[stupendousman]

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...k-for-obama/2/

Bad week for Obama. 2010 looks like it might be another 1994 at this rate. Can't say I didn't "tell you so". Even his most ardent supporters should be disappointed.

Back a year or two ago I explained in a number of threads how Obama's lack of bi-partisanship and his ramrodding of unpopular Democrat backed legislation would end up backfiring on him, and he was likely to lose big in 2010.

I explained that he was making the same mistakes that Bill Clinton made in his first two years in office and that the writing was on the walls. Of course, the usual suspects moaned and suggested that my observations were purely partisan, instead of based on credible observations.

Now, the election is in two weeks, and all the Washington talking heads are suggesting that I was right, and 2010 is looking to be a 1994. There's still time for me to be proven wrong, but two years later, is there anyone willing to wager that to be the case?

[SpaceMonkey]

From where I sit, the "talking heads" seem to agree that any incumbent party would be doomed in the economic environment we've seen, so no, you're still wrong if you think it's all about Obama's "lack of bi-partisanship and his ramrodding of unpopular Democrat backed legislation."

[ort888]

I wager that every single piece of information you absorb instantly causes your brain to start churning and twisting until you mold it somehow into a validation of your existing world views.

[The Final Dakar]

If 2010 is the new 1994, what will you do if 2012 is the new 1996?

[SpaceMonkey]

Wait for the next 2000.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If 2010 is the new 1994, what will you do if 2012 is the new 1996?

No, Obama is a rigid ideologue and will not move to the center like Clinton did.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I did not answer the question

Thanks for stopping by.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If 2010 is the new 1994, what will you do if 2012 is the new 1996?

Buy a Sega Saturn...

OH NOES!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Buy a Sega Saturn...

OH NOES!

The correct answer is 32x

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The correct answer is 32x

Give that dagger a little more of a twist, why don't you?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Give that dagger a little more of a twist, why don't you?

Don't forget to have Sega CD attached.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If 2010 is the new 1994, what will you do if 2012 is the new 1996?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No, Obama is a rigid ideologue and will not move to the center like Clinton did.

Originally Posted by Chongo
I did not answer the question

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thanks for stopping by.

There won't be a Gerald Ford/Bob Dole/John McCain what the Republicans need is a moderate candidate running that is why 2012 won't be like 1996

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't forget to have Sega CD attached.

What?

The Mega-CD Ecco is boss!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There won't be a Gerald Ford/Bob Dole/John McCain what the Republicans need is a moderate candidate running that is why 2012 won't be like 1996

I'm not sure what you are saying. Ford/Dole/McCain all are/were moderates.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There won't be a Gerald Ford/Bob Dole/John McCain what the Republicans need is a moderate candidate running that is why 2012 won't be like 1996

Still not grasping the concept of a hypothetical question, I see.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm not sure what you are saying. Ford/Dole/McCain all are/were moderates.

Exactly, and they all lost.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Exactly, and they all lost.

I see. I misread the implied commas.

I think you are wrong if you believe that a less moderate candidate will be more electable come 2012. The Democrats are hemorrhaging independent voters, but Republicans aren't going to pick them up in a national election with a more hard-line conservative message.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

From where I sit, the "talking heads" seem to agree that any incumbent party would be doomed in the economic environment we've seen, so no, you're still wrong if you think it's all about Obama's "lack of bi-partisanship and his ramrodding of unpopular Democrat backed legislation."

The problem with your assessment is you ignore the wide swath of folks out there, a lot of who are independents and who are angry with policies, not an coincidental "environment", according to polls.

Obama had 2 years and trillions to get it right, all the while refusing most any form of bi-partisanship. He failed. The "economic environment" will never be on the ballot. The guy who is in charge of effecting it will always be, and he'll be judged based on what he did and how it worked.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No, Obama is a rigid ideologue and will not move to the center like Clinton did.

BINGO. Unless maybe George Soros changes strategy and forces him to, but I don't think his handlers work that way.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I wager that every single piece of information you absorb instantly causes your brain to start churning and twisting until you mold it somehow into a validation of your existing world views.

My "brain" does cause me to form and mold information in a way that allows for later validation, I agree. I'm pretty sure in 2 weeks my prediction will come true.

[BadKosh]

This election will be like Obiwan cutting the legs off Darth Vader.

[stupendousman]

On sort of a related note, the question I keep hearing the media ask is that now that the Republicans are likely to be in charge of one or both houses of Congress, is it likely that they'll feel they need to compromise with Obama now, in order to get things done?

This absurdly, is getting the cart before the horse.

It was Obama who has had his way the past 2 years with his party in charge of all of Congress. It's them who really didn't want any part of compromise unless it meant the Republicans voting for their priorities, done pretty much their way.

This is exactly why it's the Democrats who are going to lose big this election. It's not because the Republicans refused to compromise with Obama, it's because Obama and the Democrats did things without real compromise which where extremely unpopular.

I think that it's clear that it's Obama who is going to have to scale back his plans and priorities now that he's got a big stumbling block in front of him, not the Republicans. Why exactly would the Republicans "compromise" to do more of the things that the people don't want, when the people are throwing out the people who who did those things in the first place?

Sometimes, when you hear or see spin this assinine, you have to look at the talking heads and scratch your head.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

This election will be like Obiwan cutting the legs off Darth Vader.

I think Anakin striking down Dooku is way more accurate.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My "brain" does cause me to form and mold information in a way that allows for later validation, I agree. I'm pretty sure in 2 weeks my prediction will come true.

I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow because libs and dems suck balls.

Just you see, my prediction will come true, and that will mean I was totally right about libs and dems sucking.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think Anakin striking down Dooku is way more accurate.

I think it's more like the T. Rex taking down the velociraptors at the end of Jurassic Park.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow because libs and dems suck balls.

Just you see, my prediction will come true, and that will mean I was totally right about libs and dems sucking.

If I made a prediction about something that was inevitable, regardless of whether the reasoning I stated was true or not, you'd have a point.

I didn't, so you don't. You can try again if you like.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If I made a prediction about something that was inevitable, regardless of whether the reasoning I stated was true or not, you'd have a point.

I didn't

so you don't. You can try again if you like.

The analogy stands.

[ort888]

Here's my brilliant prediction.

The Republicans will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.
The Democrats will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.
The Republicans will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.
The Democrats will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.

Wash Rinse Repeat

It's not rocket science people.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Here's my brilliant prediction.

The Republicans will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.
The Democrats will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.
The Republicans will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.
The Democrats will regain power.
Everything will still be all screwed up.

Wash Rinse Repeat

It's not rocket science people.

I thought that we were already in end times though?

[sek929]

Wait, Obama didn't fix our country in two years!?!

I'm outraged! I want my food fast and my recessions 10 months, tops.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Wait, Obama didn't fix our country in two years!?!

I'm outraged! I want my food fast and my recessions 10 months, tops.

Bingo.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think it's more like the T. Rex taking down the velociraptors at the end of Jurassic Park.

I think it's more like the Dilophosaurus eating Dennis Nedry.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

From where I sit, the "talking heads" seem to agree that any incumbent party would be doomed in the economic environment we've seen

Speculation.

Obama had the majority in the House and a de-facto majority in the Senate.

It's pretty clear by now that he wasted the last two years with Democratic pet projects, believed the Keynesian multiplier fairy tale and resorted to debt-funded bigger government for economic recovery.
In short: a desastrous, incompetent response to the financial crisis.

What he did NOT do is take real steps to resolve the crisis (e.g. restructuring the broken and insolvent banks, enforcing already existing regulation re: manipulation and gambling at Wall Street, letting broken businesses fail so that failed ideas are buried etc).

Really, even if Obama had tried, the outcome could not have been much worse.

Now, that is not to say that Republicans could not have screwed it up as well. But, again, that's speculation.

-t

[besson3c]

Turtle: has there been a time in history where a recession this bad has been turned around in 2 years? What makes you certain that it is possible, regardless of who is in office?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle: has there been a time in history where a recession this bad has been turned around in 2 years? What makes you certain that it is possible, regardless of who is in office?

Where did I say it's reasonable to expect a turnaround in two years ?
What I expect is concrete steps towards a resolution.

Obama has done nothing like that. All his activities centered around short-term band-aids.

There were no substantial and sustainable ideas and activities.

All we get from Obama, the Treasury and the Fed is that they want to borrow and print this country back to health. WTF ?

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Wait, Obama didn't fix our country in two years!?!

I'm outraged! I want my food fast and my recessions 10 months, tops.

I'd be less outraged if the premise of his election to office was that he was going to.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Where did I say it's reasonable to expect a turnaround in two years ?
What I expect is concrete steps towards a resolution.

Obama has done nothing like that. All his activities centered around short-term band-aids.

There were no substantial and sustainable ideas and activities.

All we get from Obama, the Treasury and the Fed is that they want to borrow and print this country back to health. WTF ?

-t

What sorts of concrete steps would satisfy you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'd be less outraged if the premise of his election to office was that he was going to.

I do agree that the promise of change was overhyped and we were at least slightly manipulated by this not being more tempered with what is actually practical, but on the other hand, perhaps we should have realized on our own that the turnaround wasn't going to come about this quickly based on history? After all, politicians over promising stuff is nothing new.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Where did I say it's reasonable to expect a turnaround in two years ?
What I expect is concrete steps towards a resolution.

Obama has done nothing like that. All his activities centered around short-term band-aids.

There were no substantial and sustainable ideas and activities.

All we get from Obama, the Treasury and the Fed is that they want to borrow and print this country back to health. WTF ?

-t

You know, I agree with most of this. Sure, the Dems have stemmed the bleeding and our country has seen short-term rebounds, but the problems inherent in our system still exist, if not are actually getting exacerbated.

Problem is, IMHO, that the Reps would have done the same goddamn things and we'd be in the same boat. Can anyone tell me, with a strait face, that McCain would not have issued billions in bailouts for large banks? Because I sure as shit don't.

What I take issue with is the notion that the Democrats have accomplished nothing and the Republicans would have already fixed everything, because it's nonsense.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Wait, Obama didn't fix our country in two years!?!

I'm outraged! I want my food fast and my recessions 10 months, tops.

I think that the concern is that he made it worse, and possibly long-term.

[besson3c]

Based on what?

A stimulus is not an uncommon job-creation strategy, many other countries did the same thing with success. As far as the bailouts, would it have been better to allow them to fail or to prevent them from failing, particularly when it looks like companies like GM are recovering and returning money?

This is not a leading question, I'm still undecided as to the answer to this, but if you want to make this case you need to account for this.

[sek929]

My concern is that the Republicans would have done the same thing. It's as if everyone forgot the NeoCons are just as pro-big government as the liberals. Now the Conservatives are using the tea-party outrage to convince people that the Republicans have changed their ways, but it's just an empty sentiment, much like "change."

Like I said, the Republicans will make significant gains and we'll all see the infighting and general lack of action across the board. The focus will be on repealing what the Democrats did instead of coming up with new legislature that will actually fix something, cuz we all know the blame game is way easier than actually doing anything.

Then the Dems will blame the Reps, and the Reps will blame the Dems, and the buck will get passed all the way down to the American taxpayer, as it always does. They've got a nice racket, making regular Americans dwell on our differences rather than our similarities.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Problem is, IMHO, that the Reps would have done the same goddamn things and we'd be in the same boat. Can anyone tell me, with a strait face, that McCain would not have issued billions in bailouts for large banks? Because I sure as shit don't.

No, I can't, because I agree with your assessment.

But that's by no means a free pass for the Democrats, and to be honest, the Republicans didn't campaign on CHANGE as Obama did.

I would say that the Republicans would have had the same chance to make change happen (or, better, start the change) as Obama had. Obama blew his chance for sure. We can only speculate what the Reps would have done.

Where do we go from here ?
I see that the Democrats don't get it AT ALL. They still think they did this country a favor with all their band-aids, papering over stuff and sweeping things under the rug.

With the Republicans, there are at least a few that recognize we're ind eep trouble. That's a start.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What sorts of concrete steps would satisfy you?

Use existing laws to put in jail everyone who committed fraud.

Banksters, politicians, executives, union bosses, doesn't matter.

Uphold the rule of law. It's rather simple.

-t

[sek929]

A good start for this state is to vote out that crook Frank. Unfortunately, I personally have a lot of friends who toe the Democrat party line simply because they don't know any better. I feel like a person such as myself has nearly no sway on the vote because I am decidedly split on who I want to run this country, it's a really depressing situation to be honest.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Speculation.

Sure. As is stupendousman's narrative. I just wanted to point out that current developments didn't prove his earlier analysis correct.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I do agree that the promise of change was overhyped and we were at least slightly manipulated by this not being more tempered with what is actually practical, but on the other hand, perhaps we should have realized on our own that the turnaround wasn't going to come about this quickly based on history? After all, politicians over promising stuff is nothing new.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Based on what?

A stimulus is not an uncommon job-creation strategy, many other countries did the same thing with success. As far as the bailouts, would it have been better to allow them to fail or to prevent them from failing, particularly when it looks like companies like GM are recovering and returning money?

This is not a leading question, I'm still undecided as to the answer to this, but if you want to make this case you need to account for this.

That's just it. It's not merely the speed or lack of economic improvement. It's how people voted for "change", and got Robert Gates, Larry Summers and a slew of Obamas cronies. TARP, stimulus and bailouts. Broken promises, partisanship and political gamesmanship.

In other words, regardless of his effectiveness or lack thereof, he is the some ol' crap we always get. His policies' failures just help illuminate this.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: I sort of agree, but then again, had the Obama admin really embraced change there would have been filibusters every way until Tuesday and constant kicking and screaming, not to mention a hard time rounding up votes. It could be argued that in order to set the foundation to some laws less than audacious baby steps needed to be taken. Maybe the Obama admin figured that what they did was the best they could in this current climate and a political system that is not designed to enable radical change?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman: I sort of agree, but then again, had the Obama admin really embraced change there would have been filibusters every way until Tuesday and constant kicking and screaming, not to mention a hard time rounding up votes.

You forgot to mention WHY that is.

The ONLY reason why Obama couldn't get change done is that the Democrats don't want the change that was needed. It would have meant cutting ties to Big Business (like banks), unions, trial lawyers and other entitlement beneficiaries.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the Obama admin figured that what they did was the best they could in this current climate and a political system that is not designed to enable radical change?

Cheap excuse.

Obama was elected to bring change, he had the majority in the House and senate.
WHAT ELSE DID HE NEED ?

Reality is: the Democrat's idea of "change" made things worse, not better.
Because their "ideas" are rooted in fairy tales and dreams, not in how real lifw works.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Based on what?

Based on the fact that a huge number of economists said prior to his plans being put into effect that this would have very little effect on helping the recession and that putting us even further into debt by investing in something that won't help would actually make things worse. It was clear from the get-go that his efforts were more a focus on helping Democrat goals, paying back Democrat supporters and forwarding the Democrat's agenda than anything else.

This is in edition to sending lots of wrong messages to economic revenue generators at a time the economy is struggling.

Put this, along with the fact that things ARE worse, and I think it's pretty easy to see where some think that Obama is making things worse instead of better. It's really not that complicated.

Back when it was first made clear that Obama was going to ramrod his agenda through with zero support from even the more liberal Republicans (it would have required them to do real compromises to peel a few off to make it "bipartisan) and many in his own part had to be bribed to pass it, the writing on the wall was clear. This was the same sort of agenda and the same sort of tactics the Clinton administration had used during it's first 2 years, and the response from "the people" regarding their effort was the 1994 landslide.

So, I wasn't predicting something that was inevitable or a foregone conclusion to most, at the time. I don't remember a lot of people agreeing with me back then that a 1994ish result during mid-terms was likely after the huge Democrat wins the last election. Obama could have avoided this by:

1. Implementing policy that had actual impact in a way that made the recession better, rather than just claiming that it would have been even worse had they not done what they did. There's really no credible way to claim such a thing.

2. By compromising and implementing policy from the political center instead of from pressure on the far left. They would have gotten some Republican support and if their efforts failed they could have claimed bi-partisan approval of the plan that was implemented. Obama did it all his way, so he and his party are the only ones to blame now.

He chose not to, and the Democrats are likely to lose big. It was clear, at least to me, that this outcome was likely near the beginning of Obama's term.