U.S. 2012 Election

[tomahawk6]

Axelrod was asked "are people better off now than 4 years ago?" check out his response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDEDvH_bHms&feature=player_embedded

 

[muskrat89]

The "empty chair" things seems to be growing legs. Have seen several empty chairs out in front yards, here in Arizona.

 

[vonGarvin]

The "empty chair" things seems to be growing legs.

Pun intended?  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Since the economy is the number one issue for the voters, this isn't good news for any Dem seeking office. This is going to get a lot of play on the blogosphere, and silence from the legacy media:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/what-recovery-median-household-income-has-declined-5-during-obamas-so-called-recovery/

What Recovery?… Median Household Income Has Declined 5% During Obama’s So-Called Recovery
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 3, 2012, 7:20 AM

Under Barack Obama: Deep poverty is at record high level, homeless families are on the rise, and the media is silent.

Barack Obama is not just the food stamp president.
A record one in seven Americans is on food stamps today thanks to Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is also the poverty and pain president.
Under Obama, 6.4 million Americans are living below the poverty line and there is a record number of Americans living in deep poverty.

But, that’s not all…
Obama’s policies have been such failures that the median household income has declined more during the so-called recovery than during the recession itself.

Forbes reported:

    New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.

    In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better…

    …Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”

    …Obama has failed the poor as well as the middle class. Last year, the Census Bureau reported more Americans in poverty than ever before in the more than 50 years that Census has been tracking poverty. Now The Huffington Post reports that the poverty rate is on track to rise to the highest level since 1965, before the War on Poverty began. A July 22 story by Hope Yen reports that when the new poverty rates are released in September, “even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.”

God help us all if this man is elected to a second term.

 

[vonGarvin]

Here's an interesting GOP advert, with soundbytes from the campaign in 2008, and from now.

 

[a_majoor]

Leave Barack Obama Alone… LEAVE HIM ALONE!!

A person knocked off axis by Clint Eastwood (the man still has it....)

Some of the lines are hysterical:  "He couldn't get anything done even though he had a super majority." "All you Republicans care about is freedom..."

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdtUZhz_oGg&feature=player_embedded

 

[Redeye]

Leave Barack Obama Alone… LEAVE HIM ALONE!!

A person knocked off axis by Clint Eastwood (the man still has it....)

Some of the lines are hysterical:  "He couldn't get anything done even though he had a super majority." "All you Republicans care about is freedom..."

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdtUZhz_oGg&feature=player_embedded

Actually, most Dems were laughing about Eastwood. I thought it was a pretty pitiful display, to be honest. Clint Eastwood can do better than that. And he's a decent kind of conservative, one I probably share lots of views with. But I don't think he accomplished much for the GOP except making them more rich fodder for the Jon Stewarts of the world, and possibly upstaging Mr. Romney a bit.

The supermajority red herring isn't selling either, I don't think - between the Blue Dogs in the House and the Senate that needed 60 votes for anything to overcome filibusters in large part, this is just another Republican myth. It's not on the same level as the often amusing nonsense that Donald Trump drools out from time to time, but where exactly is their message to the undecided middle or wavering Democrats? That's what I'm not seeing.

 

[Infanteer]

Sirius radio is an excellent tool, and I got a lot of both sides from CNBC, FOX, CNN, Blomberg and NPR today.  Eastwood's schtick wasn't very good for Romney - even the most battle hardened Republican pundits had to grit to explain that one away and the Democratic pundits are having a field day.

That being said, it'll be old news by tomorrow, so I don't think there is much to take from it other than the fact that Eastwood is getting real old....

 

[Redeye]

Sirius radio is an excellent tool, and I got a lot of both sides from CNBC, FOX, CNN, Blomberg and NPR today.  Eastwood's schtick wasn't very good for Romney - even the most battle hardened Republican pundits had to grit to explain that one away and the Democratic pundits are having a field day.

