|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 22:00:26 GMT -5
Also, you keep banging on about Independents: 1. Obama is polling so badly with them right now. He's about 10% lower with them than when he got elected, if my memory serves me correctly. That's quite substantial. 2. Ok, Carter lost the independents. But why? That's the question you're missing, and the answer I'm providing. If Carter had a strong economy he wouldn't have lost. Sure, the hostage crisis only compounded his misery, but it wasn't the overarching reason why he lost. (Likewise, if Obama wins re-election, it won't be because of OBL, even though it's a positive on his resume). Doesn't matter what Obama is polling among Independents. What matter is what the other candidate polls against them. The other candidates can't win the independents, so what Obama is polling against them now, is a almost a mute point. Either way, his numbers against independents, are still substantially higher than what his opponents are polling. And that doesn't look like it's going to change much. Carter lost because of multiple factors. Sure if the economy had been a bit better, he would have won. But he also had a split base, which of course was caused by the bad economy. Obama doesn't have a split base, and he's still polling substantially better than his opponents among the all important Independent sector of the electorate. Plus Carter was also seen as a weak leader, while Reagan was seen as a much stronger leader. The economy was the main factor yes, but it was not the only determining factor. There are 2 things that Obama will be hit with during his re-election, the Libya situation and the economy. If he clears up the Libya situation enough that it won't be brought up, then he can get by, even with a bad economy. It's not just one factor that will bring him down, but also multiple factors. It's not as easy as saying bad economy, automatically equals no re-election.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 22:06:32 GMT -5
Go watch the first Republican debate from about 1.5 weeks ago, following OBL's killing. Obama got criticized still for foreign policy. Why? Because one event doesn't exclude him from so many mistakes that many people criticize him for.....(NB: Bush got Saddam, but was criticized for Iraq regardless. Pretty much a perfect analogy. One success doesn't mitigate all the previous wrong doings) Ok Mr. Stat Cruncher. Here's an idea...let's forget about the campaigns and we'll just appoint a new President if the unemployment rate is over 9%. Why even have an election or campaign when its a foregone conclusion? I mean you MUST be correct and there must be 0% chance that it doesn't happen this time for you to so boldly proclaim your own genius. If the wrong person runs against Obama, they are going down. We saw it in 2004 with Kerry. Bush should've been blown off the political landscape that year but Kerry was just about the only person alive who could've lost that election - with his face that didn't move and his inability to answer questions with actual thoughts. If Sarah Palin runs against Obama there is NO WAY she wins unless we fall into a really deep economic depression. She is too polarizing a figure to win outside of extreme circumstances. I've been through this concept so many times, it's getting tiring. Campaigns are like a prisoners dilemma: If one candidate campaigns, and the other one doesn't, the one who does will win (name recognition, et al). That's why campaigns still happen. You can't ban someone from campaigning, so as long as one candidate campaigns, the other one is forced to, as well. Also, campaigns matter in very close elections like Gore v Bush in 2000, where Gore's poor campaign lost it for him. But in any other circumstance, campaigns don't matter. As for Bush in 2004? He was still riding the 9/11 wave, ever so slightly though as it pretty much diminished by then. But the economy was stable at that time. Also, Bush/Kerry was almost as close as Bush/Gore, so if the campaigns did matter, as you suggest, it's because of the utter closeness as mentioned above. Put it this way: Clinton didn't win election because he ran a better campaign thant Bush Sr. That election wasn't close, and wasn't decided by the campaigns. This whole talk of Palin is moot cause she won't win the nomination. But even so, yes she would win the presidency. No one will vote for an incumbent who is presiding over unemployment as high as 9%+, especially considering it's 1.5% higher than when he took office 4 years prior! It just won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 16, 2011 22:39:44 GMT -5
Now all the sudden the economy tells all UNLESS the election is close? How convenient. Basic logic will take care of that. It only stands to reason that if things are really booming, there's a pretty good chance whoever's in office is going to stay there (Clinton). If things are REALLY shit then the dude is probably getting voted out UNLESS he runs against someone who's totally inept (Kerry).
If an Obama-esque candidate ran in 2004 he would've wiped the floor with Bush. The economy wasn't doing well, the war was a fuckin joke and everyone other than republicans hated Bush. Kerry did nothing to galvanize voters and he lost.
People are forced to campaign because the opponent does? What nonsense is this? Are you serious? Candidates are 'forced' to campaign so people will actually know who they are. You don't start a business and do NO marketing if you want to be successful. Jesus.
