Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

A quick update on the Obama administration's developing Stimulus/solar energy scandal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/

Solyndra, the solar panel company whose highly publicized failure and consequent investigation by federal authorities has flashed across headlines recently, isn't the only business to go belly up after benefiting from a piece of the $800 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2009.

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.""

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently, the DOE has guaranteed $38.6Billion - and claims 63,947 jobs (created/saved) of which 33,000 are at Ford Motor Company?

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

Perhaps we'll hear more about these initiatives during the 2012 campaign?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, there are embarrassments and there are scandals.

Solyndra is certainly an embarrassment. When the President points at a company and tells the country that this is his vision of their future, it's more than a little embarrassing when a month later it's bankrupt. And yes, his opponents will make political hay of this when the time is right. But that's not a scandal.

Might there be a scandal? Perhaps - the role of George Kaiser needs to be clarified, certainly.

But that was not my point. My point is that it is a mistake for the President to be saying that "this will save 1.9 million jobs" when instead he cal say "millions of jobs". In the former case, anyone with a calculator, slide rule, or who went to school before 1975 can do exactly the same unflattering calculation as I did. Does he not have advisors to tell him "don't say that!"?

 

[WhoWee]

Here is another (potential) embarrassment for the Obama Administration.

http://biggovernment.com/mangley/2011/09/16/is-lightsquared-the-new-solyndra-the-case-of-the-air-force-4-star-and-white-house-pressure/

"Last week, Air Force General William Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command, told Congressional leaders in a closed-door session that the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to favor a company that turns out to be a major donor to the Democratic Party."

While none of these may turn into a "scandal" - they just don't fit the definition of "transparency, hope, or change" - bad news for a President trying to be re-elected after making these promises only 3 years ago.

 

[Gokul43201]

The President has stated that his $447B jobs program will create 1.9M jobs. That's 235k per job. You would think he would have learned to be vaguer with his numbers after the 8% unemployment fiasco.

Put another way, to take the entire 9% unemployed segment of the economy and pay them minimum wage would cost only $207M.

Pay them for how long? Not following the math here.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Pay them for how long?

The entire fiscal year. Same time frame as the $447B.

 

[Gokul43201]

1. I believe the $447B stimulus is meant to be a one-time kind of thing (at least on paper) - not a recurring yearly allocation - that is hoped to generate jobs that will survive at least until the next economic downturn, 10-15 years down the road (or permanently, like Solyndra!). Or if that's not the case, then some reasonable estimate of the lifetime of the expected jobs should be involved in the calculation. If the first job created is a 2-yr construction project to fix some bridge somewhere, then it would be expected to last at least 2 years (and so on, to generate an expectation value).

2. At the minimum wage of about $7 per hr, time 40 hrs a week = about $300 per week ... times 50 weeks is about $15000 per yr. Multiply that by the 14M unemployed, and I get a little over $200B for a year ... somewhat larger than your $200M. Was that a typo?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The M for B is a typo. Thanks for catching it; I've fixed the original post.

In the US, Congress cannot obligate money for future fiscal years. Second, the President has never said that these 1.9M jobs are going to last for more than a decade. The Keynesian model says economic downturns are caused by a lack of demand, so governments should stimulate demand by reducing unemployment, even on temporary projects, and then once the "pump is primed", the economy will recover.

The obvious question is that if this is a good idea for 1.9M jobs, wouldn't it be a better idea for 9M jobs?

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama was an early investor? An Obama campaign "bundler" runs the FCC? This story ran in the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-c...grity/politically-connected-lig_b_902421.html

"Politically-connected LightSquared wins approval for wireless Internet plan despite GPS disruption concerns"

This entire story is worth reading - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Will it destroy the president's credibility to deny a $1.5Trillion tax hike is class warfare?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/obama-this-is-not-class-warfare-its-math.php

""Either we have to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, or we have to ask seniors to pay more for medicare, or gut education," he continued. "This is not class warfare. It's Math.""

Does anyone actually believe the Buffet/secretary example or the new $50Million hedge fund manager versus a teacher example is an apples to apples comparison?

Btw - isn't everyone allowed to invest in the market and otherwise earn capital gains?

 

[russ_watters]

Backing up a step, Obama's $3 trillion debt increase reduction proposal: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/politics/obama-debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A couple of things immediately jump out at you:

1. It includes zero cuts in discretionary spending, but half of the total is tax increases, further distancing himself from the debt deal he made just a couple of months ago. After having made the Tea Party out as being unreasonably unwilling to compromise, he proves their position to be right by completely trashing the deal he made. Good luck getting them to compromise the next time you need something, Obama: next time, they should actually make you sign the cuts into law before agreeing to anything at all.

