2012 Election

[bobbyhawks]

One commentator speculated as to why Obama is leading any GOP candidate right now. The reasoning being the GOP guys are mostly beating each other up while Obama might take a hit once-in-a-while he goes day-after-day outside of the battle. Once the GOP's main focus gets on Obama then the polls should start reflecting a closer race.

Have you ever watched FOX News?

[mean]

One commentator speculated as to why Obama is leading any GOP candidate right now. The reasoning being the GOP guys are mostly beating each other up while Obama might take a hit once-in-a-while he goes day-after-day outside of the battle. Once the GOP's main focus gets on Obama then the polls should start reflecting a closer race.

Maybe, but once the candidates have finished beating each other up, they could be weaker for it. All of Gingrich's ethics problems, Santorum's apparent desire for Christian sharia, and Romney's liberal record in MA will have been pounded into the heads of voters. All this in the midst of a possible economic upturn. Doesn't bode well for the GOP this year.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Have you ever watched FOX News?

Not really. Mostly ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC.

once the candidates have finished beating each other up, they could be weaker for it

Clinton and Obama, plus their supporters, did a pretty good job beating each other up four years ago and that went into June.

Stronger. Weaker. Hard to say at this time.

[bobbyhawks]

Have you ever watched FOX News?

Not really. Mostly ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC.

I was mostly just commenting on how 90% of the comments made on FOX News are negative criticisms of Obama. So from the perspective of people who lean right and watch FOX News, they are still getting a constant stream of anti-Obama propaganda, and much moreso than any in-fighting amongst the candidates.

[Highlander]

Have you ever watched FOX News?

Not really. Mostly ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC.

I was mostly just commenting on how 90% of the comments made on FOX News are negative criticisms of Obama. So from the perspective of people who lean right and watch FOX News, they are still getting a constant stream of anti-Obama propaganda, and much moreso than any in-fighting amongst the candidates.

Fox news pretty much preaches to the choir. I would tend to agree with AKP on the race tightening once the republicans choose a candidate (as long as the candidate is not Gingrich). That happens nearly every election.

I also think Romney's liberal record in Massachussets may be an asset in the general election. The record hurts him in the primary but it will work the other way in November. Conservatives are not going to vote for Obama as long as there is a more conservative alternative even if that alternative has a liberal side.

[phuqueue]

Fox news pretty much preaches to the choir. I would tend to agree with AKP on the race tightening once the republicans choose a candidate (as long as the candidate is not Gingrich). That happens nearly every election.

I also think Romney's liberal record in Massachussets may be an asset in the general election. The record hurts him in the primary but it will work the other way in November. Conservatives are not going to vote for Obama as long as there is a more conservative alternative even if that alternative has a liberal side.

I do think it'll be a little closer when it's the actual Republican candidate vs. Obama instead of one of these individuals vs. Obama, but "conservatives" weren't going to vote for Obama no matter what, the real question is going to be who the moderates vote for. Right now Obama leads all the GOP candidates among moderates and independents, and they all have much worse favorability ratings than Obama does. I don't think I expect this to be a landslide, but I do expect Obama to remain comfortably ahead unless something big happens. Barring a new economic meltdown or some other catastrophe, it'll be one of those games where the score is always close but the winner isn't really in doubt, like Obama's taking a 2-0 lead in the first inning right now and he'll probably hold it through the end of the game, even if the GOP gets runners in scoring position from time to time.

[Highlander]

The main point of my original post was that the XL pipeline wasn't going to create many jobs directly. I take it you agree with that.

As for effects on world oil prices, I would note that the capacity of the XL expansion is about 500,000 barrels a day. World Oil production is about 85 million barrels a day. The volume isn't big enough to make a big difference in price.

You argue that the XL pipeilne is the first step to a future huge expansion of tar sands production. That strikes me as being to vague and uncertain to make the "jobs killer" charge against Obama stick and certainly has next to nothing to do with current economic conditions. Who is financing the proposed huge expansion?

Tar Sands isn't my issue. How many barrels a day do you advocate from these deposits in Canada? The primary evnironmental objections appear to center on greenhouse gas emmissions, water usage and water pollution. What are the environmental implications of the huge expansion you are advocating in those areas?

