Thread: Wow, I had no idea this was the Obama record

Here's an easy question:

Based on his record, why would anyone vote FOR Obama?

And I'm not trying to be a simple gadfly with that.

Seriously, someone list three reasons why someone would vote FOR Obama based on his record (since that was the original subject of this thread) and let's discuss them.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Here's an easy question:

Based on his record, why would anyone vote FOR Obama?

And I'm not trying to be a simple gadfly with that.

Seriously, someone list three reasons why someone would vote FOR Obama based on his record (since that was the original subject of this thread) and let's discuss them.

-dale

Dale:

Easy question?

Not really.

You ask why would anyone for Obama. I'd say the vast majority of his support comes from people who are either diehard Democrats or fundamentally disposed to support the liberal agenda. Add to that cultural support, e.g., blacks supporting blacks. Obama would have to be a crook or total screw up to lose these people. So, call that reason number 1.

Independents and independent-minded Democrats, Republicans and third party members will consider his record on a specific issue. The range of issues they consider important is broad. For example, gay rights activists may support him merely because he came out for gay marriage. Environmentalists may support him because he stopped the Keystone XL pipeline. And so on. So, call issue correctness reason number 2.

That leaves independent-minded people who comprise the swing vote. These are people, as you know, who actually care about things like the economy, US standing abroad, Federal regulation, health issues, and so on. They actually question the president's handling of these issues in terms of results, mainly whether the nation is better or worse off since he came to office. But here, too, people differ on what is important. So, here are 3 reasons why some of these people would vote for Obama:

1. He passed a comprehensive health care plan. (gag)
2. He got Osama Bin Laden and kept the US out of new wars.
3. On the economy he is perceived as more willing to help people than the GOP.

Originally Posted by dalem

Here's an easy question:

Based on his record, why would anyone vote FOR Obama?

And I'm not trying to be a simple gadfly with that.

Seriously, someone list three reasons why someone would vote FOR Obama based on his record (since that was the original subject of this thread) and let's discuss them.

-dale

About 40% of the population are registered democrats. Obama more closely registers their ideals than Romney. At this point we know its going to be one or the other so its a no brainer. Obama gets their vote.

Under the Obama administration the rates of deporting illegals have gone up. Thats huge Dale. Now compare that with the last president who allowed border agents to stand trial for defending the country's border, Reagan's amnesty debacle, and a clear contrast can be made.

Then there is the perception of the economy. The panic that everyone had in 2008 is only shared by Obama's foes today. Even though the economy is still not great the free fall is over and there is much to be said for that. The question in November will be to let Obama finish what he started or go a new way which might be better and then again it might bring us back to the cliff of 2008. Then as JAD mentioned their is the perception that Obama is trying to help out the poor and middle class more than Romney would. Why would people vote for someone who would make their lives worse? So if they believe Romney is going to make people work for less money and also take away the safety nets, while the rich get an even bigger piece of the pie, why would Romney get their vote? By default Obama gets the vote. The antagonistic "if your not rich its your own damned fault" doesn't win any votes on the bottom of the economy. Even if sometimes it is true.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Then as JAD mentioned their is the perception that Obama is trying to help out the poor and middle class more than Romney would. Why would people vote for someone who would make their lives worse? So if they believe Romney is going to make people work for less money and also take away the safety nets, while the rich get an even bigger piece of the pie, why would Romney get their vote? By default Obama gets the vote. The antagonistic "if your not rich its your own damned fault" doesn't win any votes on the bottom of the economy. Even if sometimes it is true.

BH, I said On the economy he is perceived as more willing to help people than the GOP.

I was referring to a perception the media has created that Republicans in Congress do nothing but block Obama's job creating proposals. I expect you'll see much more attention paid to why they did that and to their own proposals that Reid has blocked in the Senate. The Senate under Reid is a joke right now. You should take a look at the tactics Reid is using to block amendments and stifle debate.

Your view of Romney's positions is extreme. But in any case the election will be a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy and his ability create jobs going forward. It will also be a referendum on whether Romney can do a better job. I am not asking you to debate either question. Just pointing out what the electorate will be looking at.

The immigration issue is not going to be big this time around. I doubt Obama wants to emphasize the record number of deportations during his term. He needs the Hispanic vote.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

BH, I said On the economy he is perceived as more willing to help people than the GOP.