2. It uses the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as 1/3 of the "cuts". I suppose that's the upside of putting them onto the budget, but no one's going to buy the gimmick of claiming a multi-year, phased drawdown that started before he entered office (Iraq) is a cut he made. I do suppose he could call ending his Afghanistan surge a cut, though...

Caveat - I've looked for CBO budget estimates and it looks like the CBO baseline improperly assumes spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue at last year's levels for the forseeable future. But an improper baseline doesn't make for a savings when you correct the calculation. Particularly when the Obama has already provided reduction projections in his own previous budget requests:

The main reason for the difference is that
the baseline incorporates the assumption that funding for
war-related activities will continue at $159 billion a year
(the amount provided so far for 2011, annualized) with
adjustments for inflation, whereas the President’s budget
includes a request for appropriations of $127 billion for
such activities for 2012 and a placeholder of $50 billion a
year thereafter.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-AnalysisPresidentsBudget.pdf

Doing the math on that, it total's $1013 billion in "savings" - I'm not sure where the discrepancy is vs the $1.1T he announced in his "plan", but perhaps he simply dropped the last two years of his placeholder or I got the number of years wrong...

 

[WhoWee]

Caveat - I've looked for CBO budget estimates and it looks like the CBO baseline improperly assumes spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue at last year's levels for the forseeable future. But an improper baseline doesn't make for a savings when you correct the calculation. Particularly when the Obama has already provided reduction projections in his own previous budget requests:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-AnalysisPresidentsBudget.pdf

Doing the math on that, it total's $1013 billion in "savings" - I'm not sure where the discrepancy is vs the $1.1T he announced in his "plan", but perhaps he simply dropped the last two years of his placeholder or I got the number of years wrong...

Might some of the future spending in Iraq and Afghanistan be for contractors that will remain - including drone operations?

 

[russ_watters]

Might some of the future spending in Iraq and Afghanistan be for contractors that will remain - including drone operations?

Probably, but $50B will buy a lot of drones and rent a lot of contractors, no?

 

[mheslep]

Backing up a step, Obama's $3 trillion debt increase reduction proposal: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/politics/obama-debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A couple of things immediately jump out at you:

1. It includes zero cuts in discretionary spending, ...

I like the tax reform proposals in there (loopholes), closing subsidies (agriculture), and the nibble at Medicare, so hope the House will ignore the remaining silliness in the proposal attempt to make the rest real.

 

[WhoWee]

This ad uses President Obama's words then pushes the "patriot" button - sounded like Reagan at the end. I expect most of the Republican ads will feature sound clips of President Obama - he ran against George Bush last election and he'll be running against himself this election- IMO of course.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Perry-ad-attack-Obama/2011/09/21/id/411786?s=al&promo_code=D188-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0&feature=player_embedded

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Annual Phoenix Awards. Sounding like a professional community organizer - he urged the crowd to help him (turn out voters in 2012).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eak-to-frustrated-congressional-black-caucus/

""Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your maching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do.""

He's hoping to have better results in 2012 than he did in 2010.my bold

"Last year, Obama addressed the same dinner and implored blacks to get out the vote in the midterm elections because Republicans were preparing to "turn back the clock."
What followed was a Democratic rout that Obama acknowledged as a "shellacking."
Where blacks had turned out in droves to help elect him in 2008, there was a sharp drop-off two years later.
Some 65 percent of eligible blacks voted in 2008, compared with a 2010 level that polls estimate at between 37 percent and 40 percent. Final census figures for 2010 are not yet available, and it's worth noting off-year elections typically draw far fewer voters.
This year's caucus speech came as Obama began cranking up grass-roots efforts across the Democratic spectrum.
It also fell on the eve of a trip to the West Coast that will combine salesmanship for the jobs plan he sent to Congress this month and re-election fundraising."

 

[DoggerDan]

Probably, but $50B will buy a lot of drones and rent a lot of contractors, no?

No doubt doing more with less is one of the reasons the Air Force pushed so hard for drones. If they had to provide the same surveillance coverage with manned aircraft, it'd cost ten times as much.

Contractors, not so much. I think that's a wash, except for the continuity. Someone who's been there a while usually knows the answer or is closer to the solution than someone who is replaced every 1 to 3 years for "career progression."

 

[WhoWee]

When David Axelrod said this - I wonder if he was comparing President Obama's career to the Titanic - big, bold and modern - then sunk into the cold depths of history?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-axelrod-20110927,0,1691370.story

"President Obama faces a “titanic struggle” to win re-election, his top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, said Tuesday, given high unemployment and the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington."

