► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for July, 2011

Guided Tower

by Flyovercountry ( 62 Comments › )
Filed under Open thread at July 18th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

Why Andrew Cuomo wants Obama to lose in 2012

by Phantom Ace ( 184 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Uncategorized at July 18th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Despite the public backing NY Governor Andrew Cuomo gives Barack Hussein Obama, what is whispered in private is different. Many Democratic insiders have notice that Cuomo has expressed only lukewarm support for the Obama Regime. He has tended to keep his distance from Obama and his governing style has been totally different.

Unlike Barack Hussein Obama, Gov. Coumo governs as a fiscal and economic Conservative. He doesn’t engage in demagoguery of businesses or the rich. He has taken on the public sector unions in his state. He has capped property taxes, which has been killing NY economically. He is the UnObama and it actually is in his interest for Obama to lose in 2016.

Will Gov. Cuomo be backing the Republican candidate for president next year?

Certainly not openly. But privately, that could be another matter.

Two nationally prominent Republicans, in an assessment that’s begun being whispered in some Democratic circles, contend it’s in Cuomo’s political interest for President Obama to be defeated next year.

“If I’m Gov. Cuomo, I want to see Obama defeated rather than re-elected in 2012,” said GOP pollster/strategist John McLaughlin, whose New York-based company boasts a top-flight client list that includes House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

“The question is, ‘Would Cuomo rather run in 2016 against a first-term Republican or in the aftermath of a second term of Obama, the most left-wing president we may have ever seen, with economic policies that harm the private sector with massive tax increases and a homeland-security path that includes hostility to Israel?’ “

McLaughlin continued, “Cuomo has a different, far more moderate, model where he has cut spending, didn’t raise taxes, capped property taxes and hasn’t engaged in the class-warfare, anti-Wall Street rhetoric that the president has used.

Read the rest: Why Andy may secretly root for GOP in 2012

If Andrew Cuomo continues his fiscal and economic policies, he will be very formidable. But the only way he has a shot in 2016, is an Obama defeat in 2012. A 2nd Obama term would be disastrous for the country. It would also make the Democratic brand toxic, so that in 2016 no Democrat can win. If Obama loses, this gives Cuomo a shot in 2016, depending on how the Republican governs.

Don’t expect Cuomo out on the stump for Barack Hussein Obama in 2012.

Dishonest Poll Of The Year.

by Flyovercountry ( 8 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at July 18th, 2011 - 12:31 pm

CBS Publishes an astonishingly dishonest poll on American sentiments concerning the debt situation.  How bad is this poll, it shows a D + 11 split.  This takes the 2008 turnout, pretends that 2010 did not happen, and adds a 5% swing in party alignment to the Democrats at the expense of the Republicans.  The only possible reason for this is that CBS is actively attempting to shape public opinion, rather than simply reporting on a set of facts.

Happy days are not here again

by Mojambo ( 139 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, History, Politics, Republican Party, unemployment at July 18th, 2011 - 11:30 am

Very good points in this article. People being people, we tend to view things through our own circumstances. If you feel that your future is endangered, then you will vote against the incumbent, whether you are employed or not.  The problem with Obama is that he came into office with so much hype and misplaced expectations that the let down amongst the voters who voted for him (as opposed to the hard core Democratic ideologues) is his major albatross. Voters will  cut a POTUS a lot of slack if they think his heart is in the right place and he has an idea as to what he wants to do, however Obama seems to lack the maturity and temperament to reassure voters who are concerned about the direction we are headed in. After all, he wants to transform this nation rather then serve and preserve it.

by James Piereson

The disappointing employment report made public on July 8 provided fresh evidence that economic growth is slowing and the state of the economy will be the central issue in next year’s presidential election. As if in anticipation of the jobs report, David Plouffe, senior political adviser to President Obama, said shortly before the bad news was released, “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate; they’re going to vote based on: How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?”

Plouffe has a point. Several incumbent presidents have been reelected in the face of abnormally high unemployment. Ronald Reagan won reelection in 1984 with an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent and, most famously of all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected in 1936 despite a jobless rate of nearly 17 percent. On the other hand, Gerald Ford was defeated in 1976 when unemployment stood at 7.7 percent, and George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 with unemployment at 7.5 percent. In his memoir Six Crises, Richard Nixon attributed his narrow defeat in 1960 to a sudden upsurge in unemployment in September and October of that year.

As Plouffe suggests, the unemployment rate by itself is not the decisive factor in national elections. What seems to matter most is the overall direction of the economy during the election season and whether voters see things moving in the right or the wrong direction. FDR and Reagan won reelection because they made the case that conditions were improving, as in fact they were in 1936 and 1984. Ford and Bush (41) lost because they could not make that case. This is why new signs of economic weakness pose such a threat to President Obama’s reelection.

Yale University economist Ray C. Fair has devised a simple formula by which we can accurately predict the two-party division of the popular vote on the basis of three economic factors: (1) per capita growth of real Gross Domestic Product during the three quarters preceding the election; (2) the growth in inflation during the incumbent’s term; and (3) the number of “good news” quarters during the incumbent’s term in which real GDP grows by more than 3.2 percent. This equation, when applied to elections from 1880 to 2008, yields a remarkably close approximation of the popular vote for president.

In recent months Fair has used his formula to predict the outcome of the 2012 election based upon economic forecasts of inflation and GDP growth in 2011 and 2012. Last November, when forecasts projected growth exceeding 3.5 percent in 2011 and 2012, it predicted a landslide victory for Obama with about 56 percent of the popular vote, up from 53 percent in 2008. When the equations were adjusted in April with somewhat less rosy forecasts, the president’s predicted vote share dropped to 52 percent.

[……]

Obama came into office thinking that he would become a modern-day FDR, rescuing the U.S. economy from Republican mismanagement through public spending, aggressive regulation of business, and expansive welfare programs. The old-time religion does not appear to be working as we head into the election season. With the economy faltering and Obama out of ammunition, is it possible that instead of reprising FDR he will turn out to have been the contemporary incarnation of Herbert Hoover?

Read the rest – The Economy and the Election