Every election since 1960 is a small sample size...You're pointing out wishful thinking based upon bullshit 'correlations' that come from analyzing small sample sizes. I bet you I can correlate stock market fluctuations to how often I scratch my balls using your idea.
Facts, indeed.
I can't remember an election when Democrats didn't accuse every Republican running of being a disaster not just for America, but for the whole world. It's what they do. I'd venture to say that most Democrats - certainly most progressives - are unable to imagine any Republican as President without great fear.Everyone said the same thing about Bush.
And Reagan was a warmonger who was going to start WW 3.
And Clinton was a womanizer.
And Obama hung out with terrorists and had an anti-American pastor etc etc.
Generally none of that side show stuff had any effect on their terms. (other than the Clinton/Monica debacle)
There are those who claim that Obama's problems are related to his anti-American views and friends etc, but I think they are more related to the fact that he just doesn't "get it" when it comes to economics and business.
BTW Perry/Romney would be a good ticket. Strong successful governor with a strong VP with a history of success as a businessman. Plus adding a mormon to the ticket would show that Perry is not a total religious nut job and that he values peoples views and ideas more than their religion.
The questions is whether Bush's religious views effected his presidency or were cause for its failures and I would say no.For my money those predictions were correct with Bush - he was a dope and a religious zealot. I consider him the worst modern President, and on the short list for worst of all time.
I can't remember an election when Democrats didn't accuse every Republican running of being a disaster not just for America, but for the whole world. It's what they do. I'd venture to say that most Democrats - certainly most progressives - are unable to imagine any Republican as President without great fear.
Actually I think it was the number of soldiers we had back then that helped the economy so much. Plus we were building ships and tanks and all kinds of other stuff that helped the economy.
Today though every thing is so damn expensive that I think much of the economic benefit is lost.
Back then we spent $100 million and built a cruiser that provided a few thousand jobs. Today we build 1 damn airplane for the same amount and probably provide a few hundred jobs.
I don't know. It is way to early.I can't imagine a Perry/Romney ticket actually happening - their egos are too big and Perry really is too much of a religious nut job to pick a Mormon running mate, plus Romney doesn't even offer the chance of winning his home state. I may live to eat my words but I find it hard to imagine Perry, Romney, and/or Bachmann picking one another as a running mate if they are nominated. Pawlenty might make sense as a running mate for any of the three, as would Johnson or Huntsman (though Romney presumably wouldn't pick another Mormon).
Every election since 1960 is a small sample size...
1. No one above 7.2 has ever won (except FDR)
2. Bush, Nixon and Eisenhower are the only ones to have an increase in unemployment and still won and all they had rates of 5.4, 5.3 and 4.3 on election day.
No one below 49% has ever won.
This doesn't mean that he is going to lose for certain, but things sure look bad for him.
So basically... both sides have a bunch of people who see demons on the other side and freak out of every little thing and then those people get elected and none of those demons really make a difference... fair?You say this as though the Republicans are not guilty of the same thing. You may not remember how incensed Republicans were about the election of Clinton, but I do. Similarly, Obama has been subjected to "criticism" up to and including accusations that he is a Muslim engaged in an anti-American crusade, that he was not born in the United States, and even that he is the anti-Christ. If you're going to posit the Democrats as the party of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists and the Republicans as uniformly calm and rational, I'm going to call you what you are: a willfully ignorant ideologue.
So basically... both sides have a bunch of people who see demons on the other side and freak out of every little thing and then those people get elected and none of those demons really make a difference... fair?
The Obama is a Muslim, anti-Christ thing is just plain crazy as is the Rick Perry is the anti-Christ thing is too.
That is just a guess.So how exactly is everything so damn expensive that the economic benefit is lost? You are attempting to compare airframe/fighter production with ship production, and that is ridiculous.
That is just a guess.
I think the money we are spending today on defense is not getting as much economic benefit because of what we are spending it on and how it is being used.
Plus so much of the money is being shipped overseas.
In the 80s we were doing a massive military build up of equipment and men and the money was going into construction and ships and other projects that provide economic gain. Today we build missiles and the blow things up with them and don't get much long term benefit from it.
Taxation was also considerably higher, particularly after his tax increases. Want to pull up the numbers on that while you're consulting the CBO or wherever you're getting this information? Moreover, unlike Obama, Reagan did not inherit two active wars when he took office.
Every election since 1960 is a small sample size...
1. No one above 7.2 has ever won (except FDR)
2. Bush, Nixon and Eisenhower are the only ones to have an increase in unemployment and still won and all they had rates of 5.4, 5.3 and 4.3 on election day.
No one below 49% has ever won.
This doesn't mean that he is going to lose for certain, but things sure look bad for him.
Do us all a favor and fix it.And a HUGE deficit brought on by the 2 unfunded wars, Bush's french kiss to Big Pharma Medicare part D and Bush's rimjob to the wealthiest Americans called the Bush tax cuts.
Two data points that have proven to be true in every election since the end of WW 2 and you dismiss it as not a big enough sample??Yes, every election since 1960 is a small sample size. How do you not know that?
