U.S. 2012 Election

[a_majoor]

It is only a prediction, although this ongoing Samizdat campaign may tip the balance:

 

[cupper]

And it just goes to the point that the voting populous is ignorant of the facts. :facepalm:

 

[a_majoor]

And it just goes to the point that the voting populous is ignorant of the facts. :facepalm:

The fact that gas and energy prices are rapidly escalating? The fact that the administration has explicitly embarked on policies that restrict energy output, thus distorting the market and driving prices up? (The note with then candidate Obama's statement about energy prices is only one of numerous statements by him and administration officials on this topic. Stephen Chu is another outspoken proponent of driving prices up).

Pray tell, what facts are the voters ignorant of?

 

[cupper]

I'll let my two previous posts speak for themselves.

First off, oil production has increased each year since the Obama Administration came in, where as oil production continually decreased during the Bush years.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

The US is currently a net exporter of petroleum distillates including gasoline.

http://www.politicususa.com/gop-gasoline-export/

Regardless of all of the above, drilling your way out of this problem is a pipe dream, as the production is already running at capacity.

As for the increase in gas prices, where was all the bitching at the Bush administration when we hit $4.05 / gallon in June of 2008. In September 2008, when the markets crashed, gas was at $3.70 / gallon. When Obama took office it had dropped to $1.79. What we are seeing now is the expected rebound of gas prices as demand comes back, (not withstanding the additional influences of speculation, mid-east unrest, etc) and resume the steady climb that was occurring during the Bush years.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/

(set the chart to monthly to get a detailed view of prices)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/gassy-rhetoric-on-gasoline-prices/2012/02/26/gIQAqPAXdR_blog.html

Long and short, the President, be it Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Bush, Clinton or anyone else has no ability to control the price of oil and gas. It is a global market, with prices set by the markets in New York, Copenhagen and elsewhere. Speculators, world wide demand, and unrest in the Middle East  all play larger parts in pricing than does domestic policy in the US.

AND

Also, a little perspective on historical gas price data. Things aren't as bad as they have been in the past.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

Gasoline Prices in Perspective

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren (This article appeared in Investor's Business Daily, May 17, 2006)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gasoline-prices-perspective

America appears to be in a state of wild-eyed panic about the rising price of gasoline. Talk radio hosts and T.V. populists apparently think that mass riots are imminent and that whole cities will burn unless politicians do something to save America from the long, dark economic night that is descending upon us.

In truth, gasoline prices today are taking less of a bite from our pocketbooks than has been the norm since World War II.

For instance, let's look at 1955, a year most of us associate with big cars, big engines, and cheap fuel – automotive glory days, as it were. Gasoline sold for 29 cents per gallon. But one dollar in 1955 was worth more than one dollar today. If we were using today's dollars, gasoline would have cost $1.76 per gallon in 1955.

Gasoline now costs around $3.00, so we are worse off than in 1955, right? No. Because we were poorer in 1955 than we are today, $1.76 then had a bigger impact on the pocketbook (that is, it represented a larger fraction of income) than $1.76 today. If we adjust gasoline prices not only for inflation but also changes in disposable per capita income (defined as income minus taxes), gasoline today would have to cost $5.17 per gallon to have the same impact as 29 cents in 1955.

Let's pick another year we associate with low gasoline prices – 1972, the year before the Arab oil embargo. Gasoline was selling at 36 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, however, the price was actually $1.36 in today's currency. Adjust again for changes in disposable per capita income and the price would have to be $2.66 per gallon to have equivalent impact today.

Were we better off then when we rolled into the filling station in 1972 than we are today? No, because our cars get 60 to 70 percent better mileage today than in 1972 (22.4 miles per gallon versus 13.5 miles per gallon). That more than offsets the 10.5 percent increase in gas prices adjusted for change in inflation and income from then to now.

Now let's look at 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office. Gasoline sold for $1.38 that year, the equivalent of $2.74 in today's currency. Adjusting for the change in disposable per capita income, prices would have to be $4.30 today to have an equivalent impact.