That being said, it'll be old news by tomorrow, so I don't think there is much to take from it other than the fact that Eastwood is getting real old....

iPad apps are awesome for that too - though streaming here isn't idea. I think the lasting impact of Eastwood will be basically nil - comedy fodder for a few days and that'll be it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The GOP seems to have rediscovered its message: "Are you really better off after four years of Obama?"

According to a report in the Globe and Mail President Obama's team is having difficulty is defending his record:

... his campaign is struggling to respond to Republican assertions that Americans are worse off than they were four years ago ... the difficulties Mr. Obama’s top strategists have encountered in answering those charges sums up the President’s challenge during the three-day convention that begins here Tuesday. Grassroots Democrats say they are eager for him to tout his accomplishments. But most other voters are still feeling unhappy about the economy and think the country is on the wrong track ... yet, with the jobless rate above 8 per cent, median income down more than $4,000 (U.S.) and the federal debt up by $5-trillion in four years, a nagging question confronts the President as he heads to Charlotte: Are Americans better off than they were four years ago?

This is consistent with what tomahawk6 noted a few days ago: Team Obama wouldn't or, just as likely, couldn't address that simple question: "Is the average American better off that (s)he was four years ago?"

 

[Redeye]

The GOP seems to have rediscovered its message: "Are you really better off after four years of Obama?"

According to a report in the Globe and Mail President Obama's team is having difficulty is defending his record:

This is consistent with what tomahawk6 noted a few days ago: Team Obama wouldn't or, just as likely, couldn't address that simple question: "Is the average American better off that (s)he was four years ago?"

I don't see this being a winner for them. Four years ago the US economy was in freefall, jobs were disappearing by the tens of thousands, people were watching their 401k plans and IRAs evaporate. Now, while jobs aren't appearing fast enough to really fill the need, there are consistently positive reports on job growth numbers. The stock market has recovered strongly (though, again, not enough yet) so people's IRAs are recovering too, and while things aren't "good", I suspect it won't be hard for Democrats to highlight that yes, indeed, things are better than they were. They'll probably stretch that out into a message about potential for improvement highlighting the impact of the most despised Congress in US history (if I recall right), to try to build a case that not only should President Obama win another term, but they should get more seats in the Congress. Whether that will work, well, we'll see.

It's interesting that a lot of conservatives aren't enamored with Romney - which could have two effects that will benefit Democrats. They'll either stay home, or they might vote for a third party candidate - I'm thinking of the Ron Paul set. That could help the Dems a lot - but they also have a fringe that risks the same thing - they'll have to work hard to get the vote out.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think Romney's strategy needs to focus on the economy, in phases:

1. Now, ask the hard question - "Are you, your family, friends and neighbours any better off after four years of Obama?

2. In late Sep/early Oct: focus on specific Obama "problems" - unemployment, crony capitalism misadventures, etc; and

3. In the last three weeks: finally make some specific proposals (after telling Americans that you're not promising much because "we all have to roll up our sleeves and work (and sacrifice) together" etc) to change things for the "better."

The aim should be to put Obama on the defensive and keep him there.

 

[Haletown]

GOP advertising.

ObamaCare . . .  In one sentence.



http://tinyurl.com/8jfuw6b

 

[a_majoor]

The start of the DNC marks another historic moment: the US debt surpasses $16 trillion dollars. The unfunded liabilities of course bring the total to astronomical amounts but most people will be startled enough to see the $16 trillion figure. Republican advertising will point out that $5.5 trillion of that was added in the last three years alone; the legacy of the Obama administration:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/09/debt-to-hit-trillion-as-dnc-kicks-off-134307.html

Debt to hit $16 trillion as DNC kicks off

Comments (49) By MIKE ZAPLER | 9/4/12 11:48 AM EDT
Bad timing for Democrats: The gross national debt is set to hit $16 trillion Tuesday as the party’s convention gets under way, and Republicans are pouncing.

“This is a grim landmark for the United States,” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement. “That’s more government debt per person than Portugal, Italy, Spain or Greece. Yet the president seems strangely unconcerned.”

