Obama reelection 2012

[Wonderboy]

The youth voters, the independent voters, the blue collar voters -- that's where Obama seems at greatest risk of losing ground vis-a-vis 2008. And a lot of that is going to come down to how people feel about jobs and the economy come Election Day 2012.

And he is wisely positioning himself for the youth and independent voters with his current strategy. I think he can show that he tried over and over to work with the GOP but they are the ones obstructing progress. (And in fact, polls show people already believe this, in the whole.) He can pull a Harry Truman and run against Congress and their 9% approval rating.

As to liberals, we piss and moan a lot, but considering the alternative, we'll still turn out for Obama. Hopefully we learned our lesson in 2000 with Nader.

[nots]

And he is wisely positioning himself for the youth and independent voters with his current strategy. I think he can show that he tried over and over to work with the GOP but they are the ones obstructing progress. (And in fact, polls show people already believe this, in the whole.) He can pull a Harry Truman and run against Congress and their 9% approval rating.

As to liberals, we piss and moan a lot, but considering the alternative, we'll still turn out for Obama. Hopefully we learned our lesson in 2000 with Nader.

Not entirely sure about those approval numbers--at least not in the key 19 'toss up' states. Politico, in conjunction with GW, reported that Pres Obama has an approval rating of 40% in those key toss up states. Perhaps you are correct that those numbers reflect an improvement, but they are not currently very stout (obvious caveat that the election is a long ways off).

[Wonderboy]

Not entirely sure about those approval numbers--at least not in the key 19 'toss up' states. Politico, in conjunction with GW, reported that Pres Obama has an approval rating of 40% in those key toss up states. Perhaps you are correct that those numbers reflect an improvement, but they are not currently very stout (obvious caveat that the election is a long ways off).

Agree on all counts. A lot is going to depend on his opponent, and on the economy showing signs of even meager improvement.

[onejayhawk]

And he is wisely positioning himself for the youth and independent voters with his current strategy. I think he can show that he tried over and over to work with the GOP but they are the ones obstructing progress. (And in fact, polls show people already believe this, in the whole.) He can pull a Harry Truman and run against Congress and their 9% approval rating.

As to liberals, we piss and moan a lot, but considering the alternative, we'll still turn out for Obama. Hopefully we learned our lesson in 2000 with Nader.

And conservatives will piss and moan and turnout to vote for Romney. Also, remember that Obama starts at -12 due to the census, as much as Washington state. It is equivalent to giving the Republicans another Utah AND another Kansas, or flipping DC and Delaware solid red.

Agree on all counts. A lot is going to depend on his opponent, and on the economy showing signs of even meager improvement.

We already have meager; that will not cut the mustard. And it needs to be in the first half, or it will be too late.

And he is wisely positioning himself for the youth and independent voters with his current strategy. I think he can show that he tried over and over to work with the GOP but they are the ones obstructing progress. (And in fact, polls show people already believe this, in the whole.) He can pull a Harry Truman and run against Congress and their 9% approval rating.

As to liberals, we piss and moan a lot, but considering the alternative, we'll still turn out for Obama. Hopefully we learned our lesson in 2000 with Nader.

I know this is common wisdom, but I would hope for a more informed opinions. 1948 was a truly outstanding year economically, and that is what carried Truman. His numbers were in the toilet because 1946 was dismal economically. That changed and so did public opinion.

J

[Moonlight J]

I know this is common wisdom, but I would hope for a more informed opinions. 1948 was a truly outstanding year economically, and that is what carried Truman. His numbers were in the toilet because 1946 was dismal economically. That changed and so did public opinion.

J

and what drove 1948? The Marshall Plan and...

The first postwar era (1948-1968) also was driven by deficit financing during World War II and the creation of consumer credit systems; it was then disciplined by somewhat tighter economic policies in the 1950s. The basic principle remained encouraging consumption. This led to the use of the existing industrial plant, thus putting people to work in it and in building new businesses.

Read more: The U.S. Economy and the Next 'Big One' | STRATFOR

[Moonlight J]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/14/us-usa-fed-recession-idUSTRE7AD1PR20111114

mixed results....Wall St is a bit more upbeat than others on odds of a 2012 recession.

[onejayhawk]

and what drove 1948? The Marshall Plan and...

Now that is funny. Not no, hell no.

The Marshall plan was a drop in a barrel. It was Boeing making planes for Pan Am, and Hughes starting TWA. It was Mopar converting from military trucks to civilian trucks. It was releasing Dow Chemical to make nylon for the civilian markets. All of this driven by over 5 years of pent up consumer demand. Tens of thousands of new businesses, many of hem started by former military personal, from accumulated pay and savings bonds. 1946 sucked, while things sorted themselves out. By 1948 things were rolling.

Look back a page, I have a long post covering some of you misconceptions of the depression.

J

[Moonlight J]

Now that is funny. Not no, hell no.

The Marshall plan was a drop in a barrel. It was Mopar converting from military trucks to civilian trucks. It was releasing Dow Chemical to make nylon for the civilian markets. All of this driven by over 5 years of pent up consumer demand. Tens of thousands of new businesses, many of hem started by former military personal, from accumulated pay and savings bonds. 1946 sucked, while things sorted themselves out. By 1948 things were rolling.

Look back a page, I have a long post covering some of you misconceptions of the depression.