There are probably three reasons that gasoline prices appear so high to us today. First, many don't fully appreciate the long run effect that inflation has on prices. Second, many don't appreciate how much our incomes have increased relative to prices. Finally, we still remember 1998 very well, the year in which we encountered the lowest gasoline prices since 1949. Gasoline in 1998 sold for $1.03 per gallon, the equivalent of $1.21 in today's currency. Adjusting for growth in per capita income yields a price of $1.35 per gallon in today's terms. Today's price is more than double that and people resent the increase over the last several years, in part, because they think that 1998 prices were normal. But they were not.

Now let's put the recent price increase in terms of real outlays. The average household is spending $136 more on gasoline every month than it was in 1998 and $114 per month more than it were spending in 2002. But, believe it or not, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per household has increased even faster than have pump prices; by $800 a month since 1998 and $279 a month since 2002.

Accordingly, Americans are still, on average, economically ahead of the game.

No one likes high gasoline prices. But they are not as bad as most people think. Keep that in mind the next time some politician or media populist starts handing out the pitchforks.

op:

 

[cupper]

Oh, and at the risk of repeating myself 

They call it THE WORLD PRICE OF OIL for a reason.

 

[a_majoor]

Voters see the price at the pump daily, and are aware of some of the reasons that supply has been restricted (the huge Keystone XL brew-up in the media has seen to that). Note 2 that mentions ANWAR and offshore drilling shows more of the factors are known to the general public.

Voters can indeed blame the Administration for changes in prices; I notice your articles did not mention the price of oil crashed when President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up large areas to drilling  in 2008 (well in advance of any actual drilling). Many voters are aware of the statements the administration officials and the President have made about the price of energy, and won't be shy to remind others. While making price comparisons in normalized dollars may demonstrate the relative price of fuel has not changed, ordinary people who go to the pump are not thinking in those terms. As well, since the price of energy is embedded in so many items, the discretionary income of Americans is still being eroded by inflationary pressures (the flooding of the US economy with trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending isn't helping either, but that is a different story), so in real terms, voters are getting worse off.

The Samizdat campaign will have immediate impact on the voters, since it ties cause and effect together right at the gas pump in a way that legacy media or even "social media" does not.

 

[cupper]

Some more food for thought, the Saudis want cheaper oil too:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/29/saudis-say-we-want-cheap-oil-too.html

 

[cupper]

Voters see the price at the pump daily, and are aware of some of the reasons that supply has been restricted (the huge Keystone XL brew-up in the media has seen to that). Note 2 that mentions ANWAR and offshore drilling shows more of the factors are known to the general public.

Voters can indeed blame the Administration for changes in prices; I notice your articles did not mention the price of oil crashed when President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up large areas to drilling  in 2008 (well in advance of any actual drilling). Many voters are aware of the statements the administration officials and the President have made about the price of energy, and won't be shy to remind others. While making price comparisons in normalized dollars may demonstrate the relative price of fuel has not changed, ordinary people who go to the pump are not thinking in those terms. As well, since the price of energy is embedded in so many items, the discretionary income of Americans is still being eroded by inflationary pressures (the flooding of the US economy with trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending isn't helping either, but that is a different story), so in real terms, voters are getting worse off.

The Samizdat campaign will have immediate impact on the voters, since it ties cause and effect together right at the gas pump in a way that legacy media or even "social media" does not.

First off, what supply restriction are you referring to? There has been no reports of supply restriction that I am aware of. :dunno: Production is running at capacity. You can put as much oil into the system as you want, but gas ain't gonna come out any faster.

Second, the point I am making is this (repeating myself for the third time ;D)

the President, be it Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Bush, Clinton or anyone else has no ability to control the price of oil and gas.

Third, The Bush release of the strategic oil reserve was an attempt to bring oil down from a June high of $4.05. It had a narrow effect of bringing it back down to $3.70 just before the economic collapse in September. The bigger contribution to the gas price crash was a perceive and actual decline in demand. Perceived in the oil markets in anticipation of demand reduction as companies laid people off, shut down production lines and so forth, so they moved money out of the oil markets in an attempt to prevent losses on oil futures, The there was an actual reduction in demand as the perception became reality. By June 2009 gas prices rebounded back to $2.65 and held pretty much steady for  the next year and a half, when the GOP had it's election victory. Then gas prices begin to rise steadily again as the Arab Spring begins to create uncertainty in the world oil markets. And we've been fluctuating between $3.25 and $4.00 ever since.