I was referring to a perception the media has created that Republicans in Congress do nothing but block Obama's job creating proposals. I expect you'll see much more attention paid to why they did that and to their own proposals that Reid has blocked in the Senate. The Senate under Reid is a joke right now. You should take a look at the tactics Reid is using to block amendments and stifle debate.

Your view of Romney's positions is extreme. But in any case the election will be a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy and his ability create jobs going forward. It will also be a referendum on whether Romney can do a better job. I am not asking you to debate either question. Just pointing out what the electorate will be looking at.

The immigration issue is not going to be big this time around. I doubt Obama wants to emphasize the record number of deportations during his term. He needs the Hispanic vote.

All I did was give Dale some credible reasons people would vote for Obama. Some voters are single issue voters. They pick an issue important to them vote whatever takes that position and let the rest of the chips fall wherever. Abortion is one such issue and for some kicking out the illegals is such an issue. Wouldn't the economy be better if we had 10 million more jobs open up if we could kick out those that should not be here? Winding down on foreign wars is another single issue that people will vote for. One thing for sure, if we have a 9/11 repeat between now and November that was caused by Obama's retraction of troops the economy could be fantastic but Obama will be history.

Even Clinton got this one right. Its the economy stupid. There is no mistaking that many Americans have taken some deep cuts the last 5-6 years so they are going to be focused on the economy. We know that there is little changes for diehard republicans and democrats so once again the election falls to the independents/fence sitters. The question that hits home is, are you better off now than in 2008? For some that answer is yes and for some that answer is no. For many others the answer is about the same so they will move on to other issues. My guess is that Obamacare will be the plan B to look at for many.

Please, don't get me started on asshat Reid. He has been playing such games for a long time. My question is why you think my views on Romney positions are extreme.

Originally Posted by bonehead

All I did was give Dale some credible reasons people would vote for Obama.

You did, but in the process you read more into what I said. NP

Some voters are single issue voters. They pick an issue important to them vote whatever takes that position and let the rest of the chips fall wherever.

That's true. And in a close race they can make a difference. Both candidates have positions on the smaller issues. They're not taking any chances.

The question that hits home is, are you better off now than in 2008? For some that answer is yes and for some that answer is no.

There is also the question, will I be better off in 4 years. Job security is on the minds of many who have jobs. It all gets down to having a robust economy that generates jobs. Government spending to create jobs is a high visibility reminder to those people that we still have a weak economy. I think the candidate who can convince people he has a better way, can win.

My guess is that Obamacare will be the plan B to look at for many.

Obamacare should be repealed and immediately replaced with a stopgap measure that preserves the best parts of it and then craft a new bipartisan health care plan. Obamacare is a regulatory nightmare. That is to say, any number of agencies are in the process or will be of drafting regulations--Congress didn't get into the fine details of administering it. Employers are nervous over how these regs will impact their bottom line. You can't find out by reading the act itself. BTW, the cost of Federal regulations on people, companies and the states runs to about $1.4 trillion a year. That is not to say, all regulations are bad, but there is a quiet debate going on in Congress over the issue, because many rules cost more to implement than the cost benefit they bring. Congress has abdicated too much "legislative" power to bureaucrats in the executive branch in the rules making process, and is likely to pass a bill now before Congress to put some controls on the process.

..why you think my views on Romney positions are extreme.

"So if they believe Romney is going to make people work for less money and also take away the safety nets, while the rich get an even bigger piece of the pie, why would Romney get their vote?"


You did preface your above remark with an "if", so I don't know if it reflects your view or a hypothetical one, but I kind of suspect you do believe it since you brought it up out of the blue and have made other hard comments about the GOP and Romney in other posts. The reason I called it extreme is that Romney was the only candidate during the primary to favor an increasing the minimum wage to reflect the CPI, which he did as governor of MA (since then he sort of flipped under pressure from conservatives); he also said he would not cut government spending much during his first year in office. He'll focus first on creating incentives for businesses to hire workers, cutting back on regulation and so forth...the private sector is the real job engine. Think of a dimmer--you increase one light as you dim the other. Business up, gov't spending down.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Dale:

Easy question?

Not really.

You ask why would anyone for Obama. I'd say the vast majority of his support comes from people who are either diehard Democrats or fundamentally disposed to support the liberal agenda. Add to that cultural support, e.g., blacks supporting blacks. Obama would have to be a crook or total screw up to lose these people. So, call that reason number 1.