J

You cut off half of my response. The Marshall Plan $$ were 5% of the 1948 GDP in addition to the other 5% already going to Europe between the end of the war and the enacting of the MP. The dollars were used to purchase recovery goods from the US:

3.4b on raw materials
3.2b on food, feed, & fertilizer
1.9b on machines, vehicles, & equipment
1.6b on fuel

The again, how were things rolling in 1948 when the GDP contracted by 2.6%. In 1950, the GDP expanded by 8.7% so maybe you're off by 2 years?

Democrats have occupied the White House in 26 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth in the country over those 26 years has been 4.01%.

Republicans have occupied the White House in 36 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth over those 36 years has been 2.75%.

The worst year for the US economy since 1948 came last year (2009), when the GDP contracted by 2.6%.

Here are the worst five years for the economy since 1948:

2009, -2.6%, Barack Obama
1982, -1.9%, Ronald Reagan
1958, -0.9%, Dwight Eisenhower
1974, -0.6%, Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford
1954, -0.6%, Dwight Eisenhower

The best year for the US economy since 1948 came in 1950, when the economy managed to expand by 8.7%.

Here are the top five years since 1948:

1950, 8.7%, Harry Truman
1951, 7.7%, Harry Truman
1955, 7.2%, Dwight Eisenhower
1959, 7.2%, Dwight Eisenhower
1984, 7.2%, Ronald Reagan

[The Feral Slasher]

Honestly, I don't ever remember saying that. I was in favor of the stimulus and for going in big. But it was clearly not a one-time, one-year project and I never said it was. But let's put it this way. The ship was sinking and I was in favor of using 10 pumps to keep it afloat. I really thought 10 pumps would do it. But the ship was in worse shape than I thought, so now I'm in favor of using 5 more pumps. And your criticism is that somehow using no pumps was better? Or do you just want me to say I was wrong about the 10 pumps being enough? Because even if that is true, that doesn't mean 5 more pumps aren't needed.



There has been a ton of criticism from me and other liberals of Obama on this forum. And Obama doesn't pass anything. That's the job of Congress. Obama did what he could do at the time and more wasn't possible under the political circumstances. Again, I'm having trouble with you guys criticizing the stimulus for being too big, and then trying to criticize me for saying it was too small.



Yeah, well, that's one way to avoid criticism!

Looking at Obama's prediction for the first stimulus and his administration heralding the economic recovery last year, I think some skepticism is warranted. Nots asks some valid questions that no one seems willing or able to answer. In light of what is happening in Europe, I don't think we can ignore the concerns of piling up large amounts of debt. So before we spend hundreds of billions more we ought to see some good analysis about what we will really be getting out of it, and compare it to some other options.

We appear to be 3 years down the path of Japanese stagnation. If deficit spending is supposed to be so helpful, why is our economy not better after 10 or more years of consistent deficit spending ? What is really wrong ? That is what bothers me is that no one seems to have an answer so they just propose we keep spending and hope that things get better.

[onejayhawk]

You make a valid point. The 1948 economy was driven in large part by wartime capacity, which was deficit financed. But there is a major difference between investing money, manpower and materials in capital improvement, ie in capacity, and investing them consumables. Spending on consumables is much more the current mindset. Otherwise, we would be helping companies build production plants. Liberals call that "Corporate Welfare", and dont like it.

You also make a strong case that we elect Republicans when the Democrats have run things into the ground.

J

[Moonlight J]

You also make a strong case that we elect Republicans when the Democrats have run things into the ground.

J

because 4 of the 5 biggest GDP contractions have come under Republicans???

[GwynnInTheHall]

You make a valid point. The 1948 economy was driven in large part by wartime capacity, which was deficit financed. But there is a major difference between investing money, manpower and materials in capital improvement, ie in capacity, and investing them consumables. Spending on consumables is much more the current mindset. Otherwise, we would be helping companies build production plants. Liberals call that "Corporate Welfare", and dont like it.

You also make a strong case that we elect Republicans when the Democrats have run things into the ground.

J

That would be the case in Clinton preceeding GW right?

[onejayhawk]

because 4 of the 5 biggest GDP contractions have come under Republicans???

Early term recessions for Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon following Carter, Truman and Johnson. I notice you did not give Republicns credit for 3 of thee 5 best, with the other 2 being part of the post war boom.

However, I was being ironic to a degree, since it does not matter who sits in teh White House for the most part. The economy is bigger than we can control. What it really shows is that we change parties when the economy is bad, and not when its good.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

Looking at Obama's prediction for the first stimulus and his administration heralding the economic recovery last year, I think some skepticism is warranted. Nots asks some valid questions that no one seems willing or able to answer. In light of what is happening in Europe, I don't think we can ignore the concerns of piling up large amounts of debt. So before we spend hundreds of billions more we ought to see some good analysis about what we will really be getting out of it, and compare it to some other options.

We appear to be 3 years down the path of Japanese stagnation. If deficit spending is supposed to be so helpful, why is our economy not better after 10 or more years of consistent deficit spending ? What is really wrong ? That is what bothers me is that no one seems to have an answer so they just propose we keep spending and hope that things get better.

There may be another side to the story, but stuff like this does make you wonder how much of the stimulus is really about creating jobs and how much is for some other purpose:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...een-graft.html

In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party

[chancellor]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...een-graft.html

In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party

Who the heck hacked into Newsweek's system and actually performed real journalism?