Fourth, opening up drilling in 2008 had no effect on oil prices. (with a capital period! ) It created no change in oil supply, because it typically takes several years from getting drilling permits to bringing a production well on line. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party could scream "Drill Baby Drill" all they wanted, but the markets function on reality, not fantasy.

Fifth, Oil pricing in the past year has been running counter to demand theory. Oil demand has decreased as the global economic crisis has gotten worse, lurching from one hit to another. However world oil prices have steadily increased.

Now, having said all of that, I get your point that the voter only cares about how this all impacts him / her. I would not expect any other reaction. But when things haven't changed after having turfed Obama out of office, and we hit $5.00 gas next summer, who do they blame? And what can they do? They can't kick the new guy out for another 4 years.

They'll just have to admit "sometimes life sucks" and build a bridge and get over it.

Because the alternative isn't much better:

 

[Redeye]

Voters see the price at the pump daily, and are aware of some of the reasons that supply has been restricted (the huge Keystone XL brew-up in the media has seen to that). Note 2 that mentions ANWAR and offshore drilling shows more of the factors are known to the general public.

And a good junk of voters understand that neither of those factors are significantly impacting gas prices.

Voters can indeed blame the Administration for changes in prices; I notice your articles did not mention the price of oil crashed when President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up large areas to drilling  in 2008 (well in advance of any actual drilling). Many voters are aware of the statements the administration officials and the President have made about the price of energy, and won't be shy to remind others. While making price comparisons in normalized dollars may demonstrate the relative price of fuel has not changed, ordinary people who go to the pump are not thinking in those terms. As well, since the price of energy is embedded in so many items, the discretionary income of Americans is still being eroded by inflationary pressures (the flooding of the US economy with trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending isn't helping either, but that is a different story), so in real terms, voters are getting worse off.

That illustrates that speculators swing prices fairly dramatically. Notable that prices did not stay where they were. Also notable that cupper's post illustrates why these supposed factors are unlikely to have any impact on underlying prices of gas (excluding speculation).

The Samizdat campaign will have immediate impact on the voters, since it ties cause and effect together right at the gas pump in a way that legacy media or even "social media" does not.

Honestly, I'd love to see this alternate universe in which you live.

What I'm sure will happen during the campaign, if it becomes an issue, is a bit of a discussion, at a level even the most ignorant voter can understand, that the President doesn't control prices of a global commodity, and that the reality shows that there's little that can be done about it. If in the highly unlikely event that Mr. Obama loses, how will President Romney (LOL) explain to the American public why gas prices haven't moved, particularly when sabre rattling with Iran is likely to continue?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What I'm sure will happen during the campaign, if it becomes an issue, is a bit of a discussion, at a level even the most ignorant voter can understand, that the President doesn't control prices of a global commodity, and that the reality shows that there's little that can be done about it.

*unrestrained laughter*

How could I ever have imagined that a president (even a former president) might be blamed for every bad thing under the sun when the answer is just a bit of a discussion.  Obama will put on a sweater and give a fireside chat and all will be well as the voters nod their heads and say, "Aaaah...of course".

 

[Redeye]

>What I'm sure will happen during the campaign, if it becomes an issue, is a bit of a discussion, at a level even the most ignorant voter can understand, that the President doesn't control prices of a global commodity, and that the reality shows that there's little that can be done about it.

*unrestrained laughter*

How could I ever have imagined that a president (even a former president) might be blamed for every bad thing under the sun when the answer is just a bit of a discussion.  Obama will put on a sweater and give a fireside chat and all will be well as the voters nod their heads and say, "Aaaah...of course".

If it comes up in debates, it'll take a point blank question - How will you, Mr. Romney (presuming he's the nominee) actually reduce gas prices? Followed by unleashing the facts of the matter, including those cupper referenced above.

 

[a_majoor]

The alternate universe explanation is interesting; George W. Bush could apparently cause everything; and the evidence is quite clear he did cause a rapid reduction in global oil prices byu signing the executive order opening up areas for drilling in 2008.