I'm confident Axelrod will find a lifeboat.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Titanic was certainly a bad choice of words.

The President has a number of problems. One problem is that he is not a very good persuader. His speeches are wonderful to hear (when he isn't in prickly and whiny mode), but they don't persuade. Nobody's mind is changed. Related to that problem is that the President doesn't seem to grasp that - his reaction to problems is to give a speech. The final piece of that problem is that he went into re-election campaign mode way too soon, and the way his is campaigning is telling a significant fraction of the population, "I'm not your President."

This is taking its toll on independent voters, many of whom have reason to be unhappy already: ObamaCare taking a higher priority than jobs, and arguably "stimulus" and "jobs" bills that seem to be more about passing out the pork than actually providing jobs. Additionally, the fact that the President is putting the US on a more European-like social and fiscal trajectory just as Europe is collapsing from the very weight of these policies is also something concerning independents.

Of course "independents" are not a monolithic entity, and indeed many self-identified independents are reliable voters for one party or another. (Some of them are here) But the fact remains that he is losing support among independents. In the last 6 months, he's lost 18 percentage points among them.

He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? One advantage of this strategy is that it can be applied late in the campaign season. We may have seen a hint of this with the jobs bill, which the senate majority leader from the president's own party won't allow to come for a vote. You get a piece of legislation that cannot possibly pass, and you make it a centerpiece of the campaign.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

 

[WhoWee]

Titanic was certainly a bad choice of words.

The President has a number of problems. One problem is that he is not a very good persuader. His speeches are wonderful to hear (when he isn't in prickly and whiny mode), but they don't persuade. Nobody's mind is changed. Related to that problem is that the President doesn't seem to grasp that - his reaction to problems is to give a speech. The final piece of that problem is that he went into re-election campaign mode way too soon, and the way his is campaigning is telling a significant fraction of the population, "I'm not your President."

This is taking its toll on independent voters, many of whom have reason to be unhappy already: ObamaCare taking a higher priority than jobs, and arguably "stimulus" and "jobs" bills that seem to be more about passing out the pork than actually providing jobs. Additionally, the fact that the President is putting the US on a more European-like social and fiscal trajectory just as Europe is collapsing from the very weight of these policies is also something concerning independents.

Of course "independents" are not a monolithic entity, and indeed many self-identified independents are reliable voters for one party or another. (Some of them are here) But the fact remains that he is losing support among independents. In the last 6 months, he's lost 18 percentage points among them.

He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? One advantage of this strategy is that it can be applied late in the campaign season. We may have seen a hint of this with the jobs bill, which the senate majority leader from the president's own party won't allow to come for a vote. You get a piece of legislation that cannot possibly pass, and you make it a centerpiece of the campaign.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

my bold
In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

To your point - unless Harry Reid maintains a majority and Nancy Pelosi regains control of the House - as evidenced by the recent defeat of his budget and the treatment of his jobs Bill proposal - it's unlikely President Obama persuade anyone to do anything - IMO.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

I disagree. That was the question in 2008. I think the question for 2012 is "Are you happy with his job performance, and do you think he would do better than his opposition?"

 

[BobG]

my bold
In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

I disagree. That was the question in 2008. I think the question for 2012 is "Are you happy with his job performance, and do you think he would do better than his opposition?"

I agree with Vanadium. Voters will need to evaluate whether a person with 4 years of Presidential experience is more qualified than a person with 0 years of Presidential experience.

And if they're not happy with his job performance, the answer to that may be "No".

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When David Axelrod said this - I wonder if he was comparing President Obama's career to the Titanic - big, bold and modern - then sunk into the cold depths of history?

Obviously not and you just wanted to use the metaphor.

 

[daveb]

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

Which is odd since democratic presidents are usually trusted more with economic policy than foreign policy, and the reverse goes for republican presidents.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with Vanadium. Voters will need to evaluate whether a person with 4 years of Presidential experience is more qualified than a person with 0 years of Presidential experience.

And if they're not happy with his job performance, the answer to that may be "No".

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

Normally, I would agree with regard to 4 years of Presidential experience - but it's not clear (to me) he's learned anything about the economy. The other problem is the cumulative effect of developing stories about Solyndra and Fast and Furious, along with the revelation the first time around the projects weren't "shovel ready".

 

[mheslep]

...
He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? ...

I agree with this analysis. I heard a pundit suggest that the administration probably also recognizes these alternatives, but may change options over time. That is, to fund raise and run a campaign Obama must court the base now, but later, say end of next summer with a well staffed fifty state campaign it then pivots right and attempts to bring back some independents. In the mean time class warfare continues to be the theme.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

Here we disagree on timing. I think we have already seen the legislation popular with the left in the form of this jobs bill that will go nowhere. Later near the general election I expect a shift to the middle.

