The next POTUS...Jackass or Elephant?

[pcgeek11]

Like I quoted earlier:

"To catch George W. Bush, Mr. Obama would have to average real economic growth of 3.55 percent over each of the next three years. That would mean a 25 percent increase above his best year’s growth — 2.8 percent in 2012. That’s a tall order, considering last year’s growth was just 1.9 percent, and this year’s first quarter came in at a negative 1 percent."

It ain't happening.

 

[nickqt]

Like I quoted earlier:

"To catch George W. Bush, Mr. Obama would have to average real economic growth of 3.55 percent over each of the next three years. That would mean a 25 percent increase above his best year’s growth — 2.8 percent in 2012. That’s a tall order, considering last year’s growth was just 1.9 percent, and this year’s first quarter came in at a negative 1 percent."

It ain't happening.

First, that article seems to misstate the average GDP growth under Bush.

I've seen 1.7% twice:

(http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...stock-market-scoreboard-reagan-obama/2750227/)

and

(http://www.forbes.com/sites/briando...versal-college-education-and-economic-growth/)

and also 2.1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration).

Note that a Forbes article criticizing Obama is one of the 1.7%.

Second, again, the average GDP is going to be clobbered by the -3% of 2009 that Obama inherited.

Third, what does it matter? The economy is objectively better than when Obama came into office, regardless of the average GDP.

Fourth, let's see where we're at in 2017.

 

[ivwshane]

Like I quoted earlier:

"To catch George W. Bush, Mr. Obama would have to average real economic growth of 3.55 percent over each of the next three years. That would mean a 25 percent increase above his best year’s growth — 2.8 percent in 2012. That’s a tall order, considering last year’s growth was just 1.9 percent, and this year’s first quarter came in at a negative 1 percent."

It ain't happening.

And what you aren't getting is that you are including bush's failed economic policies of Obamas first year in his total data set. Removing the first year from both presidents numbers results in bush averaging a GDP growth of 3.96 and Obama with a current average gdp growth rate of 3.98 as in, he has already surpassed bush. Obamas got two more years of his economic policies to go and the economy isn't showing any signs of stopping.

Perhaps you could link to a more dishonest hack piece to make your point?

 

[pcgeek11]

And what you aren't getting is that you are including bush's failed economic policies of Obamas first year in his total data set. Removing the first year from both presidents numbers results in bush averaging a GDP growth of 3.96 and Obama with a current average gdp growth rate of 3.98 as in, he has already surpassed bush. Obamas got two more years of his economic policies to go and the economy isn't showing any signs of stopping.

Perhaps you could link to a more dishonest hack piece to make your point?

So now the Washington Times is a Hack Rag... ?

Nope Obamas first year belongs to him just as Bushs first year belongs to him. That is the way it works.

Perhaps you can stop trying to manipulate the numbers to try and make your point?

Hack.

 

[fskimospy]

So now the Washington Times is a Hack Rag... ?

Nope Obamas first year belongs to him just as Bushs first year belongs to him. That is the way it works.

Perhaps you can stop trying to manipulate the numbers to try and make your point?

Hack.

Wait what? Did you not realize the Washington Times is a hack rag?

Trying to include the first part of 2009 as part of Obama's economic legacy only makes sense if you're a partisan hack trying to find a way to ignore inconvenient facts. If that's you, have at it. You're only convincing the already converted though.

 

[Jhhnn]

So now the Washington Times is a Hack Rag... ?

It's always been the Rev Moon's rag-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

It's as credible as Louie Gohmert w/ less overt craziness.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[nickqt]

Wait what? Did you not realize the Washington Times is a hack rag?

Trying to include the first part of 2009 as part of Obama's economic legacy only makes sense if you're a partisan hack trying to find a way to ignore inconvenient facts. If that's you, have at it. You're only convincing the already converted though.

It's always been the Rev Moon's rag-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

It's as credible as Louie Gohmert w/ less overt craziness.

