont learn research methods in law school do they
Roger, you think that voters believe Obama is a douchenozzle because he's black? At least there are reasons (bad ones or not) why black voters might identify with him on racial grounds, but I think most people think he's a douchenozzle because he's a liberal (or not liberal enough if you're off in the bizarro world of people like Kucinich and Greenwald).
@madawaskan, interesting analysis based on the notion that people vote according to their block. But what the informal and unscientific poll that the Professor has put up is telling us right now is that Obama loses 57% - 43%, and that looks like a landslide.
Depends upon what percentage of the voting population is comprised of libs, yellow dog Dems and other rubes, genitalia voters, young nitwits, blacks and other members of the ethnic "victim" classes, non-taxpayers and other takers.
The demographics coupled with the votes his supporters can steal look promising for Obama.
Regardless, the Repub aspirants, presidential and congressional, ought to run against something other than Obama himself out of defererence to his personal popularity and the propensity of his supporters to play the race card.
The dishonesty an wackiness of his appointees, thus his administration, would be a good start.
How about the energy Czar who yearns for $6 a gal. gasoline? Or the Director of National Intelligence who calls the Muslim Brotherhood a secular organization? Or the foreign policy advisor who thinks we should invade and disarm Israel? Or the despicability and racism of his AG on so many levels? Etc.
I'm with Roger. The realities of politics is that Washington isn't going to fix anything, but at least we can stop it from getting worse.
There is a slim possibility that Obama will face a democratic challenger, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's someone even more liberal. (It would actually be a very good strategy, but I doubt Obama has the cajones to try it--to much of a chance that he'd lose.)
Also, never forget how non-popular Reagan was in 1979. Even by mid-1980 few pundits thought Reagan stood a chance and nobody was honestly predicting just how overwhelming Reagan's victory would be. He ended up running a brilliant campaign.
Simon--no I dont believe votes think he is a douche nozzle because he is black--I think most voters outside the tribalized portion of our society think he is a douchenozzle because he is manifestly incomptent--My point, obviously not well made, is the meme will be he wasnt reelected because he is black. His blackness has nothing to do with his competence--he was totally unprepared for the office and was carried an a swell of media adulation.
Then look at the demographics of some big electoral vote states considered swing:
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina...
Obama gets a 9% advantage in almost all of those states
Your math is way, way off.
Pennsylvania demographics:
White persons not Hispanic: 80.9% (higher than national avg)
Black: 10.9% (lower than national avg)
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin: 5.1%
Big Mike said...
"But what the informal and unscientific poll that the Professor has put up is telling us right now is that Obama loses 57% - 43%, and that looks like a landslide."
Are you serious? What that poll says is that even here, even on a blog whose readership (despite its editorial line) lists to the right, 43% of folks think Obama wins 2012. (Not want, but think.) To me, that looks like a short jump to a landslide the other way.
Ohio has a higher % of White persons not Hispanic (82.2%) than PA does.
Obama does not have some 9% built in advantage.
Roger, if that's true, and I think it is, why would his Presidency/defeat have any impact on other black candidates in the future?
Simon wrote: Can it really be the soft venality of low aspirations, expecting to resort to the welfare system?
Soft? Worshippers of government largesse are the hard core essence of Democrat politics.
Obama gets a 9% advantage in almost all of those states except for North Carolina where you would have to spot him-
16%
I would love for you to explain how you derived at this figure.
@madawaskan
Actually it is quite doable for the GOP candidate to get 60% of the white vote. John McCain, a horrible candidate, got 56% of the white vote in a Dem wave year.
@Simon
Passing an amnesty would be the single dumbest thing the GOP could do. It wouldn't unlatch any Latinos from the Dems, and would just create millions of new Dem voters, while aliening the GOP's own base.
If you wiped out everything from the federal budget except entitlements, it would still be $2.2 trillion. The federal budget needs to be less than half that. And once you consider that DoJ, DoD, and other entities that exercise legitimate and needful government functions must be funded,
I see no need to fund the DoD at current levels -- it is basically a stimulus program for military contractors. The Framers never contemplated that our military forces would be stationed around the world -- the militia would be sufficient to repel any invasions or put down insurrection.
whose birthrights as Americans comes at the cost of inheriting a crippling debt run up by FDR and his successors.
FDR's successors all paid down the national debt as a percent of GDP until Reagan implemented his tax cuts. The national debt as a percent of GDP has gone up ever since, except for during Clinton's second term.