 

[Char. Limit]

Normally, I would agree with regard to 4 years of Presidential experience - but it's not clear (to me) he's learned anything about the economy. The other problem is the cumulative effect of developing stories about Solyndra and Fast and Furious, along with the revelation the first time around the projects weren't "shovel ready".

That doesn't really matter. He still has experience in being a President. Would you say someone who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber for four years has no experience in being a plumber?

 

[WhoWee]

That doesn't really matter. He still has experience in being a President. Would you say someone who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber for four years has no experience in being a plumber?

If I knew a plumber with 4 or 40 years of experience "who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber" - he would not be hired to do my work.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd definitely pick a plumber who might do it wrong over a plumber I had seen do it wrong every chance he got. Heck, I've actually made similar choices before!

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

 

[BobG]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

Maybe so, but if the "no experience" argument worked in 2008, then surely it will work again!

Wait... it didn't actually work all that well in 2008.

That argument is even worse than desparate! :rofl:

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here we disagree on timing. I think we have already seen the legislation popular with the left in the form of this jobs bill that will go nowhere. Later near the general election I expect a shift to the middle.

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards. We haven't seen it yet, and when it is forced upon the president by circumstances, he holds a press conference complaining about it. Also, it is very difficult in politics to quickly regain a disenchanted middle quickly, while one can quickly re-energize a disenchanted base.

Furthermore, you can't re-invigorate a base with a bill a year before the election if you can't pass it. You can if you propose it right before the election.

Suppose he proposed a Guaranteed Citizen's Income of 1.5x the poverty line. That would arguably end poverty, remove the concern about unemployment, and zero out spending for unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security. It would cost $3T, of which $1.6T can come from the elimination of those other programs, and $1.4T on unspecified taxes on "corporations and the wealthy".

The left would eat it up, and the right won't vote for him anyway.

 

[BobG]

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards. We haven't seen it yet, and when it is forced upon the president by circumstances, he holds a press conference complaining about it. Also, it is very difficult in politics to quickly regain a disenchanted middle quickly, while one can quickly re-energize a disenchanted base.

You can't just announce, "Peace is at hand"? (Henry Kissinger, Oct 26, 1972)

What a strange election that was. Nixon led McGovern 62% to 38%, yet resorted to things like Watergate and "Peace is at hand" pronouncements to ensure his victory.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9457/election-polls-vote-groups-19681972.aspx

The other strange thing? Voters with college educations usually supported the Republican candidates back then, while now college education voters seem more likely to support the Democratic candidate. (I could understand that when Bush was the Republican candidate, except Bush actually did well among college educated voters.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111781/blacks-postgrads-young-adults-help-obama-prevail.aspx#2

 

[WhoWee]

Might we label this the "Solyndra Double Down"?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52653377-68/energy-loan-solar-department.html.csp

"Obama administration approves two solar loans worth $1 billion"

On the other hand , this will create jobs. my bold
"SolarReserve LLC, of Santa Monica, Calif., the parent company for Tonopah, is privately held. The Energy Department said its rules prevented it from discussing the company’s financial information. Sempra Energy of San Diego, which owns Mesquite, is publicly held.

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the two projects had extensive reviews that included scrutiny of the parent companies’ finances.

Chu said the Nevada project would produce enough electricity to power more than 43,000 homes, while the Arizona project would power nearly 31,000 homes. The two projects will create about 900 construction jobs and at least 52 permanent jobs, Chu said.

"If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar," Chu said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a strong supporter of the Nevada project, which he says will help his state’s economy recover. Former Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also supported the project."

 

[mheslep]

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards.

As you successfully argued earlier, the president must do something to turn independent voters. Otherwise he might as well hunker down in the WH signing executive orders until Jan '13.

Suppose he proposed a Guaranteed Citizen's Income of 1.5x the poverty line. That would arguably end poverty, remove the concern about unemployment, and zero out spending for unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security.

That's effectively a guaranteed minimum wage of $16.50/hr for sitting at home which would likely triple unemployment, triple inflation, collapse exports ... so it would be a disaster for everyone. But to follow along on the math for fun...

It would cost $3T, of which $1.6T can come from the elimination of those other programs,

Yes in a fictitious static world that math works...

and $1.4T on unspecified taxes on "corporations and the wealthy".

but this does not. Again as you have frequently pointed out the money is simply not there. The only way to collect that much additional revenue annually given current GDP is to increase taxes on those earning less than $250K/year.