Romney Looks Like the Next Pres
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
this article serves 2 purposes...
it shows that AK - the (shit) polls were correct in 2008 argument is quite misleading.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n_president_obama_survive_his_economic_record
The economy should be center-stage particularly this year because it was the basis for Barack Obama winning the presidency in the first place. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the later years of the Bush presidency, the John McCain-Obama race of 2008 was quite close until the Wall Street meltdown began in mid-September. As the Gallup data in Table 1 show, Obama held a small lead over McCain until mid-August, and then the race got even tighter. After the conventions, McCain emerged with a small lead. While some of McCain's convention bump would normally recede in a week or so, the financial crisis and its economic fallout went well beyond this correction. It turned voters squarely against the Republicans as the in-party and sent Barack Obama to the White House.
Table 1: The Wall Street meltdown and the 2008 political meltdown
Source: Computed by the author from Gallup polls.
Voters in 2008 made Barack Obama the nationâs 44th president to lead in the rebuilding of a healthy economy and out of the Great Recession into a new era of prosperity. This was his mandate. His presidency should be judged by voters on how well he has delivered on this mandate. Their votes in 2012 should be based on whether he has managed the economy well or not -- on whether he delivered.
So what is the economic record of the Obama presidency? Has he fulfilled his mandate to get the economy on its feet and on the road to prosperity? I think we all know the answer to this question in general, but we can get a better idea of the shape of the economy and how President Obamaâs record stacks up compared to past presidents who sought reelection by taking a look at some of the hard numbers compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
There are a number of ways to look at economic conditions -- different measures and different time frames. To be fair, we should look at the record from different angles. The first take is the short-range perspective. As we enter the general election campaign season, how does the economy look? The best overall measure of economic conditions is the real growth in the gross domestic product (GDP). The most recent measure of real GDP growth is from the second quarter (April to June) of this year. This is the quarter that many election forecasters (including myself) rely upon for their forecasts. The BEA's initial measure of real GDP growth (and they will have two revisions of this before the election) is that the economy grew in the second quarter at an anemic rate of 1.5%. The median growth rate when the economy is not in recession is 3.6%.
How does this compare to the election year economies of past presidents running for reelection? As Table 2 shows, President Obama ranks tenth out of 11 presidents who ran for reelection since the BEA began reporting quarterly GDP data. Only Jimmy Carter had a worse (and disastrous) second quarter economy heading into the election. Taking the limited perspective of economic conditions immediately before the campaign gets into full gear, one must conclude that President Obama comes up well short of delivering on the economic mandate and has fared much worse than other presidents. No president would want to run with such a weak election year economy.
Table 2: Economic growth in the 2nd quarter of reelection years, 1948-2012
more info at the link...
showing what a failure Obamanomics is.
it shows that AK - the (shit) polls were correct in 2008 argument is quite misleading.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n_president_obama_survive_his_economic_record
The economy should be center-stage particularly this year because it was the basis for Barack Obama winning the presidency in the first place. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the later years of the Bush presidency, the John McCain-Obama race of 2008 was quite close until the Wall Street meltdown began in mid-September. As the Gallup data in Table 1 show, Obama held a small lead over McCain until mid-August, and then the race got even tighter. After the conventions, McCain emerged with a small lead. While some of McCain's convention bump would normally recede in a week or so, the financial crisis and its economic fallout went well beyond this correction. It turned voters squarely against the Republicans as the in-party and sent Barack Obama to the White House.
Table 1: The Wall Street meltdown and the 2008 political meltdown
Source: Computed by the author from Gallup polls.
Voters in 2008 made Barack Obama the nationâs 44th president to lead in the rebuilding of a healthy economy and out of the Great Recession into a new era of prosperity. This was his mandate. His presidency should be judged by voters on how well he has delivered on this mandate. Their votes in 2012 should be based on whether he has managed the economy well or not -- on whether he delivered.
So what is the economic record of the Obama presidency? Has he fulfilled his mandate to get the economy on its feet and on the road to prosperity? I think we all know the answer to this question in general, but we can get a better idea of the shape of the economy and how President Obamaâs record stacks up compared to past presidents who sought reelection by taking a look at some of the hard numbers compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
There are a number of ways to look at economic conditions -- different measures and different time frames. To be fair, we should look at the record from different angles. The first take is the short-range perspective. As we enter the general election campaign season, how does the economy look? The best overall measure of economic conditions is the real growth in the gross domestic product (GDP). The most recent measure of real GDP growth is from the second quarter (April to June) of this year. This is the quarter that many election forecasters (including myself) rely upon for their forecasts. The BEA's initial measure of real GDP growth (and they will have two revisions of this before the election) is that the economy grew in the second quarter at an anemic rate of 1.5%. The median growth rate when the economy is not in recession is 3.6%.