Only a blind ideologue could deny that tax cuts cause deficits.
I see no need to fund the DoD at current levels -- it is basically a stimulus program for military contractors.
Right or wrong, fls, you are nothing if not predictable. LOL
Only a blind ideologue could deny that tax cuts cause deficits.
You can provide zero facts or data demonstrating that "tax cuts cause deficits" bozo.
Here's the problem with your analysis. If Obama ran against Gore, Obama would get 95%+ of the black vote.
Which one would be the Republican?
until Reagan implemented his tax cuts.
The House of Representatives was under Democratic control the entirety of the Reagan Presidency.
Watching you flop and flail is rather entertaining.
The national debt as a percent of GDP has gone up ever since, except for during Clinton's second term.
Left out of your silly analysis the % increase of discrentionary spending.
Don't worry, we all know you're not that bright and easily misled.
the militia would be sufficient to repel any invasions or put down insurrection
Wrong. I agree that we don't need the manifold deployments and bases we have worldwide, but I disagree completely that a "militia", even today's National Guard/Reserves system, would be able to withstand or turn back an incursion by a professional military.
Here's the problem with your analysis. If Obama ran against Gore, Obama would get 95%+ of the black vote.
Which one would be the Republican?
Simple to solve. Look up the demographic breakdowns from the primary battle between Obama and Hillary.
But what the informal and unscientific poll that the Professor has put up is telling us right now is that Obama loses 57% - 43%, and that looks like a landslide.
Considering the makeup of the professor's fan base*, I'd say a landslide of wishful thinking tempered with reality.
(*Why does she get Conservative blog ads and only Conservative blog ads? Because advertisers support futility?
I'd like to point out that the first Catholic president received 83% of the Catholic vote -- does that mean Catholics hated Quakers?
Right or wrong, fls, you are nothing if not predictable.
Goppers want to increase that huge sink of discretionary funds even more.
Simon--good question, sir. And I will go out a limb here, but I do believe there is a certain percentage of the white population in this country that is as racist as the similar white percentage--
Now I think the percentage of white voters that would vote against a black candidate because of race is at least equal to the percentage of black voters that vote for a black candidate for racial reasons.
and since blacks are only about 13percent of the populations white voters will have the edge
Only a blind ideologue could deny that tax cuts cause deficits.
So deficits have nothing to do with spending? Only with tax rates?
Who knew?
Generally, the president needs a 50% approval rating to stand a chance of being re-elected. Bush in 2004 had barely 50% and just barely eeked out a victory. Obama is in the low- to mid-forties and right now would not stand a chance.
BUT! I never underestimate the Republican's capacity for screwing things up. They'll probably run Christine O'Donnell.
I voted yes. I'll gladly sacrifice the $1,000 not to have him for another 4 years, and I'll need the $1,000 if he gets re-elected.
Roger J: Now I think the percentage of white voters that would vote against a black candidate because of race is at least equal to the percentage of black voters that vote for a black candidate for racial reasons.
You can't be serious! What evidence can you have to support this?
Percentage of votes by racial composition--I agree there is no exogenous reasons to impute this vote to racialist voting--but when a certain bloc of the population votes only for candidates given their race then we have the requisite for for more detailed research
its a testable hypothesis in my opinion
So deficits have nothing to do with spending?
Where were the spending cuts while Reagan was President? Spending on defense shot up under Reagan.
Similarly, W.'s tax cuts were not matched with spending cuts, even though the House belonged to his party for six of eight years he was President.
Only a blind idiot would conflate a Government breezily borrowing more money than the entire nation produces in a year with strengthening the economy.
Of course that's the platform the Dems have run on for more than 50 years, so it ain't gonna change this time.
If I read correctly your hypothesis stated at 11:57, it would have been supported in 2008 by ninety-plus per cent of white voters voting against Obama.
(Originally, you said black "for," white "against.")
I don't recall that happening.
Roger, do Kennedy's failings as a president explain why there hasn't been another Catholic elected in the subsequent 50 years?
There are a lot of pessimists here. That surprises me. I predict Obama will get trounced in about a 44 - 6 state rout. He is just plainly clueless and in over his head. Most Americans realize that by now.
Peter--again good question, but the issue is there hasnt been a catholic nominated--no?
And another point, Peter--how much have JFKs failings-or which there were many--been reported
Again--my thesis is that that there are significant populations of the voting electorates that will vote based on their racial/ethnic prejudices--I cant except without more detailed research
You folks might consider suspending judgments without further investigation--
no?