Your thought process is so strange. I've never seen anyone rely so heavily on statistics outside of sports and refuse to consider any other alternatives. You're quoting trends as if they are set in stone. If they were so concrete there would be no need for polls. People like you with your charts and stats would just predict the future and that'd be it.
You're beyond crazy to think that Palin would win without some EXTREME conditions. She is so polarizing, she would inspire thousands, if not millions, of voters to vote against her. Myself being one of them.
If I was running against her, my one and only campaign slogan would be "My Last Name is NOT Palin".
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on May 16, 2011 22:42:04 GMT -5
Now all the sudden the economy tells all UNLESS the election is close? How convenient. Basic logic will take care of that. It only stands to reason that if things are really booming, there's a pretty good chance whoever's in office is going to stay there (Clinton). If things are REALLY shit then the dude is probably getting voted out UNLESS he runs against someone who's totally inept (Kerry). If an Obama-esque candidate ran in 2004 he would've wiped the floor with Bush. The economy wasn't doing well, the war was a fuckin joke and everyone other than republicans hated Bush. Kerry did nothing to galvanize voters and he lost. People are forced to campaign because the opponent does? What nonsense is this? Are you serious? Candidates are 'forced' to campaign so people will actually know who they are. You don't start a business and do NO marketing if you want to be successful. Jesus. Your thought process is so strange. I've never seen anyone rely so heavily on statistics outside of sports and refuse to consider any other alternatives. You're quoting trends as if they are set in stone. If they were so concrete there would be no need for polls. People like you with your charts and stats would just predict the future and that'd be it. You're beyond crazy to think that Palin would win without some EXTREME conditions. She is so polarizing, she would inspire thousands, if not millions, of voters to vote against her. Myself being one of them. He didn't argue that tbf. He argued that an actual campaign doesn't mean anything, unless it's close. And I would mostly agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 23:12:19 GMT -5
Now all the sudden the economy tells all UNLESS the election is close? How convenient. Basic logic will take care of that. It only stands to reason that if things are really booming, there's a pretty good chance whoever's in office is going to stay there (Clinton). If things are REALLY shit then the dude is probably getting voted out UNLESS he runs against someone who's totally inept (Kerry). If an Obama-esque candidate ran in 2004 he would've wiped the floor with Bush. The economy wasn't doing well, the war was a fuckin joke and everyone other than republicans hated Bush. Kerry did nothing to galvanize voters and he lost. People are forced to campaign because the opponent does? What nonsense is this? Are you serious? Candidates are 'forced' to campaign so people will actually know who they are. You don't start a business and do NO marketing if you want to be successful. Jesus. Your thought process is so strange. I've never seen anyone rely so heavily on statistics outside of sports and refuse to consider any other alternatives. You're quoting trends as if they are set in stone. If they were so concrete there would be no need for polls. People like you with your charts and stats would just predict the future and that'd be it. You're beyond crazy to think that Palin would win without some EXTREME conditions. She is so polarizing, she would inspire thousands, if not millions, of voters to vote against her. Myself being one of them. If I was running against her, my one and only campaign slogan would be "My Last Name is NOT Palin". Spaneli supported me already, but I want to clear a few things up. 1. No, Obama would not have beaten Bush in 2004. Not at all. I don't maintain it was the campaign that lost it for Kerry, but was merely suggesting why you may have come to that conclusion. With unemployment low, and the rally effect from 9/11 - and mainly from Iraq still holding him up ever so slightly, he had the re-election pretty much secure. Note: If the OBL kill came in Aug-Oct 2012, Obama probably would have been able to ride that into the election. But it hasn't, so he won't. 2. The economy was fine in 2004. 3. The war was still popular-ish then. We only declared war on Iraq a year prior. Popularity declined with the growing years. 4. Yes, campaigns are prisoner dilemmas. For hypothetical sake, let's say that campaigns were illegal. Well, more often then not, the candidate who represents the better chance of a better economy would win. You campaign to offset your competitor, after all that's why your market yourself as well. If both candidates don't campaign, it will be decided by the economy. If one candidate campaigns, and the other doesn't then there's a distinct advantage line drawn because of marketing. 5. I did specifiy in previous posts, countless times, that campaigns don't matter BUT there are caveats to that, which I have listed. 6. I used to think like you, and in 2008 had, what I thought, were good reasons for why McCain would win. Obama had so much going wrong for him, mainly his inexperience vs. McCain's. But I took many classes after that which showed me why Obama won, and what really drives presidential elections. In fact, I was told/taught that political scientists should bet on elections knowing about how important the economy is because they would win so much money....go back through history and just look at the results. In most recent memory: Carter/Reagan, Bush/Clinton, McCain/Obama. Or just google: "Presidential Elections and Economy" 7. Again, let's just see who wins and how it corresponds to the unemployment number. We're only about 1.5 years away.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 16, 2011 23:16:52 GMT -5
If I was running against her, my one and only campaign slogan would be "My Last Name is NOT Palin". Silly. My campaign if I was running against Obama would be "9%" Think about what makes more sense. A hypothetical that Palin would be a bad president because she seems to act aloof in public, or a fact that millions of Americans have had to live with for the last 4 years. So EVEN IF campaigns matter, my slogan of a factual single digit number surely beats your empty rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 16, 2011 23:27:46 GMT -5
Ok, now THAT was a post I can handle. You stated your thoughts without insisting you were correct and I have a better idea where you're coming from since you explained yourself in point 6. Thank you for clearing some of those things up.