I think we have seen the impact of the loss of a mere 500,000 barrels per day to world supply and demand and the impact on price has been significant (look at what is going on in western Europe with even the mention of the loss of about that much oil from Iran). In any event, you could say the same about any oil and gas project in the world; the impact of a stand-alone project is negligible so why do it? Why do anything? Why go to work tomorrow since you can't earn but 1/365th of what you need for the year. Tar sands have something like 175 billion barrels in recoverable reserves. That is indeed a game changer. And while it takes near 100$ per barrel crude prices to make it economical, it's going to have a dampening effect on crude price increases (barring catasrophe or war elsewhere in the world) for some time to come. There are substantial jobs beyond the construction of the pipeline. Jobs associated with fabricating the material, transporting the material to location, refining the oil, inspecting and operating the pipeline etc... Seven billion dollar construction projects create lots of jobs.

The primary opposition to the pipeline has centered on the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer. I find that just hokie and it stems from a misunderstanding of how an aquifer works. The idea that a spill of a highly viscuous liquid is going to pollute the better part of an artesion aquifer is absurd. There are numerous existing pipelines across the aquifer operating for years without incident and there are tens of thousands of wells that penetrate the Ogallala already in western Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma without serious contamination of the aquifer.

[phxcat]

The main point of my original post was that the XL pipeline wasn't going to create many jobs directly. I take it you agree with that.

As for effects on world oil prices, I would note that the capacity of the XL expansion is about 500,000 barrels a day. World Oil production is about 85 million barrels a day. The volume isn't big enough to make a big difference in price.

You argue that the XL pipeilne is the first step to a future huge expansion of tar sands production. That strikes me as being to vague and uncertain to make the "jobs killer" charge against Obama stick and certainly has next to nothing to do with current economic conditions. Who is financing the proposed huge expansion?

Tar Sands isn't my issue. How many barrels a day do you advocate from these deposits in Canada? The primary evnironmental objections appear to center on greenhouse gas emmissions, water usage and water pollution. What are the environmental implications of the huge expansion you are advocating in those areas?

I think we have seen the impact of the loss of a mere 500,000 barrels per day to world supply and demand and the impact on price has been significant (look at what is going on in western Europe with even the mention of the loss of about that much oil from Iran). In any event, you could say the same about any oil and gas project in the world; the impact of a stand-alone project is negligible so why do it? Why do anything? Why go to work tomorrow since you can't earn but 1/365th of what you need for the year. Tar sands have something like 175 billion barrels in recoverable reserves. That is indeed a game changer. And while it takes near 100$ per barrel crude prices to make it economical, it's going to have a dampening effect on crude price increases (barring catasrophe or war elsewhere in the world) for some time to come. There are substantial jobs beyond the construction of the pipeline. Jobs associated with fabricating the material, transporting the material to location, refining the oil, inspecting and operating the pipeline etc... Seven billion dollar construction projects create lots of jobs.

The primary opposition to the pipeline has centered on the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer. I find that just hokie and it stems from a misunderstanding of how an aquifer works. The idea that a spill of a highly viscuous liquid is going to pollute the better part of an artesion aquifer is absurd. There are numerous existing pipelines across the aquifer operating for years without incident and there are tens of thousands of wells that penetrate the Ogallala already in western Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma without serious contamination of the aquifer.

What is your take on the cost-benefit analysis of tar sand oil when it comes to environmental impact?

[Highlander]

What is your take on the cost-benefit analysis of tar sand oil when it comes to environmental impact?[/quote]

My take is only qualitative. First, there is no risk to the Ogallala aquifer. That stuff just makes me want to scream and is only being used by environmental groups to play up fears. On the other hand, getting tar sands out of the ground is not all that environmentally friendly. It uses a lot of energy in itself and water, and because the oil is so viscuous, it requires many wells since the drainage areas per well are pretty small (heavy oil won't flow in the ground over long distances like higher API crudes). The boom towns in Alberta have certainly had an impact on the socioeconomic fabric of rural Alberta also.

The Canadian crude is pretty essential to the US. With conventional oil in steep decline around the world, plays like Canadian crude become essential to replace reserves as global demand continues to rise sharply. US demand is flat but growth is so strong in the 3rd world, less oil is available to the US. I think the US is in dire straits from an energy perspective without the tar sands. Obama has a naive energy policy which doesn't help the situation. The one fuel that would could go a long way to meet US demand is natural gas but the current administration won't go near despite the fact it's far more environmentally friendly than coal or even oil.

[KCMax]

Rick Santorum now leads national polls for the GOP field. He's the ninth nominee to lead national polling.

[aknowledgeableperson]

[quote="phuqueue"] Right now Obama leads all the GOP candidates among moderates and independents, and they all have much worse favorability ratings than Obama does. I don't think I expect this to be a landslide, but I do expect Obama to remain comfortably ahead unless something big happens. /quote]

I just think of Bush I vs Clinton. And we know how that turned out.