I am proposing a testable hypothesis--so I can only presume you dont like the hypothesis
really--thats very close minded IMO
Kerry is the only Catholic nominee of the past 50 years.
The pool of presidential nominees is too small to make much statistical sense out of their biographies, and the details from their biographies are many, so one can attempt to create all sorts of nonsense out of combining the to.
For example: six years after Nixon resigned, the public was ready to elect another Republican from California.
Sure, you can invent all sorts of hypotheses, and yeah, saying that there won't be another black nominee elected to the presidency in the next 50 years is a testable hypothesis, but the usefulness of such a hypothesis only goes so far.
We haven't seen a really fat guy elected to the presidency since Taft, but I'm not about to conclude that a large gentleman is unelectable.
Peter--one does not "invent" hypothesis--they are framed on the empirical evidence and framed for testing
Believe what you want sir--your privilege--by all means develop the research approach that would test your proposition about fat presidents-- go for it
Based on your comments I can assume you are not particularly well versed in research methods
But carry on
Again--my thesis is that that there are significant populations of the voting electorates that will vote based on their racial/ethnic prejudices--I cant except without more detailed research.
I doubt anybody has a problem with this hypothesis. However, the one you posited at 11:57 -- "Now I think the percentage of white voters that would vote against a black candidate because of race is at least equal to the percentage of black voters that vote for a black candidate for racial reasons." -- not so much.
hombre-thats the one I would test because I simply dont know
we will see what the data might suggest
nothing wrong with testing a hypothesis that does work--thats part of research
hombre--here's where you and I disagree--you assume "no" and I posit I dont know but am willing to try to test it
whats the difference in those approaches?
hombre-thats the one I would test because I simply dont know
But, apparently, you do "think" it to be the case based on your on words, no? On what possible data could you be basing that on outside of a gut feeling arrived at by your own idiosyncratic experiences?
Spending on defense shot up under Reagan.
Most of the free world and a good deal of the former Warsaw Pact would say for a good reason.
@ Roger J: You originally stated your premise as part of an argument. I questioned the evidence for the premise.
You have since watered down your original premise and now call it a hypothesis.
I'm not assuming anything. I stated that you presented no evidence for your original premise and that the results of the 2008 election did not support your premise.
I do think your watered down premise (12:47) is not sufficiently controversial to need testing. 'Nuff said.
Scott: youre kidding me right?
I would develop polling questions, have them reviewed and then administer them--have my questions, research methodology reviewed and then execute it
What would you do?
You might want to review this thing called the "scientific method." it involves reviewing empirical data, developing an hypothesis and then establishing a way to test it
One does not go to a compendium of hypotheses--Hypothesis are developed from existing scientific literature, are generally peer reivewed, and are not developed by pulling it out of one's ass
ymmv of course
We're talking past each other, then, Roger, because when I read your comments as part of the ongoing thread, it certainly looked like you were stating something you thought to be the case. There was nothing that I recall reading to "frame" it otherwise.
In any case, I highly doubt the veracity of your "thought".
OK hombre--you apparently think blog comments are the equivalentg of a formal research paper--
sorry--my comments were superficial and not as well developed as I would put them in a paper I would publish
Perhaps you think that blog comments are some kind of a research project--you dont like the cursory review of evidence I did--great; it honstly makes no difference to me
Scott--obviously we are--that is why actual research is required--
OK hombre--you apparently think blog comments are the equivalentg of a formal research paper--
Not really, but due to the informal nature of blog comments, if your statement says "I think" or something like that, then goes on to make a claim, it's very easy to assume that's what you believe to be true.
So deficits have nothing to do with spending? Only with tax rates?
If your unflexible belief is that government spending is sacrosanct and can never, ever be reduced then yes it is.
And then Scott--you have made a false assumption
Hardly, given your original statement and the context (this blog).
Here's a testable experiment for you.
Take the sentence in question out to your TA's, students, whoever, and report back to us with what percentage of them think the statement is of the speaker talking about his own feelings on the matter.
I see no need to fund the DoD at current levels -- it is basically a stimulus program for military contractors
Indeed. This is why we should follow the lead of our European cousins and slash military spending to inconsequential levels while increasing social welfare spending that way we can have balanced budgets just like them.
FLS:
Nice strawman militia argument. I guess you are a Second Amendment Liberal. What kind of firearms are in your personal arsenal?
scott--I do appreciate your thoughts, and find them very interesting--I hardly agree with them but you are free to interpret what I have written. I would ask you distinguish between informal comments on a backwater blog with published journal paper, but if you choose to equate the two, that is absolutely your prerogative. Feedback is always appropriate in formulating hypotheses, so I appreciate your feedback.
on a backwater blog...
