More like Bush in 9-11 or failing to catch Bin Laden even though he had 7 years to do it
Another $4 Million Obama Christmas Vacation
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
More like Bush in 9-11 or failing to catch Bin Laden even though he had 7 years to do it
1. I have no idea why you are bring up the generals.
2. The supreme ct just told the lower court to revisit obamacare
so you may be completely wrong on this one.
3. My main thesis when the thread started is that the polls which oversampled dems by more than the 2008 templated were slanted.
I was very correct. I unskewed those polls and said the properly template was between the 2010 results or the 2008... I felt as you got closer to either one... you were partisan.... I clearly stated that right before the election. So I was 100 percent correct.
I also said if it were me I would use one that skewed to republicans... because Obama was going to get fewer votes and Romney would get more... I was half right and half wrong.
In short... I was wrong about Romney winning but I was completely right in saying polls skewing more dem than 2008 were biased...
4. background on 3 and new info to me...
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/23/gop-turnout-myths-and-reality/
In the immediate aftermath of the election, Republicans slammed Mitt Romney for not being able to match the popular vote totals of John McCain, but many forgot that the full totals in the popular vote take a few weeks to finalize. This past week, Romneyâs totals surpassed McCainâs in an election that had a smaller overall turnout, Kimberly Strassel reports for the Wall Street Journal â and Romney did significantly better in swing states than the GOP did in 2008 as well (via Scott Johnson at Power Line):
Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCainâs numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.
By contrast, Mr. Obamaâs turnout was down from 2008 in nearly every battleground. He lost 54,000 votes in Virginia, 46,000 votes in Florida, 50,000 votes in Colorado, 63,000 votes in Wisconsin. Ditto Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. The only state where Mr. Obama increased his votes (by 36,000) was North Carolina, and he was still beaten by a Romney campaign that raised its own turnout by a whopping 147,000.
The notion of an enthusiasm gap among Republicans compared to 2008 is therefore a myth, one suggested by incomplete data the day after the election. So what happened? Did Romney just run out of time, or was Obamaâs downturn just short of bad enough to lose? Not exactly, Strassel argues. The demographic data shows that Democrats boosted voter turnout where it counted, and where Republicans didnât bother to seriously compete:
Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romneyâs better turnout.
In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obamaâs margin of victory there was 103,000. â¦
Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romneyâs failures and the partyâs immigration platformâthatâs fair enough. But equally important has been the partyâs mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesnât campaign in those communities, doesnât register voters there, doesnât knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard fromâby email, at their door, on the phoneâwas the presidentâs.
In order to win national elections, Republicans have to compete in all communities. That doesnât mean pandering, but it does mean putting free-market, small-government philosophies and slogans into concrete policy proposals that will improve the lives of voters. Itâs not enough to talk about empowering investors to take risk in the American economy; we need to talk about how we can encourage that investment to go into urban centers to revitalize neighborhoods and create jobs. We need to commit to school choice and educational reform, in combination with a shift in control away from federal mandates (and the costly administration they require) to the local school boards and parents. We have to have specific policy proposals on the table and the commitment to follow through on them.
Until we remember what Jack Kemp figured out two decades ago, we will never compete for those votes, and end up with a massive handicap in national elections.
Because you said that the military made the decision and told Obama they were going after Bin Laden .Thats ridiculous,Obama gives the orders,not the military.
Bush came into office with a balanced budget and increased the debt by 5 trillion.Obama came into office with a trillion dollar deficit and increased the debt by 5 trillion.You dont see the difference ?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health
The Bush Deficit
Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.
By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.
In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.
Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html
Whatâs also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obamaâs major expenses were temporary â the stimulus is over now â while Bushâs were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didnât just lower revenue for 10 years. Itâs clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.