By fix it I mean...get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, fix Medicare Part D...and don't fucking vote to extend Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.Fix a factual statement?
A ship provides jobs when being built, then it provides jobs at the place it is based, then it provides jobs when it goes into the ship yard for service etc etc.Please explain how a ship provides more economic gain than a missiles. Are you saying that blowing up a terrorist's house is somehow bad for our economy?
By fix it I mean...get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, fix Medicare Part D...and don't fucking vote to extend Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
How about actually doing something besides incessantly bitching about it?
Two data points that have proven to be true in every election since the end of WW 2 and you dismiss it as not a big enough sample??
Seriously? Are you so in love with Obama that you think he will be the ONLY president since WW 2 to win with a lower approval rating and high unemployment?
It is one thing to say that we are a year out and that it is too early to make a prediction, which is a completely true statement. But to suggest that unemployment and approval aren't accurate enough predictors is ludicrous.
Do the actual math and all of those things don't add up to much compare to the spending spree Obama has gone on since being elected.And a HUGE deficit brought on by the 2 unfunded wars, Bush's french kiss to Big Pharma Medicare part D and Bush's rimjob to the wealthiest Americans called the Bush tax cuts.
Do the actual math and all of those things don't add up to much compare to the spending spree Obama has gone on since being elected.
The wars: $150 billion a year
Tax cuts: $120 billion a year (10 year average)
Medicare D: $50 billion in 2008
So grand total of $320 billion a year. This years deficit $1.6 trillion...
So now that we have found the source of 20% of this years deficit what do we do about the other $1.3 trillion?
More facts for you...
Excess spending under Obama $1.4 trillion in 3 years (excess being defined as spending above and beyond the previous baseline)
That is MORE than the 10 year cost of the Bush cuts OR the entire cost of the Iraq war or DOUBLE the 10 year cost of Part D.
Perhaps you should stop trying to score cheap debate points and start digging into the actual numbers. You might be shocked at what you find. Such as 2008 spending $2.9 trillion 2011 spending $3.8 trillion <-- $800 trillion increase in spending in 3 years. That is a 30% increase! That is a 10% increase EVERY year.
1. I agree that you can not predict today what will happen next fall, but you can make some educated guesses.blah blah blah
Republicans I know were not incensed about Clinton's election until after he went into action. In fact, a fair number of the Republicans and conservatives I know voted for Clinton because Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. (I myself voted for Harry Jones on the Libertarian ticket, of course.) Obama I grant you took (and takes) as many shots from conservatives as G. W. Bush took (and takes) from liberals, the obvious difference being the mainstream media. The difference between the mainstream media making up hit pieces on Bush using laughably badly forged documents on the one hand, and referring to Obama as a "Christlike" Messiah who sends shivers up their legs and is possibly the smartest man ever elected President on the other is pretty striking. But you do have a point; it's not a one-way street. (Note though that the "not born in America and therefore ineligible" was first applied to McCain.)You say this as though the Republicans are not guilty of the same thing. You may not remember how incensed Republicans were about the election of Clinton, but I do. Similarly, Obama has been subjected to "criticism" up to and including accusations that he is a Muslim engaged in an anti-American crusade, that he was not born in the United States, and even that he is the anti-Christ. If you're going to posit the Democrats as the party of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists and the Republicans as uniformly calm and rational, I'm going to call you what you are: a willfully ignorant ideologue.
C'mon Wolf. He didn't arbitrarily pick 7.2%, it's where the data reaches an apparent asymptote. Picking 9% and 2/3 would be totally arbitrary. Picking the highest unemployment percentage at which a Presidential candidate was re-elected, with the noted exception of FDR who in fact had achieved a notable if stalled reduction in unemployment in the midst of an unprecedented event, is the least arbitrary point one could possibly pick.By setting the threshold at 7.2%, you are arbitrarily excluding Reagan. You could set it at any point, really, depending on what conclusion you want to draw. We could set it at 9% and say, 2 times out of 3 candidates with over 9% unemployment won. So if Obama can only maintain the rate over 9% he's golden! You really need to stop underestimating the intelligence of the people you debate here.
Yet even if we take your self-serving 7.2% threshold, only those cases where the condition is met are relevant here. There are exactly six cases where an incumbent ran with over 7.2% unemployment in your entire chart. Twice for FDR, who had, by far, the highest unemployment rate of the bunch (along with Hoover). Once Hoover, once Ford, once Carter and once GHWB. 4 times out of 6 your observation holds. Yeah, that's way too small a sample size for predictive accuracy. I've never heard of anything being considered scientific with a sample size that small.
There are also numerous factors that impacted those particular elections outside the unemployment rate. For example, GHWB ran against a candidate who was a much stronger campaigner than him, was hurt badly by his "read my lips" pledge, and supposedly (so say conservatives), a third party candidate sucked away more of his votes than his opponent's. None of those things had anything to do with the unemployment rate, did they?
- wolf
You tell me dude.Still waiting on you to go research the origins of those cost increases. For like the third time, what policies do you believe Obama has implemented that have led to these spending increases?