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod said the president’s economic plan would lower deficits by $4 trillion over a decade. But moving too aggressively, he added, could backfire.

"What's necessary is to stabilize the debt and then work from there," he said. "You can't balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy."

Of course there is no economic plan by this administration, even the last budget the Administration proposed to the Congress was defeated by a bipartisan unanimous vote, and the Democrat majority semate has neither proposed or passed a budget in over 1200 days.

 

[vonGarvin]

;D

 

[vonGarvin]

The stock market has recovered strongly (though, again, not enough yet) so people's IRAs are recovering too, and while things aren't "good", I suspect it won't be hard for Democrats to highlight that yes, indeed, things are better than they were.

It wouldn't be hard, if they were to lie.

Now, I'm not big into the Huffington Post, but here's an article about the "recovery" of the DOW.  From the article:

The "recovery":

I would argue that adjusting the DJIA solely for historical consumer price inflation does not tell the whole story. The Consumer Price Index, by definition, can only tell you about historical inflation. Other assets that can act as long stores of wealth move in price not only to reflect historical inflation, but investors' best estimate of future inflation as well. We see that these long maturity assets move up in nominal price reflecting expected future inflation long before consumer prices ever start to move up.

So, it only seems fair to compare the DJIA as a store of wealth to other long assets to see how it did in preserving its purchasing power relative to these assets. Maybe the Dow's recent run-up in nominal price is just reflecting greater expected inflation in the future similar to what is driving gold and other commodity prices higher.

Here is a picture that shows how the DJIA has done if priced in gold ounces instead of US dollars:

In Canada, the median income in 2008 was $68,8410.00 (Source [urlhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm]here[/url]) In 2010 it was 69,860.00  (That was the latest year with stats).  That's after tax, and not a huge increase by any stretch. 

In the USA, the median income has contracted.

I'm fairly confident that simple facts will show people that they are not better off than they were four years ago.  When it comes to the coming election, the Dems can only promise more of the same, while trying to scare the voting public into not voting Romney/Ryan.

 

[a_majoor]

Polling is starting to show some real shifting, could this be the start of the "preference cascade" that Instapundit predicted?

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-voters-think-second-term-undeserved

The Hill Poll: Voters say second term for Obama undeserved, country is worse off
By Sheldon Alberts - 09/04/12 05:00 AM ET

A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.

Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.

Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.

The results highlight the depth of voter dissatisfaction confronting Obama as he makes his case for a second term at this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

They also strongly suggest Democrats need to convince voters the election should be a choice between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, rather than a referendum on the president.

Obama’s biggest problem remains voter unhappiness with his handling of the economy.

More from The Hill:
• Obama gives himself ‘incomplete’ grade on economy
• Asking voters to look ahead, not backward, tough sell for Obama
• Palin tweets booster seat, knocks Obama 'empty chair' leadership
• Ryan: Speech didn’t say Obama responsible for GM plant closure
• Obama takes swipe at Bush during Gulf trip
• Dems back global climate deal in platform
• Priebus: Mitt Romney has momentum, not Obama
• Tea Party leader: Obama doesn't 'love America the way we do'

Fifty percent of voters said they were “very unsatisfied” with Obama’s stewardship of the economy. Another 8 percent said they were somewhat unsatisfied.

More voters in The Hill’s poll think Romney will win the fall election than think Obama will win — despite state-by-state polls that suggest the president would have an edge in a number of swing states if the election were held today. (Interpolation: This suggests that people are not providing pollsters with accurate answers, or the polls have been skewed by oversampling, "push poll" questions and other factors)

The poll found 46 percent of voters believe Romney will win the Nov. 6 election, compared to 43 percent who said they expect Obama to win.

The Hill’s poll was conducted Sept. 2 among 1,000 likely voters by Pulse Opinion Research. It has a 3 percentage point margin of error.

Romney’s campaign on Monday sought to exploit Obama’s vulnerability on the economy by asking voters whether their lives are better now than when Obama became president.