Independents and independent-minded Democrats, Republicans and third party members will consider his record on a specific issue. The range of issues they consider important is broad. For example, gay rights activists may support him merely because he came out for gay marriage. Environmentalists may support him because he stopped the Keystone XL pipeline. And so on. So, call issue correctness reason number 2.

That leaves independent-minded people who comprise the swing vote. These are people, as you know, who actually care about things like the economy, US standing abroad, Federal regulation, health issues, and so on. They actually question the president's handling of these issues in terms of results, mainly whether the nation is better or worse off since he came to office. But here, too, people differ on what is important. So, here are 3 reasons why some of these people would vote for Obama:

1. He passed a comprehensive health care plan. (gag)

True. If you're one of the 40% who likes the law. Or the 30% who think it's well-crafted enough to survive.

2. He got Osama Bin Laden and kept the US out of new wars.

Yes on OBL but there's Libya and Uganda.

3. On the economy he is perceived as more willing to help people than the GOP.

But none of it has actually helped anybody.

I wonder how much the perception of things like those you listed will triumph over the reality that his execution of them is poor.

-dale

Originally Posted by bonehead

About 40% of the population are registered democrats. Obama more closely registers their ideals than Romney. At this point we know its going to be one or the other so its a no brainer. Obama gets their vote.

Under the Obama administration the rates of deporting illegals have gone up. Thats huge Dale. Now compare that with the last president who allowed border agents to stand trial for defending the country's border, Reagan's amnesty debacle, and a clear contrast can be made.

Then there is the perception of the economy. The panic that everyone had in 2008 is only shared by Obama's foes today. Even though the economy is still not great the free fall is over and there is much to be said for that. The question in November will be to let Obama finish what he started or go a new way which might be better and then again it might bring us back to the cliff of 2008. Then as JAD mentioned their is the perception that Obama is trying to help out the poor and middle class more than Romney would. Why would people vote for someone who would make their lives worse? So if they believe Romney is going to make people work for less money and also take away the safety nets, while the rich get an even bigger piece of the pie, why would Romney get their vote? By default Obama gets the vote. The antagonistic "if your not rich its your own damned fault" doesn't win any votes on the bottom of the economy. Even if sometimes it is true.

I'm talking about actual accomplishments though. Party affiliation isn't an accomplishment.

Is the deportation rate up or is the overall return rate up, including "attrition", i.e. "I'm going back on my own"?

RE the economy what has Obama done that has accomplished anything?

-dale

But none of it has actually helped anybody.

My older kids are in college - my regular insurance now covers them - this saves me about 5,000$ a year in insurance (vs individual policies for two kids) - I know a pharmacist who tells me the new rules have helped many people to get their prescriptions - and she is a normally republican (but also has two kids in College).

I don't believe that nothing done during the Obama healthcare changes has helped anyone. I have spent the saving on consumer goods and services myself.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

My older kids are in college - my regular insurance now covers them - this saves me about 5,000$ a year in insurance (vs individual policies for two kids) - I know a pharmacist who tells me the new rules have helped many people to get their prescriptions - and she is a normally republican (but also has two kids in College).

I don't believe that nothing done during the Obama healthcare changes has helped anyone. I have spent the saving on consumer goods and services myself.

I guess I hadn't been thinking of increases in infantilization as "helping". I stand corrected.

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

You did, but in the process you read more into what I said. NP




That's true. And in a close race they can make a difference. Both candidates have positions on the smaller issues. They're not taking any chances.



There is also the question, will I be better off in 4 years. Job security is on the minds of many who have jobs. It all gets down to having a robust economy that generates jobs. Government spending to create jobs is a high visibility reminder to those people that we still have a weak economy. I think the candidate who can convince people he has a better way, can win.





Obamacare should be repealed and immediately replaced with a stopgap measure that preserves the best parts of it and then craft a new bipartisan health care plan. Obamacare is a regulatory nightmare. That is to say, any number of agencies are in the process or will be of drafting regulations--Congress didn't get into the fine details of administering it. Employers are nervous over how these regs will impact their bottom line. You can't find out by reading the act itself. BTW, the cost of Federal regulations on people, companies and the states runs to about $1.4 trillion a year. That is not to say, all regulations are bad, but there is a quiet debate going on in Congress over the issue, because many rules cost more to implement than the cost benefit they bring. Congress has abdicated too much "legislative" power to bureaucrats in the executive branch in the rules making process, and is likely to pass a bill now before Congress to put some controls on the process.



