Obama out?

But I would like to have seen Condis performance. Impressive and serious by most accounts.
Click to expand...

The foreign policy bit of her speech was as open a statement of the US imperialist position as I've seen, while the part on domestic issues sounded pure Democrat.
 
Romney is unbelievable. Talk about gaffs. Obama only has to sit tight now and he's lucky frankly.

Thats been the story of most recent elections. The loser has been very underwhelming. Perhaps you have to go back to Bush snr to think of a losing candidiate with some credibility

Some will say Gore but I thought in incredible he couldnt win from such a strong position

Superb doc on clintons at bbc at the moment. What a politician he was... had his faults but a complete natural and very very sharp. And for all the recent electioneering, its still a given that he cant stand aloof Obama (not his type when you think about it...).

As for Obama, i would just like him to once tell the muslim protestors to go fck themselves. Whatever the film contains, its free speech you backward cnts. And as for that Pakistani minister, theres a drone with your name on it...
 
Last edited:
worth remembering what much of the left stands for in this week of Salman Rushdie

Not Obama im sure and many others , but the Hattersleys and Far left morons of this world..

Opposed to capital punishment of murderers and terrorists ( as i am too) but refuse to condemn death sentences on novelists and filmmakers

Chris hitchens where are you ? RIP
 
I agree with your general point about the need to defend free speech, but pretending that only lefties took a soft line on the Rushdie fatwa is completely false, as the extract quoted below clearly demonstrates.

And, arguably, Rushdie himself wasn't much help himself when he unconvincingly declared he had converted to Islam. Mind you it's hard to blame him given what he was facing.

Appease zealots at your peril

Author: David Selbourne
Publication: Times
Date: September 11, 2005
URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1774037,00.html
Click to expand...
In March 1989 the former US president Jimmy Carter used Islam's own vocabulary in saying that The Satanic Verses was not only "an arrow pointed at Muslims" but at religion in general. Billy Graham, the American evangelist, also declared against Rushdie's novel. Billy Graham, the American evangelist, also declared against Rushdie's novel. The historian Lord Dacre said he "would not shed a tear" if British Muslims were to "waylay Rushdie in a dark street". Similarly, in September 1990 the former cabinet minister Lord Tebbit described Rushdie's "public life" as "a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality". He had used the right of free speech to "insult, demean and degrade" and was, in short, "a villain". The education secretary at the time, Kenneth Baker, was more moderate. "Those who wish to make their homes in Britain," he declared, "cannot deny to others the very freedoms which drew them to this country in the first place." It was the same kind of position as was to be adopted by Tony Blair after the London bombings. Yet the Conservative government of the day betrayed Rushdie by condemning his book - an action demanded by Iran as the price of restoring diplomatic relations - but failed to get the fatwa rescinded; one of the many victories that militant Islam has secured against a divided West.
More unedifying was the playing upon Muslim feelings and interests by some Labour MPs who had large minorities of Muslim constituents. In the Leicester East constituency, Keith Vaz, a Catholic of Indian origin, led 3,000 Muslim demonstrators in an anti-Rushdie protest in March 1989. Vaz not only declared that "today we celebrate one of the great days in the history of Islam and Great Britain", but attacked his own party, on his Muslim constituents' behalf, as "a godless party".
Roy Hattersley, deputy leader of the Labour party, with 35,000 Muslim voters to concentrate his mind in his Birmingham constituency, announced his "vehement opposition" to the banning of books, but at the same time called for the paperback edition of Rushdie's novel not to be published, and was accused of "trying to have it both ways".
Click to expand...
 
Yes. Was in rant mode this morning, but it was more so on the left perhaps. Tebbits remarks were disgusting. But many with leftish liberal views did see the affair as a turning point (Chris Hitchens for one) whereby it became abundantly clear that many of their supposed fellow travellers were suddenly exposed for being more about what they hate rather than what they stand for (if anything)

Rushdie has never come across as at all likeable but that was always besides the point.
 
Anyone see the debates?

I didn't, but a couple of brief looks at analysis suggest Romney did pretty-good without landing any real punches (maybe a points-winner?).

Has he had any kind of bounce in polling? (Tracks, I'm looking at you, here).
 
Last edited:
I didnt but it would seem that thats the consensus. Obama was apparently a bit flat and uninspired. which some would say is exactly what he is
 
I've got a friend who's been running for the local tory party where I am for 20+ years.

We were chatting the other vday about who would win, and I thought it could be closer than he thought (he thought Obama was nailed on).

So much so he sent me to the local bookies with a monkey to place on Obama at 1/6. I thought he was fecking mad myself, and in hindsight I should have layed him the bet of 500 pounds to pay out ninety.