There is the New York Times, and then there's the New York Post. One is credible, the other is trash.

There is also the Washington Post and the Washington Times. One is credible, the other is trash.

 

[Indus]

Unless we have a major financial meltdown or they pick someone retarded like Sarah Palin, odds are it'll stay democrat because honestly a democrat can lose Florida, Ohio and maybe another state and still get 270+ so all the anti-poor/ minority voter laws in Texas, and wherever won't make a damn difference. Until the GOP starts carrying New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Masschussets, it's not time for democrats to worry.

 

[88keys]

As stated before: history shows that the party that holds the presidency after the second term typically loses it. I will also add that if dems, once again, run away from the accomplishments of Obama (like they did with clinton and again in 2012), the dems will lose again.

That's really true only on a superficial level and most losses by the incumbent party are explained by events that don't always pertain to Americans being sick of that party.

1952: Ended 5 consecutive terms between FDR and Truman. Something was bound to change.

1968: LBJ decided to not run again, and the "heir apparent" (RFK) was assassinated thus handing the presidency to Nixon.

1976: Watergate, Ford Pardon.

1992: Conservatives weren't too happy with Bush I so he lost votes to Ross perot and Republicans were losing popularity overall.

2000: Florida.

2008: Iraq War. Defecit, The Great Recession.

That being said, the republicans are almost single handedly destroying any chance they have of getting back in the White House. Only the dumbest and biggest of partisans can look at the Republican Party and say, "you know, they've got some good ideas, I could get behind them!". The Republican Party has zero ideas that haven't been proven to be failed policies and they have zero new ideas.

This.
This even creates another problem. Democrats think they're successful because they are the better party when in realty they owe their success to the failures of their adversaries.

The G.O.P. has been losing ground in presidential elections since 1992 and that trend is set to continue in 2016. The party is in a shambles because you have to somehow be crazy enough to win a primary but also be sane enough to win a general election.

The fact that conservatives think people like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Rand Paul have a shot at winning a general election is proof that they live in an another world.


In the end the GOP election will come down to Bush. Hard line conservatives may not like him, but he's the only one who is relatively sober and he has the money and family connections associated with his name and they will need that to try and defeat Hillary.


But even then it's gonna be really tough for them to sell a Bush over a Clinton as the general public doesn't have very fond memories of Bush. So in a sense; his name is his greatest asset while also being his greatest burden.

 

[nickqt]

That's really true only on a superficial level and most losses by the incumbent party are explained by events that don't always pertain to Americans being sick of that party.

1952: Ended 5 consecutive terms between FDR and Truman. Something was bound to change.

1968: LBJ decided to not run again, and the "heir apparent" (RFK) was assassinated thus handing the presidency to Nixon.

1976: Watergate, Ford Pardon.

1992: Conservatives weren't too happy with Bush I so he lost votes to Ross perot and Republicans were losing popularity overall.

2000: Florida.

2008: Iraq War. Defecit, The Great Recession.








This.
This even creates another problem. Democrats think they're successful because they are the better party when in realty they owe their success to the failures of their adversaries.

The G.O.P. has been losing ground in presidential elections since 1992 and that trend is set to continue in 2016. The party is in a shambles because you have to somehow be crazy enough to win a primary but also be sane enough to win a general election.

The fact that conservatives think people like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Rand Paul have a shot at winning a general election is proof that they live in an another world.


In the end the GOP election will come down to Bush. Hard line conservatives may not like him, but he's the only one who is relatively sober and he has the money and family connections associated with his name and they will need that to try and defeat Hillary.


But even then it's gonna be really tough for them to sell a Bush over a Clinton as the general public doesn't have very fond memories of Bush. So in a sense; his name is his greatest asset while also being his greatest burden.

The Democrats are the better party in that they aren't batshit insane. That about sums up their intrinsic value.

Unfortunately, the 27% dead-enders will keep the party afloat a lot longer than it should be. What needs to happen is for the dead-enders to create their own party, with the grifter portion of Republicans joining the Democratic party, and the actual liberal/progressives moving left. This would have already happened if we had a parliamentary system.