[KCMax]

Right now Obama leads all the GOP candidates among moderates and independents, and they all have much worse favorability ratings than Obama does. I don't think I expect this to be a landslide, but I do expect Obama to remain comfortably ahead unless something big happens. /quote]

I just think of Bush I vs Clinton. And we know how that turned out.

And I think of Bush II vs Kerry. And we know how that turned out.

[KCMax]

Ron Paul to appear at a rally tomorrow night at Union Station at 7:30.

http://20poundsofheadlines.wordpress.co ... l-weekend/

[earthling]

WTF is up with Santorum. He's all concerned about social issues and 'religious freedom'. The US needs jobs and economic recovery, not a focus on ethical behavior, which is hardly way off base in the US. Santorum speaks vaguely about the economy as if he knows nothing about it and presses on his belief system and fear of losing freedom of religion.

He already has religious freedom as he can believe in anything he wants. What he really wants is a theocracy and is dissing Obama for not being a theocrat. The media needs to press him and expose his obvious theocratic position. I also sense he might be a Young Earther, or at least would cater to them.

Obama fans should feel comfortable as the GOP is very split right now. I suspect Romney could potentially beat Obama if the job situation doesn't improve (unemployment rate is meaningless, the reality is that actual job count is set back 10 years for most cities). Presidents will be re-elected if 'the middle' is content. I don't think Santorum has a chance against Obama... too far on the right. The righteous ones would end up voting for Romney as a not Obama vote. The moderates and fiscal GOP'rs who'd otherwise consider Romney won't vote for Santorum if he's selected - that is they'd go either for an Obama vote, an indie vote or no vote.

Then again, if things get much worse by Nov, a not Obama vote could get Santorum in. <shiver>

Disclaimer: Last round I didn't vote for Obama (just a hair too socialist, way too inexperienced) or McCain (too into the system, Palin is a media dingbat).

[phuqueue]

They can't attack Obama on the economy right now because a) the economy is looking up (modestly, but up all the same) and b) the GOP took the brunt of the blame for the debt ceiling debacle last summer and so is currently lacking credibility on the economy anyway. The economy will need to falter (which is certainly a possibility, especially as we head into summer and fuel costs begin to rise) before Obama possibly becomes vulnerable on it. The unemployment rate is absolutely not "meaningless," because the reality is people pay attention to unemployment numbers. Don't mix up what the unemployment rate means for the economy (where it's still not "meaningless," it just doesn't tell the whole story) with what it means for politics. Moreover, it's not just that the percentage unemployment rate is falling, the private sector is actually adding jobs. This is what voters see on TV and hear on the radio and it makes them more sanguine about the economy and more optimistic about their job security or their chance to get a better job or their chance to get any job at all if they're currently out of work.

The thing is right now the GOP is in primary mode, so Santorum is trying to appeal to his base. He seems like a pretty genuine guy so I've no doubt he really believes all this shit, but if he somehow manages to lock up the nomination, you can almost certainly expect to see him project a more moderate image in the general and probably talk less about how great the Crusades were and more about the economy. But he's not really an economic guy and I'm very doubtful that he has any real ideas of his own about how to handle the economy. He generally just spouts the same old BS about markets, I think he "speaks vaguely" about the economy because he doesn't really have a particularly impressive grasp of it.

The problem both he and Romney are going to have in the general is that nobody likes them. Their unfavorables, Romney's in particular, are sky high, and the progress Santorum has made pandering to his base isn't going to fly with the country at large. Even if employment doesn't pick up substantially, Romney's not going to ingratiate himself with the unemployed by going on television and saying that he likes to fire people, while Santorum alienates most living, breathing human beings (so not the GOP's "LET THEM DIE!" crowd, obviously) when he tells a mother and her sick child to their faces that drug companies should charge whatever they want for life-saving medicines and the real problem is that people prefer to buy iPads instead of paying for their own health care. And while the economy doesn't give them much ammo to use against Obama right now, they're picking just about the weirdest, worst issues to campaign on instead -- for instance, even among Catholics a safe majority favors the birth control mandate (according to a poll I saw Catholics actually had the second highest level of support, behind only atheists -- and every religious group except evangelicals was majority in favor of the mandate, albeit by lesser margins than the Catholics).