OTOH your argument seems to be situational: perhaps only Presidents who's names are George W Bush can effect change?

Once again you fail to take into account the very public statements by the President and members of the administration, both as to how the public see them and also as to how the global market sees them. As well, you seem to discount the impact of the Samizdat campaign: a person pulling up to a pump and being already disgruntled by + 4.00/gallon at the pump now has an immidiate reminder of who is to blame. Multiply that by millions of people filling up nation wide...

 

[Haletown]

POTUS Obama taking credit for current US oil production and the amount of pipeline put in the ground in the time period of his Administration is like the bantam rooster who showed up at dawn, did a few cockle-doodle-doos and then takes credit for the day that happened.


Trying to take credit for things he didn't do is not something that will be overlooked by many Americans.  He can't run on the hopey-changey thingy again because he has a track record that can be clearly highlighted in the election advertising campaign. He is leading an Administration that is clearly hostile to oil & gas development and to pretzel himself now into a position portraying him as a great supporter of petroleum is a target rich environment for GOP campaign staff.

 

[cupper]

and the evidence is quite clear he did cause a rapid reduction in global oil prices byu signing the executive order opening up areas for drilling in 2008.

Sorry, I have to call you on this. Show me the evidence.

I've shown quite clearly from several sources that Bush's exec order had no effect on the price of oil in the fall or 2008.

I've shown quite clearly that the drop in oil prices on the world market (and by correlation gas prices) between June and December 2008 can only be attributed to two things:

1) The Bush Administration's decision to release oil from the strategic oil reserves in June 2008, and

2) The collapse of the financial markets in September of 2008.

 

[a_majoor]

There are quite a few articles posted in varous threads which outline the timeline, cause and effect of the 2008 Executive order opening up new areas for drilling. Since you choose to attribute different causes and effects, there is nothing more for me to do here.

However, since shaping narratives is a huge part of this election cycle, here is a deconstruction of the "racist" narrative which has been making the rounds (and was shaped to a large extent by the President himself). Notice the various facts the blogger finds, and how they contradict the accepted story. Essentially what we have is a tragedy that is beeing escalated for political purposes, starting with a rush to judgement without all the facts being known, followed by selective editing and very limited follow up to support the narrative.

Since the narrative is starting to collapse, I suspect this tragedy will be dropped by the media and self promoters, but we will be seeing these sorts of inflamitory stories between now and November. (The mirror image is watching stories about Iraq, Afghanistan, "Gitmo" and so on mostly evaporate after November 2008):

http://miltonconservative.blogspot.ca/2012/03/do-you-trust-news-from-market-ticker.html

Do You Trust ‘THE NEWS’? From The Market Ticker
NBC Is The Skittle Network

Are you*****ed off yet? You will be.

NBC News is being excoriated in some circles – with competitor Fox News Channel leading the charge – for selectively editing audio of the 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he killed Trayvon Martin.

Yep. They got caught too.

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

So Zimmerman is a racist, right? Uh, not quite.

The full version, though, unfolds like this:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

What do you call it when the media invents things? That's not reporting folks.

Maybe NBC is trying to incite a race riot. Or maybe it's just pure slander. Incidentally there's no defense available to a news organization (or any journalist) when they intentionally do something like this. Zimmerman ought to consider suing their ass to somewhere beyond the orbit of Mars.

More to the point, however, this sort of invention of a conversation that never happened by splicing together two pieces of tape means that nothing the media is telling you can be accepted as true without independent proof irrespective of which side of the debate the alleged "report" is on.

While we're at it I have some more questions, but I'll keep it to just two for right now. Both would help understand what actually happened that night, and neither, to my knowledge, has been investigated and reported upon.

Let's ask "why not?"

First, ABC reported that Trayvon's body was kept in the morgue as a "John Doe" for three days. However, Martin's father called the Sanford police department the morning after the shooting when he noted his son was not home, and they came out and made the identification. Where did that discrepancy come from and was ABC trying to intentionally smear the Sanford police department? There is an adjunct question to this -- we know Trayvon had a cellphone with him because he was allegedly talking with his girlfriend. Were there numbers with the tags "Mom" and "Dad" in it? Wouldn't you have expected the police to look over what was inventoried, assuming that Trayvon wasn't carrying ID and call any obvious contact number such as one tagged "Mom" or "Dad"? Now maybe the cellphone had a passcode on it or something similar, but there's an obvious open question on the delay in identification and contact with the parents, and it deserves an answer.