You'd better duck.
Scott: :)
A deal sir--you can get my address off my profile--if you like I will send you my paper for your comments
dont have to respond here as I will know if you are serious.
if not, thats OK too--good interchange and I enjoyed it
People need to be saying to Chris Christie: "Fine if you think you are not ready yet. But would you be any worse than Obama is? And can any oter Republican win this time? If not, then you are morally obligated to run."
For real:
Obama 2012 campaign slogan,
Are You In?....RUIN?
This slogan from Moochelle.
Most of the free world and a good deal of the former Warsaw Pact would say for a good reason.
Good -- then they can pay down our national debt in proportion to the benefit they received.
We haven't seen a really fat guy elected to the presidency since Taft, but I'm not about to conclude that a large gentleman is unelectable.
Another voice urging Chris Christie to run.
Good -- then they can pay down our national debt in proportion to the benefit they received.
When the color of the sky in your world gets around to blue, it might actually happen. Until then, the unicorns and pixies are just gonna have to take another one for the team.
Good -- then they can pay down our national debt in proportion to the benefit they received.
In all seriousness, though, FLS, I grew up in Germany. My youngest brother was born there. My middle brother is currently stationed there married to an East German (raised behind the wall) with an inlaw set split pretty evenly west and east of the wall.
Very, very, very, very rare are those thankful of the shield we beared the most weight providing.
Once again fls avoids responding to an uncomfortable comment.
FLS thinks he is so smart for pulling out the militia argument.
Similarly, W.'s tax cuts were not matched with spending cuts, even though the House belonged to his party for six of eight years he was President.
That is because the party you vote for demanded spending increases in order to allow votes on tax cut legislation.
Again, epic failure.
Militia Act of 1792 [from Volokh's UCLA website]
Sec. 1. Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . .
Roger J wrote: Perhaps you think that blog comments are some kind of a research project--you dont like the cursory review of evidence I did.
No reasonable analysis of what I have written supports these assertions.
What I don't like is your waffling on your original premise and offering straw men and insults to avoid admitting it.
The Militia act has been revised several times. So you think that Americans ought to be armed with modern equivalent of the musket and musket balls. I'm with you on that. I want my M-4 with 500 rounds of ammo. Do you what an M-4 shoots? No cheating on Wikipedia! You are such a BS artist.
As for 2012 -- $5 gas, Double digit inflation and the Middle East in chaos any Republican will crush Obama at the polls
The voters will be re-elect him
after he mounts a successful fear campaign
against the Republicans
who want to cut their goodies.
(Rush Limbaugh reported today
that the vast majority of women
and even half the men
above all want the government
to provide 'security')
It's the economy, to quote a better politician.
Five dollar a gallon gas isn't going to stick to Bush. Food price inflation is getting tough to ignore. Everybody eats. Most drive. How'd that stimulus work for you? How are health care and Libya polling? How about that KSM trial in a civilian court after Gitmo was closed?
Even the slow learners are beginning to figure out they aren't getting what they've been told they are getting.
Assume you must make a $1,000 bet. You'll forfeit the $1,000 immediately if you don't choose one side or the other right now.
I reject that false choice.
It's SARAH PALIN by a wide margin.
I bet on the outcome I fear, so either way I will win something.
Is the question should Obama be re-elected or will he be re-elected?
Obama will be reelected, because it would be the best thing that could happen. It will take more than 4 years to get out of Bush´s hole of lost dignity, and a change in leadership will hurt progress and everything else. You can´t turn the economy upside down within 4 years.. just not possible. Plus Obama gives a tremendous boost in US recognition. Obama helps to create a new image for the US. A postitive image that was lost under Bush´s presidency..
Obama will be reelected, anything else would be a shot into the own foot. It takes more than 4 years to stimulate an economy that has been struggling so badly. Plus if you want the US to be a respected country throughout the world, you would want to keep Obama as your representative. US approval rates have been going up due to Obama´s presidency.
And I have one question... why is it only Obama who drove the US into dept?! somehow i think people forget that Bush managed to turn a positive balance into a trillion dept.. hmm? definitely Obama´s fault, of course
Looks like he's gonna get reelected now. What a difference a good clean kill can make.
@AllenS don't you know how to read? It said "assume you must make a 1000$ bet"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा