|
nickagneta
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2012, 11:32:35 AM » |
|
I think Chris hit this right on and I also believe it was Chris who I first saw compare the 2012 election to the 2004 election.
Bush and Obama were unpopular incumbents.
Romney and Kerry were flip flopping Massachusetts politicians.
Bush and Obama really got their vote out while Romney and Kerry couldn't electrify their base.
Close numbers in the general election but the Electoral College wasn't close.
TP to Chris. He was saying this for quite a while.
|
|
|
|
|
 Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brendan
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2012, 09:52:09 AM » |
|
For R and conservative/libertarian minded folk: NEVER GIVE to the national republican committees. It's just a crazy thing to do. In fact I'd be reluctant to donate to any of the national election campaigns of private orgs too (like a AFP). If you have big bucks, go ahead, since you will have influence in how its spent. But for people giving <5k / year to campaigns: you won't have influence. Better to give the money directly to the politicians that align with your values and/or will impact you directly.
Also - interesting that Demint is leaving Senate for Heritage.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
nickagneta
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2012, 10:19:43 AM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency. But at this point the fear of upcoming tax increases don't seem to be effecting the hiring of people by companies: WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. economy added 146,000 jobs in November and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest since December 2008. The government said Superstorm Sandy had only a minimal effect on the figures.
The Labor Department's report Friday offered a mixed picture of the economy.
Hiring remained steady during the storm and in the face of looming tax increases. But the government said employers added 49,000 fewer jobs in October and September than it initially estimated.
And the unemployment rate fell to a four-year low in November from 7.9 percent in October mostly because more people stopped looking for work and weren't counted as unemployed.
The report "is something of a mixed bag but, on balance, it's a positive," said Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics.
Sandy's effect on the figures was much smaller many analysts had predicted. The government noted that as long as employees worked at least one day during a pay period — two weeks for most people — its survey would have counted them as employed.
Still, there were signs that the storm disrupted economic activity. Construction employment dropped 20,000. And weather prevented 369,000 people from getting to work — the most for any month in nearly two years. These workers were still counted as employed.
Stock futures jumped after the report. Dow Jones industrial average futures were down 20 points in the minutes before the report came out at 8:30 a.m., and just afterward were up 70 points.
As money shifted into stocks, it moved out of safer bonds. The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note, which moves opposite the price, rose to 1.63 percent from 1.58 percent just before the report was released.
Since July, the economy has added an average of 158,000 jobs a month. That's a modest pickup from 146,000 average in the first six months of the year.
The job growth suggests that most employers aren't yet delaying hiring because of the "fiscal cliff." That's the combination of sharp tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect next year unless the White House and Congress reach a budget deal before then.
There is "no obvious impact from the looming fiscal cliff yet," Ashworth added. http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20121207&id=15877520 |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
BballTim
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2012, 11:56:45 AM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency. Yes, just like dems were dancing in the streets during the meltdown because they knew it would be a decisive factor in the 2008 elections. But at this point the fear of upcoming tax increases don't seem to be effecting the hiring of people by companies:
I don't think that you'd expect future tax increases to have much of an effect before they happen, do you? Higher tax rates generally lead to a slowing economy, you generally don't see a change in the economy in anticipation of a tax hike. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
IndeedProceed
|
|
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2012, 12:04:11 PM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency.
Yes, just like dems were dancing in the streets during the meltdown because they knew it would be a decisive factor in the 2008 elections.
That didnt happen. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
nickagneta
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2012, 12:49:59 PM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency.
Yes, just like dems were dancing in the streets during the meltdown because they knew it would be a decisive factor in the 2008 elections.
Hey, don't believe me...take it from Ann Coulter http://www.therightscoop.com/ann-coulter-republicans-should-concede-to-obama-and-raise-taxes-on-the-rich/ |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
BballTim
|
|
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2012, 01:32:42 PM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency.
Yes, just like dems were dancing in the streets during the meltdown because they knew it would be a decisive factor in the 2008 elections.
That didnt happen.
Not literally, at least. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
BballTim
|
|
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2012, 01:34:31 PM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency.
Yes, just like dems were dancing in the streets during the meltdown because they knew it would be a decisive factor in the 2008 elections.
Hey, don't believe me...take it from Ann Coulter
http://www.therightscoop.com/ann-coulter-republicans-should-concede-to-obama-and-raise-taxes-on-the-rich/
Yes, people like her, Rush, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are generally where I look to get an accurate view of what the two parties are thinking. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
IndeedProceed
|
|
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2012, 01:38:16 PM » |
|
I know a lot of Republicans at the NRC are counting on Obama's tax increases to not work and to tank the economy again so that they can then blame the economic situation in 2016 on Obama and win back the presidency.
Yes, just like dems were dancing in the streets during the meltdown because they knew it would be a decisive factor in the 2008 elections.
That didnt happen.
Not literally, at least.
I don't think dems were rooting figuratively either. Nobody wanted the economic meltdown (amended, no major faction of the democratic party), even if it did mean a chance for a power grab. What are we, Rush Limbaugh? |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brendan
|
|
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2012, 02:49:16 PM » |
|
Plenty of Dems I knew were happy to take advantage of the economic crisis in 08 so they could get control of the WH. Doesn't mean they were rooting for it, but they were happy about the political consequences. In fact Obama's Chief of Staff explained the Dem philosophy on the matter "never let a crisis go to waste."
I think Republicans are predicting that the effect of Obama's agenda will be another four years of awful economic conditions - and that might be the only way to fix things. Just doing enough to keep moving the problem out a year or two, but growing its size is a dumb move:
1. makes the problem worse when you deal with it
2. helps the other side politically
In terms of the job numbers - please correct for work force size. They were not good numbers. If you don't understand why, I will gladly sell you a 2020 dollar for a 2012 dollar a couple thousand times over.
I do think one positive from a macro perspective is that employers now know what to expect. Going into the election a Romney presidency might have meant serious changes (positive, but changes nonetheless) now with certainty they can move ahead with their plans. The net effect of Obama's policies is still to retard economic growth and employment. (And in a delicious twist of poo also to require massive inflationary policy by the FED to keep the treasury propped up.)
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Celtics4ever
|
|
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2012, 03:07:55 PM » |
|
Hilary Clinton is what is next for them and that means no white house for another 8 years on top of this I would wager. I don't think any one sane will run against her.
Rubio won't be able to take her down, he has character issues regarding his family history which nuetralize any strength's he brings. Bachmann is crazy enough to run against her but has zero chance. Perry sunk his ship last time. Newt is too old. Santorum might run against her but I think he too is out of the mainstream. Jindal doesn't have a chance against the Clinton machine. Ryan has no chance of beating her, people despise him outside the GOP bubble. Jeb Bush has a chance but no solid indication he runs, I think he has the best chance.
I think the GOP is really hurting themselves with their outlook. The don't realize that you can't gerrymand the presidency ( the only reason they held the house). The country has changed. The demographics have changed. Some think that it was their candidate and running to the right will fix that. Go try that and tell me how it works. Romney pulled his closest when he was moderate.
I wonder how the Tea Party will fare in Congress without Jim DeMint. I think DeMint knows it's a done deal and bailed on them....
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Brendan
|
|
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2012, 04:35:50 PM » |
|
Hilary Clinton is what is next for them and that means no white house for another 8 years on top of this I would wager. I don't think any one sane will run against her.
Rubio won't be able to take her down, he has character issues regarding his family history which nuetralize any strength's he brings. Bachmann is crazy enough to run against her but has zero chance. Perry sunk his ship last time. Newt is too old. Santorum might run against her but I think he too is out of the mainstream. Jindal doesn't have a chance against the Clinton machine. Ryan has no chance of beating her, people despise him outside the GOP bubble. Jeb Bush has a chance but no solid indication he runs, I think he has the best chance.
I think the GOP is really hurting themselves with their outlook. The don't realize that you can't gerrymand the presidency ( the only reason they held the house). The country has changed. The demographics have changed. Some think that it was their candidate and running to the right will fix that. Go try that and tell me how it works. Romney pulled his closest when he was moderate.
I wonder how the Tea Party will fare in Congress without Jim DeMint. I think DeMint knows it's a done deal and bailed on them....
You convinced me. I give up. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Other Discussions