I think its tokenistic and sentimental thing with him though.
 
I watched the debate last night. I thought it was pretty informative.

As I saw it, Obama's main attack on Romney was his refusal to outline his policies in anything other than vague, broad-stroke measures. The problem is that that criticism isn't necessarily conducive to televised debates (where any discussion of policy specifics or hard data is dismissed as esoteric). It also gives Romney the opportunity to pivot back to the centre, which he did very effectively I thought (including on his healthcare proposal, which wasn't the millstone some feared).

In terms of polling, the CNN instant poll gave Romney a 38 point win - the biggest debate win since Clinton mopped the floor with George HW Bush (slightly bigger than Obama's victory over McCain in 2008). In translating debate ''instant-polls'' to actual polls (i.e. how much of a bounce the winner gets), there is a positive correlation since the beginning of 1970, but it isn't statistically significant (isn't all that far off significance, mind), so history suggests any "bounce" should be treated with caution.

In this election, though, I would say this debate was crucial. I think there was a sense over the last month that things were slipping away from Romney; if he had had a particularly bad debate, it could have turned into a knock-out blow. Instead, it will have reinvigorated his campaign and, just as importantly, his big-hitting donors.

I've thought for a while now that if Romney wins, he will do it relatively comfortably; that is, the dynamics of the race will shift against Obama. If it comes down to a close race decided by the electoral map, it is hard to see him winning. Romney has two major demographic problems: women and rural Midwesterners. In terms of the outcome, the latter are arguably more significant. Ohio, more so than ever perhaps, is the most important state on the map. With Michigan and Pennsylvania largely written off, if Romney loses Ohio he is reliant on a hugely unlikely sweep of Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and Iowa - basically all of the other swing states.

Republicans typically win Ohio (which typically leans Republican by about 1.8% but is leaning Democratic by about 1% this time) by running up huge tallies in rural counties in the Southern part of the state, offsetting the Democratic vote in urban areas (Cleveland especially). The problem for Romney is that these voters are more comparable to traditional Southerners (many of them live on or near the Kentucky border) than anything else, and Romney hasn't been able to connect with them in a way that someone like a George Bush was. That problem is accentuated by the fact that he opposed Obama's bail-out for the auto industry, which saved a fair few jobs in Ohio, and accounts for polls in the state suggesting Romney faces a major up-hill battle to win it.

Will be an interesting month anyway.

Edit: amidst all the other stuff about winning and losing the debate, I thought we saw the most important indication yet as to what kind of president Romney would actually be in terms of his decision-making process. It is worth watching from about 1.06 to 1.09 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkrwUU_YApE&feature=g-logo-xit

Wouldn't take a genius to figure out he was involved in management consultancy!
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Has he had any kind of bounce in polling? (Tracks, I'm looking at you, here).
Click to expand...

To answer this directly, we won't know until Tuesday or Wednesday. People are doing far more important things (drinking and watching American football) than worrying about politics at the weekend.

Two other points: when those polls do come out, worth looking at Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio and whether Romney can close the gap in these states. Going back to the point about gender, Romney's problem is that he is beating Obama amongst men by less than he is losing to him with women. It's worst of all in these three states, though, where the two are even amongst men (see: midwestern rural voters). Given that there is no sign of him appealing to women, he needs to be able to shake off the image of the rich billionaire out of touch with real life that is particularly effective in the Midwest.

More immediately, the September jobs report is out in half an hour or so. Better than expected = Obama blunts below-par debate performance. Worse than expected = Romney gains important further momentum.
 
It seems that the jobs news is relatively good, according to Reuters:


US Jobless Rate Near Four-Year Low

The US unemployment rate dropped to a near four-year low of 7.8 per cent in September, a potential boost to president Barack Obama's re-election bid.
The Labor Department said today the unemployment rate, a key focus in the race for the White House, dropped by 0.3 percentage point to its lowest point since January 2009.
A survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived showed 873,000 job gains last month, the most since June 1983. The drop in unemployment came even as Americans come back into the labour force to resume the hunt for work. The workforce had shrank in the prior two months.
The household survey is volatile. A survey of business establishments showed employers added 114,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, a touch above economists' expectations for 113,000 jobs. Employment for July and August was revised to show 86,000 more jobs created than previous reported.
It was the second last report before the November 6th election that pits Mr Obama against Republican Mitt Romney.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released yesterday after Wednesday's first presidential debate showed Mr Romney gained ground and is now viewed positively by 51 per cent of voters. Mr Obama's favourability rating remained unchanged at 56 per cent.
Economists blame the so-called fiscal cliff for the slowdown in business hiring, which has left millions of Americans working either part-time or unemployed and too discouraged to look for jobs.
The Congressional Budget Office has warned that a failure by Congress to avoid the automatic tax hikes and government spending cuts that will suck about $600 billion out of the economy next year would knock the economy back into recession.
"Businesses are not hiring people, they want to wait and see how the election evolves and how the political landscape shapes up," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands in Camarillo, California.
"Everyone has kind of battened down the hatches."
Persistently poor labour market conditions led the Federal Reserve in September to announce a plan to buy $40 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities each month until it sees a sustained turnaround in employment.
The central bank, which also pledged to keep overnight lending rates near zero until at least mid-2015, hopes the purchases drive down long-term borrowing costs and spur the recovery.
The Fed's ultra-easy stance has started to free up credit, giving a lift to consumers, economists said. That, in turn, helped lift retail hiring in September.
Temporary help jobs, which are often seen as a harbinger for permanent hiring, fell 2,000 after being almost flat in August.
Manufacturing payrolls fell for a second straight month.
Construction employment rose 5,000, benefiting from the rise in home construction, as demand for housing rises against the backdrop of record low mortgage rates
Government payrolls rose 10,000 after increasing 45,000 in August. Average hourly earnings rose 7 cents last month, which could support spending.
Click to expand...
 
Good analysis trackside but are we sure about this?
Romney has two major demographic problems: women and rural Midwesterners. In terms of the outcome, the latter are arguably more significant. Ohio, more so than ever perhaps, is the most important state on the map.
Click to expand...

Ohio is 18 votes, Florida is 29

Florida is just as marginal and is possibly skewed now by Romney's choice of running mate, who is hostile to Medicare in a state with a heavy proportion of aged inhabitants

also this
e needs to be able to shake off the image of the rich billionaire out of touch with real life
Click to expand...

I would never underestimate the americans respect for successful businessmen. Out of touch? Yes maybe in some ways, but is a lawyer with no commercial experience in any more touch with really understanding the commercial world?

Old europe will sneer at billionaires and think its ever so wonderful that there is a black (ish) president because colour of skin was always more considered more important than actual experience and political skills . Americans think differently...and rightly so
 
clivex said:
Good analysis trackside but are we sure about this?


Ohio is 18 votes, Florida is 29

Florida is just as marginal and is possibly skewed now by Romney's choice of running mate, who is hostile to Medicare in a state with a heavy proportion of aged inhabitants

also this


I would never underestimate the americans respect for successful businessmen. Out of touch? Yes maybe in some ways, but is a lawyer with no commercial experience in any more touch with really understanding the commercial world?

Old europe will sneer at billionaires and think its ever so wonderful that there is a black (ish) president because colour of skin was always more considered more important than actual experience and political skills . Americans think differently...and rightly so
Click to expand...

Sorry Clive, didn't make myself clear there. In saying that Ohio is the most critical state, that is based on an assumption that Romney wins Florida (a huge assumption). Romney absolutely has to win Florida; there is really no plausible way for him to lose Florida and win the election.* Florida has been swing state that historically tilts Republican (more so than Ohio, for instance), but has been complicated by demographic shifts (primarily an influx of non-Cuban Hispanic immigrants).**

For Obama, it is slightly different. He can lose Florida and stay in the game, particularly if he wins Ohio. He could lose Florida and take Ohio and only one of either: North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, or Nevada. Basically, the electoral map is stacked strongly against Romney because the states that could go either way are almost entirely traditionally, albeit marginally, Republican-leaning states (Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado all fall into that category). Iowa would be an exception, but the equivalent Democratic states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin) are all far more solidly in the Democratic camp.

This site allows you to look at the different permutations, so to speak. Interesting stuff for saddo's like myself: http://www.270towin.com/

Don't have a strong opinion either way on the other aspect, but I suppose elements of Romney's life-style (think car-elevator...) and the fact that he lacks charisma leave him open to being viewed as aloof and out of touch. It's not as if he is an entirely self-made man either.

That said, I think the attacks against Romney's business background (notably not wheeled out by Obama in the debate) are grossly unfair. But expect to hear more of them.

*There is a way, though: if he loses Florida and wins Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, he would end up with 272 votes. The chances of that are exceedingly slim - if he wins all of those states he'll probably win Florida as well.

**Incidentally, the most interesting long-term demographic trend is the influx of Latino voters into various states. Hispanic immigrants have already completed changed the demographics in somewhere like Colorado (now a complete 'toss-up' state). If that happens in Florida, the GOP is going to have to face up to dealing seriously with Latino issues or face the nightmare scenario of an electoral map permanently stacked against them. Quite a way down the track yet though.
 