"So if they believe Romney is going to make people work for less money and also take away the safety nets, while the rich get an even bigger piece of the pie, why would Romney get their vote?"


You did preface your above remark with an "if", so I don't know if it reflects your view or a hypothetical one, but I kind of suspect you do believe it since you brought it up out of the blue and have made other hard comments about the GOP and Romney in other posts. The reason I called it extreme is that Romney was the only candidate during the primary to favor an increasing the minimum wage to reflect the CPI, which he did as governor of MA (since then he sort of flipped under pressure from conservatives); he also said he would not cut government spending much during his first year in office. He'll focus first on creating incentives for businesses to hire workers, cutting back on regulation and so forth...the private sector is the real job engine. Think of a dimmer--you increase one light as you dim the other. Business up, gov't spending down.

If elected I see Romney caving to Boehner and the rest of the far right rather quickly. That means you can kiss the federal min wage going up goodbye and all the "safety nets" for the poor will be cut. Thats not extreme thats just the way the GOP worked in the past and there is no reason to believe they will do any different now. I already threw up a video for Dale of what Romney plans to do to construction workers if he gets elected in another thread. He wants to end project labor agreements. He wants to do away with Davis Bacon and he wants federal "right to work for less" laws. Will all this bring down the cost of construction? not one bit. All this will accomplish is that those at the top get a bigger cut and those doing the work get less money. That is the opposite of what we need.

The people at the top/Wall street are flush with money and the economy is not so great. Why? Because the people in the middle are hurting and they are the driving force of the economy. They are the ones that need the money if you want a better economy because if they don't have the money they won't buy anything and thus create the demand. Its time to stop putting the squeeze on the middle class. If anything, not bailing out the middle class is Obama's greatest failure.

Originally Posted by dalem

I'm talking about actual accomplishments though. Party affiliation isn't an accomplishment.

Is the deportation rate up or is the overall return rate up, including "attrition", i.e. "I'm going back on my own"?

RE the economy what has Obama done that has accomplished anything?

-dale

Forced deportation under Obama is at an all time high.

Banks are no longer folding right and left as they were in 2008-09. We are gaining jobs instead of losing them although at a much slower rate than what everyone wants. G.M. and most of the associated businesses were saved. Those are huge improvements.

JAD__333,

In 1945-2008, Democratic administrations spent an average of 18.35% of GDP, whereas GOPers spent an average of 19.90% of GDP.

I’m willing to say that’s too close to call, if you’re willing to give up on the bizarre notion that Democrats are more fiscally irresponsibly than GOPers.

However, I’m going to stick with my firm, data-supported belief that GOPers are irresponsible budgeteers on the basis of their average 2.06% of GDP budget deficits, as compared to Democrats’ 0.85%. Six decades of data should be enough to identify a trend.

Yes, I’m aware that I’ve left out the Obama Administration, and for very good reasons. First, we don’t have a four-year track record, so it wouldn't be apples-to-apples; second, the 2007+ period is unlike one we’ve ever seen in the post-war period; and third, the reasons for the massive spending and deficits were clearly not a policy choice based on an ideological desire to spend, spend, spend.

= = = = =

dalem,

Given the Bush Administration’s neglect of banking oversight, and the current House GOPer effort to slash budgets for several oversight agencies (SEC, CFTC, IRS), why in the world would anyone vote for a Republican politician ever again?

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/op...oney.html?_r=1
FOX: House GOP mixes some increases with spending cuts | Fox News

Originally Posted by dalem

True. If you're one of the 40% who likes the law. Or the 30% who think it's well-crafted enough to survive.

You're generous. Only 33% like it in its entirety. Independents hate the mandate. But my point is Obama gets the 33%, whereas he doesn't lose all of the 66%.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...ng-ammon-simon

Yes on OBL but there's Libya and Uganda.

On Libya he scores ok or ho hum. Voters are not sophisticate enough to realize that he abdicated US leadership. They'll just give him a blue star for keeping our guys out of another war.

But none of it has actually helped anybody.

Maybe not in reality but with unemployment down slightly, there is the perception of some movement. A good case can turn that around, and that has to be done to break down the 'myth'.

I wonder how much the perception of things like those you listed will triumph over the reality that his execution of them is poor.

Campaign ads can do wonders blowing smoke. The debates will be critical.