I still, however, think 2004 would've been different had a more charismatic democrat run against Bush. I don't run in a republican crowd. I try to stay neutral and I have a bunch of republicans in my family so i get both sides. There were A LOT of negative feelings towards Bush from a lot of people. I know you said before that the war was new-ish or going well or something, but outside of the GOP most people didn't agree with going to Iraq. A lot of young people especially disliked Bush and had a more charismatic person run against him, a la Obama - someone with energy and a positive message, i think things would've been different.
It's not really worth debating though since you can't rewrite history.
I also don't agree with your thoughts on Palin. Obviously the things you've been taught hold merit since they're being taught at the university level, but there are exceptions to every rule. I feel like we'd have to be in extreme dire straights for her to be elected. She's sooooo polarizing.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 16, 2011 23:33:00 GMT -5
If I was running against her, my one and only campaign slogan would be "My Last Name is NOT Palin". Silly. My campaign if I was running against Obama would be "9%" Think about what makes more sense. A hypothetical that Palin would be a bad president because she seems to act aloof in public, or a fact that millions of Americans have had to live with for the last 4 years. So EVEN IF campaigns matter, my slogan of a factual single digit number surely beats your empty rhetoric. I'm obviously exaggerating there. No one would run a campaign like that, but you just put a camera on her and she does herself no favors for anyone outside her established base. She has nothing going for her. She came out of nowhere in 07/08, ditched her job as Governor and got a reality tv show. I just don't think there's enough substance there to swing voters. What are your thoughts on her? You said you don't want her as President, but what do you think of her? You would vote for her, right?
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on May 17, 2011 0:22:57 GMT -5
Personally, I think any democrat nominee would have beat McCain in 2008. Seemed to me Bush/Cheney left a bad taste for Republcans in everyone's mouths.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 17, 2011 10:17:45 GMT -5
Personally, I think any democrat nominee would have beat McCain in 2008. Seemed to me Bush/Cheney left a bad taste for Republcans in everyone's mouths. i don't think edwards or richardson would have won. the funny thing is, mccain did it to himself when he went off the deep end and choosing palin as his running mate. l4e is right that the independents choose the election. when mccain picked palin, the independents all ran away. what i've seen since the '08 election is that the republicans are becoming more hyper-partisan by the day. that's because they think they've tapped into something that can help them win elections: the tea party. they were somewhat right last year, but that's because not many democrats and independents voted in the midterm elections. i don't think they'll be as lucky in '12.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 17, 2011 14:06:33 GMT -5
the funny thing is, mccain did it to himself when he went off the deep end and choosing palin as his running mate. l4e is right that the independents choose the election. when mccain picked palin, the independents all ran away. I think you'll find he argued the economy swung the election. He said when the economy started tanking people changed. I don't think he believes Palin had anything to do with it. I would agree with you. I think she had a huge impact, and i think if she ran in '12 people would flock to the booths to vote against her. She would be the worst thing for the GOP and the best thing for Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 17, 2011 15:20:22 GMT -5
the funny thing is, mccain did it to himself when he went off the deep end and choosing palin as his running mate. l4e is right that the independents choose the election. when mccain picked palin, the independents all ran away. I think you'll find he argued the economy swung the election. He said when the economy started tanking people changed. I don't think he believes Palin had anything to do with it. I would agree with you. I think she had a huge impact, and i think if she ran in '12 people would flock to the booths to vote against her. She would be the worst thing for the GOP and the best thing for Obama. I think McCain would have been slightly closer to Obama in 08 if it wasn't for Palin, because I know personally several people who switched to vote for Obama b/c of her. However, she did not win the election for Obama. And Obama's campaign also didn't win it for him......