Last edited:
Nothing less than I expected, tracks. :cool:

Here's an idiot's theory I'd like you to deconstruct.

Yanks only throw out discredited and/or utterly hopeless encumbent Presidents. Obama is neither. He is therefore absolutely stuck-on.
 
Interesting idea, Grasshopper.

To a certain extent it depends on your idea of "discredited"; was Ford discredited by dint of his pardon of Nixon, for instance?

One trend that is pretty robust is that "first-term" incumbents are significantly more likely to win re-election than second or third-term incumbents (first-term in that the White House was Republican prior to Obama). In the last century, first term incumbents have lost only one of ten elections (Carter in 1980 - and he may fall under your definition of utterly hopeless). This holds even if you 'control' for other factors commonly taken to influence the outcome of elections - economic growth, presidential approval rating etc.

In reality it's a mixture of a number of ingredients - the strength of the incumbent, the strength of the opponent, the strength of the campaigns, as well as the state of the country. It will be interesting to see if Romney can build on his debate 'bounce'. Romney has, unsurprisingly, made up ground in the polls since the debate (~2.5 points, which puts him within 1.25-1.5 of Obama and indicates the election is very much in play). I'm sceptical of him maintaining that bounce because I've thought for a while that he is an average candidate running a below-par campaign, whereas Obama is a solid candidate running a well-oiled machine. I may be proven wrong on both counts, but I would be surprised.

Interesting that Romney has finally turned to foreign policy, where, for the first time in a long time, a Democrat is trusted by more Americans than a Republican. I can't see where Romney has the wiggle room to differentiate himself from Obama on the two most important issues (Iran and Syria), so he will resort to the time-honoured Republican tack that the Democrats are 'weak' on national security and wheel out some neanderthal, Cold War-era rhetoric about America not going into decline. I think foreign policy is a winner for Obama.
 
Last edited:
No Ford wasnt so, good point and with that and Bush snr, rather than it being an "interesting idea' .. its bollocks

I think momentum is the underrated factor here. Clinton found it against Bush and regardless of the above factors, there is often a moment when the unstoppable tide turns in an election and nothing much said or done after that point makes any real difference

I think that debate could be seen as that point. It wasnt so much the listlessness but the undercurrent of arrogance that seems to have come across. Thats fatal.

I think foreign policy is a winner for Obama
Click to expand...

But wont win an election
 
Last edited:
Or necessarily lose one either. :cool:

I'm definitely guilty of wanting Obama to win, for reasons already established; but I'll also concede that the apparently lacklustre Obama performance in Debate 1 has harmed rather than helped his cause. The race has definitely got more interesting. That said, Obama realises this, and I figure he will not be phased one iota in engaging in trench-warfare with Romney from here on in.

The first debate was Romney's 'Dave Narey' moment. The opposition are going to step-up a gear soon, and Mitt has both a leaky defence, and limited options to mount a substantive attack. Style over policy only works for so long, and Mitt doesn't have any (that he's not prepared to distance himself from, if polling suggests it's unpopular).

I expect Omaba to kick-on again in the next fortnight - because even the Yanks can see vapid for what it is.
 
Last edited:
So very true Suny...

Romney was known to be an effective debater before the broadcast (so i gather) and Obama more comfortable in front of large crowds ...with a teleprompter

its not at all a given that he will hit back well. I reckon if he screws next one...hes out
 
Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't have £1000 on Obama at 2/5?

I can only see this as buying money. The electoral system (I won't repeat what TS said very well) favours him, and he has won the last two debates, ridiculed Romney who seemingly can't get through a debate without making numerous factuals errors, and I see him as a 1/10 shot.

The only way I see him losing now is if some scandal breaks that he was shagging the white house cleaner. In that case, you'd just have to accept losing your cash.

Thoughts?
 
Because some polls have just had obama as much as 7 points behind in the popular vote and at best obama is even. The momentum is moving away from the lacklustre president. My hunch is that it coukd be unstoppable now

Rightly americans will take the view that hes had his chance and that its time for someone with business savvy and experience of actually running something. Unlike old europe they dont sneer at welath and success. Rightly so again

Obama has not perhaps made many too many mistakes but he most americans see him as uninspired and probably out of his depth. Hes not reagan of clinton in terms of inspiration thats for sure and we should we remember that a leader is being voted in here rather than a party

Who said he "won" the last two debates? Certainly not seen that anywhere at all. All i know is that he was borderline lazy and arrogant in the first and thats what will stick.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top