Second, Trayvon Martin was allegedly out at night, on foot and in a rainstorm getting iced tea and skittles. Ok, here's the address where the altercation took place from the police report:

2381 Retreat View Cir
Sanford, FL 32771

Now go to Google Maps and type in that address.

Next, find me a convenience store -- you know, a place to buy skittles and an iced tea. Just type in "convenience store" in the "Search Nearby" box.

Where's the closest one and how far is it on foot?

In a rainstorm, for a bag of skittles and can of iced tea, both ways? Possible? Sure. Plausible? That story ought to be able to be checked, and rather easily -- all convenience stores these days have video recorders.

So has anyone checked to see if indeed the deceased hiked the anywhere from 2-4 miles to and from one of the half-dozen convenience stores in the general area (none closer than about a mile on foot, incidentally, and all somewhat of a pain in the ass to get to due to what appears to be a limited access highway -- 417 -- between the location and the stores which would force you to walk quite a bit further than you could go "as the crow flies".)

These are pretty basic questions. In fact the closest convenience store is a Murphy USA; to reach the others north of the location (the ones south are a LOT further) you'd have to walk past it, so it's highly likely that's the store -- if the story of going out for skittles and iced tea holds up.

Does it? Has anyone checked?

We'll start there; I've got more queued up.

 

[cupper]

I expect the Trayvon Martin story to fade from the media long before we have finalized the GOP race. It's not going to be a factor in the general election.

And the Media will move on to a new flavour of the moment. That's just how today's 24-hour news cycle flows.

 

[cupper]

As this election cycle continues however, I expect this to become a bigger story week by week.

Take The Money And Run For Office

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/26/149390968/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

This is an abridged version of a story airing this weekend on This American Life. The story is part of our series on money in politics.

We imagine lobbyists stalking the halls of Congress, trying to influence lawmakers with cash. But often, it's the other way around: Members of Congress stalk lobbyists, looking for contributions.

"Most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, shocked — if they knew how much time a U.S. Senator spends raising money," Sen. Dick Durbin told us.

There are special call centers across the street from the Capitol where Senators and Congressmen sit, often for hours a day, calling potential donors to ask for money.

And lawmakers and their staffs are constantly trying to find lobbyists to organize fundraisers. For the most part, these are much more mundane than the fancy black-tie galas you sometimes hear about on the news.

Here is a link to to full story on This American Life.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

I listened to it this morning, it's definitely an eye opener, and makes me even more cynical about anyone running for elected office.

The most interesting portion is the interview with John McCain and Russ Feingold and their view of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. McCain raises an excellent question regarding the Court's ability to rule on such matters that they clearly had no understanding of.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its policy like this that have contributed to the high fuel prices.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/obama-oks-oil-exploration-along-atlantic-coast-but-not-drilling/

Obama OKs Oil Exploration Along Atlantic Coast, But Not Drilling

The Obama administration today endorsed new oil and gas exploration along the Atlantic Coast, setting the stage for possible future drilling lease sales.

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

It also comes as President Obama faces mounting pressure over high gas prices and criticism from Republicans that he has opposed more drilling for oil.

“Making decisions based on sound science, public input and the best information available is a critical component to this administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

But Republicans say the announcement is simply for show. Obama delayed and then cancelled a planned 2011 drilling lease sale for areas off the Virginia coast following the BP oil spill in the Gulf.

There are also no guarantees the administration will approve drilling permits at the end of the environmental review.

“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee.

The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.

“If President Obama truly wanted to support energy production in the Atlantic, he would immediately reinstate the lease sale that he canceled.”

House Republicans say approving drilling off the Virginia coast would create at least 2,000 jobs and produce 750 million barrels of oil.

 

[cupper]

:facepalm:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>McCain raises an excellent question regarding the Court's ability to rule on such matters that they clearly had no understanding of.

Indeed; it's almost as bad as legislatures creating and passing legislation on matters they clearly have no understanding of.