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 17, 2011 15:30:03 GMT -5
Wrote this in 2009 as an assignment for one of my classes. Take it or leave it.
Steven E. Finkel, a professor at the University of Virginia, argues in Reexamining the “Minimal Effects” Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns that campaigns tend to be ineffective. Finkel organizes his research well by dividing up his beliefs into two categories – reinforcement and activation – followed by depicting statistical evidence which culminated in a final conclusion. Throughout the essay he is clear and concise, and he always supports his argument that “campaigns have the potential to exert larger effects, but that in elections they have done so only a limited extent” with copious amounts of evidence (Finkel, 3). Furthermore, his findings of campaigns being ineffective do appear to be true even in the 2008 election, which gives his argument even more validity.
Finkel argues that in the 1940s campaigns tended to “preserve prior decisions instead of initiating new ones” (Finkel, 3). Finkel called this concept “Reinforcement.” However, due to the growing number of independent and uncommitted voters, Finkel rightly asserts that “More recent presidential election research has cast doubt on whether reinforcement continues to be the typical effect of presidential campaigns” (Finkel, 3). Due to reinforcement no longer being the element that counters the effects of campaigns, Finkel turned his attention on a concept called ‘Activation.’
Activation is the belief that “a large proportion of initially uncommitted individuals cast votes that were consistent with their underlying political disposition based on social class, religion, and place of residence” (Finkel, 4). Moreover, precampaign indicators such as the economy and the incumbent’s popularity are more important than the campaigns themselves (Finkel, 5). This concept appears to be true with respect to the 2008 election between John McCain and Barrack Obama. With George Bush’s approval ratings below 30% at the time of the election, and with the economy spiraling out of control only a few months before November 4th, Obama was destined to win regardless of how good his campaigning was or, on the contrary, how poorly his opponent campaigned. Of course this belief is not supported by scientific data, but a strong case can be made that if Bush had an approval rating of 50% or better, and the economy was in stable condition, then the Republicans would have kept control of the White House. Thus, Finkel’s findings make sense; voters make their decision based on the current situation, and tend not to be swayed by campaign rhetoric.
Crucially, Finkel provides deeper analysis on his findings, which prevents misconceptions from developing. Even though he states that campaigns do not really matter, he does concede that “changes in political attitudes did take place during the campaign, but the magnitude of the changes was not large enough to alter many individuals’ vote predictions” (Finkel, 17). Finkel also makes the distinction that this pattern of ineffective campaigns is only being applied to the presidency and cannot be applied to congressional elections. This was an important observation to make so the reader does not believe that campaigns are useless in all electoral processes.
Overall, Finkel has provided a thoughtful research paper on the decreasing effects of campaigns. The possible implications of these findings could be immense if it becomes the prevailing opinion, thus potentially changing the way elections are contested in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on May 17, 2011 16:58:40 GMT -5
That doesn't prove anything for a couple reasons. It's theoretical and you wrote it.
I say we agree to disagree. You think you can predict the outcome of elections solely based on ONE factor with nearly no chance of being incorrect, where I believe many factors come into play and I entertain the possibility that I am incorrect in all my assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 18, 2011 21:21:51 GMT -5
That doesn't prove anything for a couple reasons. It's theoretical and you wrote it. I say we agree to disagree. You think you can predict the outcome of elections solely based on ONE factor with nearly no chance of being incorrect, where I believe many factors come into play and I entertain the possibility that I am incorrect in all my assumptions. hooray for levelheadedness! +k
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 7, 2011 8:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jun 8, 2011 20:38:40 GMT -5
I think it's pretty much official now - his OBL bounce has ended. I did say it would take about a month, which is the mark we're at right now. Again, no way he gets re-elected based on OBL.No one ever said that. You can stop trying to prove you're smart or a political prophet, or whatever it is you're doing any time now. No one takes you even remotely seriously because of your previous comments. Each post you make like the one above just digs the hole deeper. Keep on digging.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 8, 2011 20:46:39 GMT -5
I will dig until my soul has been dug out.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 8, 2011 20:52:32 GMT -5
Also, Rifles, go through the thread - both Cast and Shalalala said this would be huge for Obama. It clearly isn't, and it clearly won't be. I also said his bounce would last for about 4-6 weeks. We're at the 4+ week mark now. A political prophet I may not be, but to chalk my time frame up to mere coincidence? Out of the amounts of days, weeks, months possible I just so happened to hit it on the head? FFS grow up. I had some factual knowledge in that, stop being ignorant and give credit where credit's due. When Obama fails to win re-election because unemployment is still very high and no fantastic improving trend in sight, you'll still label me lucky. Whatever. If anything, I have gained credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jun 8, 2011 21:25:14 GMT -5
Again you demonstrate the obvious fact that you don't even read and comprehend what most people say to you. You have an agenda every time you post with politics in mind. I never said you were lucky. I simply said "stop trying to prove...". After talking to you in this thread, I know you're coming from an educated position, but as I've stated before numerous times, it's the manner in which you post that I have an issue with.
