Obama reelection 2012

[Mithrandir]

There's evidence that voters do look ahead. http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4625-do-v...he-future.aspx

The very act of punishing or rewarding an incumbent IS LOOKING AHEAD to what they can't or can do after the election. Anyone who doesn't think so grossly underestimates voters.

So you're right again bud.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

The re-election rates of the US House and Senate seem to suggest that people do not look ahead, they OVERWHELMINGLY vote the same person back into the seat. If that's called looking ahead, then i strongly disagree.

So I would answer the author in your link, "No they don't".

[onejayhawk]

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

The re-election rates of the US House and Senate seem to suggest that people do not look ahead, they OVERWHELMINGLY vote the same person back into the seat. If that's called looking ahead, then i strongly disagree.

So I would answer the author in your link, "No they don't".

Electorates are leery of change; of this there is no doubt. It is ironic, since it is what most politicians, bot just BHO, promise change, but rarely deliver.

J

[JudeBaldo]

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

The re-election rates of the US House and Senate seem to suggest that people do not look ahead, they OVERWHELMINGLY vote the same person back into the seat. If that's called looking ahead, then i strongly disagree.

So I would answer the author in your link, "No they don't".

Your response tells me that I don't think you understand local politics and districting.

Evidence suggests that while in the aggregate, Congress is strongly disliked, constituencies love their individual legislature. This further leads credence to the argument that they do look to the future. The reason is because voters in districts that are happy with their representative want that to continue into the future. Furthermore, when examining changing demographics within a district, a congressional seat that's been held by one legislature for a long time, may flip because a new majority would want someone else piloting the different trajectory of their future interests.

Finally, just take a look the Internet protests concerning SOPA and PIPA. Just go on Reddit and examine any number of threads on the subject as to why people were making such a big deal about it. People were worried that because of the broad nature of SOPA and PIPA, things like fair use might be in danger. Hence they were looking to the future in deciding to voice their concerns about the two pieces of legislation.

[Mithrandir]

Your response tells me that I don't think you understand local politics and districting.

Evidence suggests that while in the aggregate, Congress is strongly disliked, constituencies love their individual legislature. This further leads credence to the argument that they do look to the future. The reason is because voters in districts that are happy with their representative want that to continue into the future. Furthermore, when examining changing demographics within a district, a congressional seat that's been held by one legislature for a long time, may flip because a new majority would want someone else piloting the different trajectory of their future interests.

Finally, just take a look the Internet protests concerning SOPA and PIPA. Just go on Reddit and examine any number of threads on the subject as to why people were making such a big deal about it. People were worried that because of the broad nature of SOPA and PIPA, things like fair use might be in danger. Hence they were looking to the future in deciding to voice their concerns about the two pieces of legislation.

If you want to be realistic, then one could say pretty much everything one does is geared towards looking to the future, what else is there to look towards? So of course on some level voters are always looking ahead because that's the way the brain functions. We don't need a book to tell us that. Ii'm sure some percentage of voters do put some thought into who they vote for, the majority just go in and pull a lever for the Democrat or GOP.

[JudeBaldo]

If you want to be realistic, then one could say pretty much everything one does is geared towards looking to the future, what else is there to look towards? So of course on some level voters are always looking ahead because that's the way the brain functions. We don't need a book to tell us that. Ii'm sure some percentage of voters do put some thought into who they vote for, the majority just go in and pull a lever for the Democrat or GOP.

Worst.Librarian.Ever. :-P

[Moonlight J]

Interesting read on topics surely to come up in the Presidential debates http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/01...8Angry+Bear%29

[Erik]

Finally, just take a look the Internet protests concerning SOPA and PIPA. Just go on Reddit and examine any number of threads on the subject as to why people were making such a big deal about it. People were worried that because of the broad nature of SOPA and PIPA, things like fair use might be in danger. Hence they were looking to the future in deciding to voice their concerns about the two pieces of legislation.

That has nothing to do with voting-booth behavior. It might in the future in specific races if they feature a supporter vs. an opponent, but we don't know that yet.

[Judge Jude]

Interesting mixed thoughts from liberal, Wall St skeptic investigative journalist Matt Taibbi on Obama's recent high-finance moves:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/is-obamas-economic-populism-for-real-20120126

[OaklandA's]

Interesting mixed thoughts from liberal, Wall St skeptic investigative journalist Matt Taibbi on Obama's recent high-finance moves:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-real-20120126

The best point that Taibbi makes is that the bigger crime to investigate is the pooling and creation of the mortgage-backed securities, rather than the foreclosures.

[Judge Jude]

I think that's right.

And left, come to think of it.

[jackzayum]

This is some kind of tough decision man, but I would be grateful to made up the right decision for this upcoming election.

[onejayhawk]

The best point that Taibbi makes is that the bigger crime to investigate is the pooling and creation of the mortgage-backed securities, rather than the foreclosures.

This is definitely true. Any time you have an OPM (other people's money) situation, regulatory interest should be close at hand.

J

[revo]

obviously the general election is a ways off, but the polls I've seen have Obama clobbering any republican candidate remaining. He's up by 6 or 7 points on Romney and as much as 17 vs. Newt. Too bad "generic Republican candidate" isn't running, because that appears to be the GOP's only hope.

Shouldn't the GOP start to pressure the others to give way so that the American people can get behind one? Because if this thing drags out until June, it would appear to take an upset of epic proportions for the GOP to win the WH.

[DMT]

The best point that Taibbi makes is that the bigger crime to investigate is the pooling and creation of the mortgage-backed securities, rather than the foreclosures.

Or this:

The question is, how real of an investigation will we get? The fact that Schneiderman’s co-chairs are Lanny Breuer and Robert Khuzami make me extremely skeptical. I’m actually not sure that both men, in an ideal world, wouldn’t be targets of their own committee’s investigation.

[DMT]

Shouldn't the GOP start to pressure the others to give way so that the American people can get behind one? Because if this thing drags out until June, it would appear to take an upset of epic proportions for the GOP to win the WH.

Newt and Mitt both suck, it doesn't matter what the GOP does.