Romney also more and more seems like he's just incapable of running a competent campaign. The man has been at this for years now and he still hasn't figured out how to make any sort of connection with voters. He won Florida only by outspending Gingrich (who'd had a significant lead on him shortly before the primary) 65-to-1, and he gets all this money in big chunks from few donors, so his ability to spend isn't really evidence of any ringing public endorsement. He's a joke, with even less charisma than John Kerry and an inability to keep his foot out of his mouth. This is a solid analysis of Romney from a conservative perspective. There's no way Romney beats Obama in the general unless the economy gets substantially worse (not just "fails to get significantly better") or some other catastrophe befalls the country.

[phuqueue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5 ... r_embedded

WATCH OUT OBAMA

[earthling]

The unemployment rate is absolutely not "meaningless," because the reality is people pay attention to unemployment numbers.

Economists look at actual employment numbers, not unemployment rate. There is a smoke and mirrors message of improved unemployment rate but it's only because a lot of people dropped out of labor market or are underemployed compared to 5 years ago. The actual employment is still very bad, set back 10 years for most cities. When it comes to voting, those still not employed or underemployed will impact the re-election of Obama more than any other factor I suspect.

Check this out, shows actual employment, not unemployment rate. Most metro actual employment is set back 10 years. Not as good a story as the _appearance_ of improved unemployment rate.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22511498-post23.html

[grovester]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5 ... r_embedded

WATCH OUT OBAMA

I swear to god I thought I was watching Jason Sudekis for a moment.

[grovester]

The unemployment rate is absolutely not "meaningless," because the reality is people pay attention to unemployment numbers.

Economists look at actual employment numbers, not unemployment rate. There is a smoke and mirrors message of improved unemployment rate but it's only because a lot of people dropped out of labor market or are underemployed compared to 5 years ago. The actual employment is still very bad, set back 10 years for most cities. When it comes to voting, those still not employed or underemployed will impact the re-election of Obama more than any other factor I suspect.

Check this out, shows actual employment, not unemployment rate. Most metro actual employment is set back 10 years. Not as good a story as the _appearance_ of improved unemployment rate.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22511498-post23.html

I get your point, but those graphs show a bust in 08-09 that indeed reset things back 10 years. Since then a flat period with a modest uptick recently. Pretty much mirrors the behaviour of the unemployment rate.

People are looking for trends.

[phuqueue]

The unemployment rate is absolutely not "meaningless," because the reality is people pay attention to unemployment numbers.

Economists look at actual employment numbers, not unemployment rate. There is a smoke and mirrors message of improved unemployment rate but it's only because a lot of people dropped out of labor market or are underemployed compared to 5 years ago.

Don't mix up what the unemployment rate means for the economy (where it's still not "meaningless," it just doesn't tell the whole story) with what it means for politics.

The difference between employment and the unemployment rate is elementary, but actual employment numbers are never reported in the mainstream media except for gross numbers of jobs gained or lost each time the jobs report comes out (and those numbers have been positive lately). Otherwise people hear about the unemployment rate, which is also trending positively, not total employment (although this is also trending positively too). It doesn't matter what "economists" look at because your average voter is not an economist.

The actual employment is still very bad, set back 10 years for most cities. When it comes to voting, those still not employed or underemployed will impact the re-election of Obama more than any other factor I suspect.

Most of these people don't quibble over the distinction between actual employment and the unemployment rate, though. They hear that the unemployment rate is down and it makes them feel better about the economy. I'm also not sure how eager the unemployed will be to vote for Mitt "I like firing people" Romney anyway.

Check this out, shows actual employment, not unemployment rate. Most metro actual employment is set back 10 years. Not as good a story as the _appearance_ of improved unemployment rate.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22511498-post23.html

Like grovester pointed out, these all show employment trending up in most cities, even if it is still far below its peak. Polls show most voters still blame Bush for the financial crisis and economic collapse, so there's absolutely no need for Obama to suddenly pull employment back up to 2008 levels; he just needs people to believe things are getting better. The unemployment rate, which is what most voters actually pay attention to, suggests things are getting better. Your data here also suggests things are getting better, even though it also shows that things are much worse than the unemployment rate alone would suggest. The unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story, like I said above, but it is usually a decent proxy for overall economic health. There are definitely exceptions, like Japan's freakishly low unemployment rate in the face of two decades of recession and stagnation, but generally the unemployment rate will give you a reasonably accurate snapshot of the overall state of the economy, even if it doesn't tell you everything you want to know about actual employment. You can disregard it much more readily when you're talking about the actual state of the economy, but you shouldn't downplay its significance when trying to predict an election.