My whole stance on all this OBL stuff was that it would have SOME impact on Obama's campaign. Your stance was that it would have absolutely no impact whatsoever. I stated my opinion, we had a discussion and we agreed to disagree as no one was getting anywhere, but unfortunately you can't let these things go. You come waltzing into the thread every so often posting links to articles of people who agree with you etc as if the discussion is still ongoing. Everyone else moved on but you have this insatiable need to prove that you are right even if no one's listening.
You were correct that the OBL situation was a temporary positive for Obama. You were right about that, BUT, I don't remember anyone arguing against that. It's foolish to think he would ride that wave for nearly 18 months. NOTHING lasts that long, especially nowadays.
If I have a discussion with someone and it turns out my point of view was correct, I don't rub it in their face later. You, on the other hand, are STILL trying to prove you were correct on points that weren't even really debated just so you can feel better about yourself. I bet you could read back through this entire thread 17 times and you still wouldn't understand the issue everyone had with you and your point of view.
It's the pompous "I am right, you are wrong" attitude you have, which you only enhance every time you come back with your nose up and make another "look at this, i was right" post.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 8, 2011 21:31:48 GMT -5
The "K+" response to Rifles is imminent.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jun 8, 2011 22:51:24 GMT -5
Also, Rifles, go through the thread - both Cast and Shalalala said this would be huge for Obama. It clearly isn't, and it clearly won't be. I also said his bounce would last for about 4-6 weeks. We're at the 4+ week mark now. A political prophet I may not be, but to chalk my time frame up to mere coincidence? Out of the amounts of days, weeks, months possible I just so happened to hit it on the head? FFS grow up. I had some factual knowledge in that, stop being ignorant and give credit where credit's due. I still don't believe that the elections will be decided solely on the basis of economy. That strikes me as myopic Also, the campaigning hasn't started. Obama would be stupid to be banging on about now. He'll start reminding people of it later when it suits his purpose. There is a lot of time left in his term. If people get sick of hearing about how he took down Bin Laden before the campaign then it's not gonna be any good to him come election time. It's still a feather in his cap. You're a fool to deny it. Nobody thought that this was gonna carry his approval ratings until election day.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jun 8, 2011 23:59:03 GMT -5
The "K+" response to Rifles is imminent. if that is seriously your response, then he's right. debate between dissenting opinions is healthy. however, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. if you work to alleviate that, then you'll see a sharp change in the tone of responses you usually get on this subsection of the forum. you can have the last word, because i'm just about done on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 9, 2011 6:53:04 GMT -5
For the record, Obama is already on the campaign trail......
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 9, 2011 8:08:12 GMT -5
Let's put it this way: If Obama was presiding over a steadily improving economy, with unemployment consistently dropping every month, it would be indicative in his approval numbers and would be able to ride it out to the election. He was unable to ride out the OBL story because it's just not that important and left people's minds once it exited the news cycle.
Why do you think his numbers came crashing down? Why do you think he couldn't build momentum from the OBL bounce (N.B. building momentum is different than riding out one policy decision)? It's because of this terrible economy. Simple as.
Yes, 18 months is a long time. I'm not saying he won't be re-elected. All I'm saying is that if the economy doesn't improve drastically between now and Nov 2012 his chance for victory is marginal at best.
Also, let me point out that no president (since FDR) has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%. Now, there should be an addendum to that statistic, and that being the trend having more importance. If unemployment is at 7.5%, Obama will win because that trend from a peak of 10% is pretty good and 7.5% is the number he entered office with (akin to Ronald Reagan's re-election). His re-election prospects really do depend on the unemployment number and economy in general.
|
|