How does this compare to the election year economies of past presidents running for reelection? As Table 2 shows, President Obama ranks tenth out of 11 presidents who ran for reelection since the BEA began reporting quarterly GDP data. Only Jimmy Carter had a worse (and disastrous) second quarter economy heading into the election. Taking the limited perspective of economic conditions immediately before the campaign gets into full gear, one must conclude that President Obama comes up well short of delivering on the economic mandate and has fared much worse than other presidents. No president would want to run with such a weak election year economy.
Table 2: Economic growth in the 2nd quarter of reelection years, 1948-2012
more info at the link...
showing what a failure Obamanomics is.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...puts_entitlement_crisis_at_center_of_campaign
As a number cruncher, Romney surely recognizes that Ryan knows federal budget policy about as well as anyone. And the sometimes politically tone-deaf Romney must admire Ryan's ability, honed in hundreds of town meetings in his marginal congressional district, to explain his stances in a way that wins over ordinary voters.
Naturally, Democrats have attacked the Ryan plan as gutting Medicare and have produced an ad showing Ryan shoving a wheelchair-bound granny down a hill. They're licking their chops at the prospect of running a Mediscare campaign against the Romney-Ryan ticket.
But it's not clear that the Mediscare tactic will work when the issue gains great visibility, as it will from Ryan's selection.
For Ryan and Romney can make the point -- lost in the shuffle when this is a low-visibility issue -- that their plan would leave the current Medicare system in place for current recipients and those who are 55 or older. Those who have made plans based on the present program could continue to rely on it.
But they also can make the point that their reforms are necessary in order to make sure Medicare is sustainable in the long run. Polls show that many voters younger than 55 doubt that they ever will get the Medicare and Social Security benefits they've been promised.
One more thing about Ryan, I think, appealed to Romney. He already has shown he cannot be intimidated by the most eminent opponent. Watch the video of Ryan's five-minute evisceration of Obamacare at the president's Blair House meeting. You can tell that Obama didn't like it one bit.
He'd better get used to it. Obama's side is relying on trash-talking ads. Romney's selection of Ryan shows he wants a debate on whether America should follow Obama on the road to a European-style welfare state.
As a number cruncher, Romney surely recognizes that Ryan knows federal budget policy about as well as anyone. And the sometimes politically tone-deaf Romney must admire Ryan's ability, honed in hundreds of town meetings in his marginal congressional district, to explain his stances in a way that wins over ordinary voters.
Naturally, Democrats have attacked the Ryan plan as gutting Medicare and have produced an ad showing Ryan shoving a wheelchair-bound granny down a hill. They're licking their chops at the prospect of running a Mediscare campaign against the Romney-Ryan ticket.
But it's not clear that the Mediscare tactic will work when the issue gains great visibility, as it will from Ryan's selection.
For Ryan and Romney can make the point -- lost in the shuffle when this is a low-visibility issue -- that their plan would leave the current Medicare system in place for current recipients and those who are 55 or older. Those who have made plans based on the present program could continue to rely on it.
But they also can make the point that their reforms are necessary in order to make sure Medicare is sustainable in the long run. Polls show that many voters younger than 55 doubt that they ever will get the Medicare and Social Security benefits they've been promised.
One more thing about Ryan, I think, appealed to Romney. He already has shown he cannot be intimidated by the most eminent opponent. Watch the video of Ryan's five-minute evisceration of Obamacare at the president's Blair House meeting. You can tell that Obama didn't like it one bit.
He'd better get used to it. Obama's side is relying on trash-talking ads. Romney's selection of Ryan shows he wants a debate on whether America should follow Obama on the road to a European-style welfare state.
=========
Probably right;
but not a prediction. Gov Romney called rep Ryan ''the next president''
hi forrest. you know mormans think the will get their own planet when they die. romney ment he was going to make ryan president of his planet.Quote from murray t turtle:
=========
Probably right;
but not a prediction. Gov Romney called rep Ryan ''the next president''
Rasmussen showing Romney moving ahead, three point advantage and undecideds are down from 6% to 4%... and there hasn't been a debate yet! The Debates should move things to Romney's side since that is the only time tv viewers actually get to hear what the Conservative ideas are...
It's Jimmy Carter's second term!
Obama can retire and sit on a porch smoking a corn cob pipe while admiring his 40 acres + mule for all I care. He can write books about how great his presidency was like Jimmy Carter did, about 25 of 'em so far..
It's Jimmy Carter's second term!
Obama can retire and sit on a porch smoking a corn cob pipe while admiring his 40 acres + mule for all I care. He can write books about how great his presidency was like Jimmy Carter did, about 25 of 'em so far..