“The president cannot tell you that you’re better off,” GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said in a speech in North Carolina. “And if we want to improve things, then how would rehiring the same administration do that? It wouldn’t.”

The GOP attacks have been helped along by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who on Sunday answered “no” to the question of whether the country was better off four years after Obama’s election.

O’Malley on Monday reversed himself, saying the nation is “clearly better off.” But O’Malley’s misstep allowed Republicans to go on offense.

The Hill’s polling shows skepticism about the president is entrenched among coveted centrist voters who are key to the election outcome.

Fifty-two percent of centrists said Obama does not deserve reelection based on his job performance, 56 percent are unsatisfied with his handling of the economy and 53 percent feel the country is worse off.

Men (57 percent) are more likely than women (51 percent) to believe Obama does not deserve reelection.

The poll found sharp partisan differences in views about Obama. While 78 percent of Democrats believe the president deserves reelection, 1 in 5 do not believe he should get a second term. A poll for The Hill in early July also found 1 in 5 Democrats feel Obama has changed the nation for the worse as president. Eighty percent of Republicans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection, and only 11 percent think he does.

Among “other” voters — those who said they were neither Democrats nor Republicans — 61 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection.

The Obama campaign’s challenges extend to voters of all ages.

Among those aged 18-39 — a voting bloc that helped push Obama to victory in 2008 — 51 percent said the president does not deserve reelection, while 40 percent said he does.

Anti-Obama sentiment is strongest among seniors, the poll found. Sixty-five percent of voters aged 65 and over said Obama shouldn’t get a second term, while 53 percent of voters 40-64 years old feel the same.

Obama is also facing stiff headwinds on the economy among lower-middle-class and middle-class voters.

Among voters earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, 67 percent said they were not satisfied with the president’s handling of the economy and 62 percent said the country is in worse condition now than in 2008.

Similarly, 58 percent of people earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year said the country is worse off now, and 66 percent are unhappy with his handling of the economy.

The Hill’s poll’s sample included 51 percent women and 49 percent men. It had a slightly larger sample of Republicans — 36 percent — than Democrats, 34 percent.

Thirty percent of those polled identified themselves as being neither Democrat nor Republican.

Apart from the assessments of Obama and the state of the nation, The Hill poll found Vice President Biden is not considered a major hindrance to Obama’s reelection.

Biden stirred controversy last month when he told a mixed-race audience that Republicans, if they controlled the White House and Congress, would “put y’all back in chains” by deregulating the financial industry.

The poll found just 11 percent of voters overall — and only 6 percent of Democrats — believe Biden will damage Obama’s chance of reelection.

Seventy-one percent of voters overall said Biden’s status as Obama’s running mate will make no difference to the president’s chances of earning a second term.

Poll data here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2012/09_september/crosstabs_72412.pdf

 

[tomahawk6]

This is too early for most Americans. Few will be paying attention until a few weeks before the election. I figure most polls are slanted to favor the democrats. The real numbers wont be out until a week before the election. The media tried this with Bush-Kerry.Even the dem's believed their own polls and were completely shocked when Bush won re-election.

 

[Redeye]

;D

Hey, if people are going to attack him over the size of the US National Debt, then it is perfectly reasonable to lay the blame at the feed of the person responsible for the policies that wildly inflated it. There is also nothing wrong with highlighting the disaster the Bush presidency was, and using a contrasting approach. It's also legitimate to blame the Congress for failing to work with the President to accomplish anything. Especially when you have people like Mitch McConnell on record saying their own interest was to make the President fail. Let's see how that sells.

Looks like I'm going to be in DC on the big day, should be very interesting to see how it all goes.

 

[vonGarvin]

That seals it.  You *are* delusional.  By your logic then, Clinton is to blame...but that goes back to Bush I, thence to Reagan....ad infinitum.

Or we can lay the blame on the guy who first promised change and then failed to deliver, who is saying verbatim the same message and whose party last night had a message that said "we all belong to the government."

Yep..blame Bush.....