There's a reason that every country that we knock over ends up with a parliamentary system rather than a copy of our government.

 

[irishScott]

Too early, too much can happen until the election.

This. Remember Obama himself was a dark horse candidate in 2007. Potential new candidates aside, I'm sure Hillary has some skeletons in her closet that may or may not appear, ditto with whoever the Republicans choose.

Honestly I'm not looking forward to 2016, looks like it's going to be a national version of the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election. We had to choose between a Clinton campaign fundraiser and a Tea Party kook, and both were absolute douchebags. The only reason the election was close was because they were equally hated by both sides of the electorate.

 

[irishScott]

The Democrats are the better party in that they aren't batshit insane. That about sums up their intrinsic value.

Unfortunately, the 27% dead-enders will keep the party afloat a lot longer than it should be. What needs to happen is for the dead-enders to create their own party, with the grifter portion of Republicans joining the Democratic party, and the actual liberal/progressives moving left. This would have already happened if we had a parliamentary system.

There's a reason that every country that we knock over ends up with a parliamentary system rather than a copy of our government.

Meh, parliamentary systems have some advantages, but I still prefer ours for its greater populist influence. In a parliamentary system the executive is elected by and only accountable to the parliament, and general elections are called by the parliament, not scheduled. The government typically has a lot more power in a parliamentary system, which is why it might make more sense in a recently toppled dictatorship or dethroned monarchy. Not so much over here IMO.

Honestly if we just instituted term limits for everyone and didn't allow "career politicians" beyond a certain point we'd have a pretty sweet system IMO.

 

[nickqt]

Meh, parliamentary systems have some advantages, but I still prefer ours for its greater populist influence. In a parliamentary system the executive is elected by and only accountable to the parliament, and general elections are called by the parliament, not scheduled. The government typically has a lot more power in a parliamentary system, which is why it might make more sense in a recently toppled dictatorship or dethroned monarchy. Not so much over here IMO.

Honestly if we just instituted term limits for everyone and didn't allow "career politicians" beyond a certain point we'd have a pretty sweet system IMO.

There already are term limits, and yet voters consistently reject them, and vote the politician back in.

 

[kage69]

Honestly if we just instituted term limits for everyone and didn't allow "career politicians" beyond a certain point we'd have a pretty sweet system IMO.

Don't get me wrong, these career politicians are usually bad news in my book too, but honestly I think what you're advocating would be the 4th of July, New's Years and SuperBowl Sunday all rolled into one for the multitudes of lobbyists and their employers. Isn't that problem bad enough already?

If we want effective term limits we need to get corporate domination of political funding out of the game, that's what allows them to warp elections the way they do - the original term limit concept. When preach democracy this and representation that, but that means fuck all when you've got basically a handful of billionaires like Adelson and the Kochs acting as de facto kingmakers.

 

[kage69]

There already are term limits, and yet voters consistently reject them, and vote the politician back in.

Yup, as 2014 showed us all in grand fashion. How many incumbents were re-elected? Something like 96-97%? And after a lengthy period of scathing hatred directed towards these career politicians. Wahh waaaaaaaaah.....

I doubt the level of discourse within most parliamentary systems would allow the Sarah Palins and the Dubyas out there to make much headway. There's less to hide behind and more personal accountability - think W during the 2004 presidential debates, only happening far more regularly. Sounds like a positive thing to me.

 

[ivwshane]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need more politicians no less.
Specifically we need more house members. This country's citizens are grossly under represented and having more congressmen who represents less citizens is a good thing. It also makes it harder to buy off politicians since each representative will now have less power and be more closely held accountable by their, now smaller in size, constituents.

 

[irishScott]

Don't get me wrong, these career politicians are usually bad news in my book too, but honestly I think what you're advocating would be the 4th of July, New's Years and SuperBowl Sunday all rolled into one for the multitudes of lobbyists and their employers. Isn't that problem bad enough already?

If we want effective term limits we need to get corporate domination of political funding out of the game, that's what allows them warp elections the way they do - the original term limit concept. When preach democracy this and representation that, but that means fuck all when you've got basically a handful of billionaires like Adelson and the Kochs acting as de facto kingmakers.

How so? Career politicians are already bought, how do you think they get reelected for decades?

Rather than limit lobbyist/corporate funding I'd rather make it mandatory that any candidate for a publicly elected office make their financial doners public with the amounts they donated, and make anonymous donations illegal. Enforce stiff penalties for cooked books (up to and including losing office and holding a special election if discovered after taking office), and there you go. That way we force any bought politicians to at least be honest about who's buying them, and the lobbyists are brought out from behind the curtain.

 

[kage69]

How so? Career politicians are already bought, how do you think they get reelected for decades?

Life on The Hill is all about who you know, who owes who what, seniority, prestige, etc etc. Can you see how a freshman senator who everyone knows isn't going to be around very long is at a huge disadvantage when dealing with seasoned lobbyists who have been doing their thing for decades, and aren't about to let some wet behind the ears new comer get in the way of their benefactor's expectations?

Please do keep in mind that I didn't submit that career politicians are not generally already bought, I basically said your desire for term limits would probably exacerbate an already shitty aspect of our political culture. I'm not pretending to have all the answers, I was asking if you thought to consider that. I just don't see term limits having anywhere near the effect on the scene as dropping the hammer on private interests (many of them foreign mind you) using obscene amounts of cash to twist our laws, elections and economy to improve their bottom line.

Totally with ya on the anonymous donations btw :thumbsup:

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

One thing's for sure if, the next President is an Elephant, he's guaranteed to be a jackass.

 

[irishScott]

Life on The Hill is all about who you know, who owes who what, seniority, prestige, etc etc. Can you see how a freshman senator who everyone knows isn't going to be around very long is at a huge disadvantage when dealing with seasoned lobbyists who have been doing their thing for decades, and aren't about to let some wet behind the ears new comer get in the way of their benefactor's expectations?

Please do keep in mind that I didn't submit that career politicians are not generally already bought, I basically said your desire for term limits would probably exacerbate an already shitty aspect of our political culture. I'm not pretending to have the answer to this mind, I was asking if you thought to consider that. I just don't see term limits having anywhere near the effect on the scene as dropping the hammer on private interests (many of them foreign mind you) using obscene amounts of cash to twist our laws, elections and economy to improve their bottom line.

Totally with ya on the anonymous donations btw :thumbsup:

My point was I just don't see how term limits could make it any worse. A new batch of congresscritters being "wet behind the ears" doesn't necessarily translate into vulnerability. Besides, I'd take a somewhat vulnerable class of freshmen that might get taken advantage of over a complicit old guard who are too entrenched and selfish to care. Lobbyists only have as much power as we give them. Forcing them to deal with new people every few years substantially decreases that power.

 

[soundforbjt]

The new kids never do anything "special", unless you think shutting down the gov't is a good thing.

 

[irishScott]

The new kids never do anything "special", unless you think shutting down the gov't is a good thing.

Yeah, because all freshman congressmen are from the Tea Party. If we enacted term limits they'd ALL be from the Tea Party!!! Spooooooky noises!

 

[crashtech]

Yeah, any failure blamed on one party by partisans of the other can easily be explained away by the fact that each party is parasitically intertwined with the other, each fatally sabotaging the other's plans. Which is as it has to be. We've been at each other's throats politically since before this nation was founded, and that's not going to change any time soon. It's hard to fathom how anyone could be excited over any of the candidates for President, outside of the Kool-Aid drinkers who maintain the kind of contrived fervor usually seen in hardcore sports fans.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yeah, because all freshman congressmen are from the Tea Party. If we enacted term limits they'd ALL be from the Tea Party!!! Spooooooky noises!

They probably would be in the red states...