News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[redsunrise]

most of our electorate is STUPID. they ridiculously go to one side or the other, and stay there. neither side has the best interest of the populace. until the majority realizes that govt is for govt, then we will always have way more govt than we need, and all the problems that come from it.

if we look backwards in american history and examine the results, i doubt that people will wise up in my lifetime.

It's only rational for a voter to piggy-back on better informed voters. That's a problem inherent in representative democracy: it makes for rule-by-shallow-impression.

Karl Rove is not an accident, but essence of repr. democracy. And so now e.g. Paul Krugman is turning into left's equivalent of Rove.

 

[redsunrise]

The TEA party didn't cause the mess, but some people have the opinion they're making it worse by being obstructionist.

Obstructionism and brinkmanship are the only things that make representative democracies do anything consistent. Were it not for obstructionism and brinkmanship, the public debt deal would not get made.

Tea party = democracy works as designed.

Not that design is very good, mind you.

 

[redsunrise]

Obama strategy for 2012: roll belly up and play dead. That's the strategy that is least bad for him. There are no good ones.

Job plan will fail. That's basically certain, given beliefs of Obama's base. Stimulus has failed, and so will job plan, as it will contain complex, weird mix of quasi-private, pretend-not-to-be-public make work jobs. Those will create some increase in aggregate consumption, perhaps having some Keynesian-style short-term multiplier effects in the economy, but nothing major. Unemployment and discouraged workers numbers will not change significantly, making Obama political dead meat.

He's in a no-win situation. Cannot do centrist, as this would alienate him from the left (there's already serious talk on the left of jettisoning Obama). Cannot do centre-left as this would make center abandon him. He cannot do left, because that doesn't work, we know that by now, after failures of large-scale Keynesianism and stagflation a la Carter and failure of just about any govt program, from "public allies" to green jobs to ever worse education. Beyond certain size, public sector is a drag and not an asset, but that cannot be cut, not by Republicans and even less by Obama. Same with unions. He can't say no to them, and cannot say yes to hard experience pointing to evidence of many countries that unionization harms job creation (see e.g. IMF studies on the subject), as the public wants to hear anything but truth about the unions, true necessity of cutting spending, true necessity of raising taxes, and excessive size of budget deficits ($4 trillion of deficit spending or so so far and all he got is anemic job creation - not quite a result expected by Keynesians, where public and deficit spending was supposed to increase aggregate consumption demand and thus spur job creation by mobilizing "unutilized/underutilized assets"). And obviously he will not do right or centre-right.

So he will continue muddling through, making no serious waves. That will make nobody happy, and everybody frustrated for not getting what they want or prefer.

I'd rather be in place of a duck in a redneck state during hunting season than in place of Obama.

 

[WhoWee]

The results of the New York special election to fill Weiner's seat are in - a Republican has won.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/new-york-special-election-results_n_961363.html?ncid=webmail1

""The results in NY-09 are not reflective of what will happen in November 2012 when Democratic challengers run against Republican incumbents who voted to end Medicare and cut Social Security while protecting tax loopholes for big corporations and the ultra wealthy," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of New York."

I have to wonder who this Democrat spokesperson is trying to convince?

 

[daveb]

The results of the New York special election to fill Weiner's seat are in - a Republican has won.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/new-york-special-election-results_n_961363.html?ncid=webmail1

""The results in NY-09 are not reflective of what will happen in November 2012 when Democratic challengers run against Republican incumbents who voted to end Medicare and cut Social Security while protecting tax loopholes for big corporations and the ultra wealthy," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel of New York."

I have to wonder who this Democrat spokesperson is trying to convince?

It's funny this came up. Yesterday (I think, maybe it was Monday) on the way home from work on NPR's "All Things Considered", this topic came up. Apparently, the district is very heavily registered Democrat with a large orthodx Jewish population. The Democrat running is orthodox Jewish, but the consensus (according to the program) is that due to redistricting, the seat will be gone come next November, so there is no danger by voting in Republican. The base there are "sending a message" to Obama about his policy towards Israel, and not the economy. I haven't verified this, but this wasa according to the program.

 

[mheslep]

Registration is 3:1 Democratic in NY-9. This is the first time that seat has gone Republican since 1922.

One can not say that any particular seat will 'be gone' because of the last census despite what government sponsored radio may say; all that can be accurately said now is that NY state will have one less congressional district. The people currently in the borders of NY 9 will still have a vote next year, and Congressman-Elect Turner will be able to stand for office in the new district boundaries if he chooses.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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 $207B.

Putting numbers like that out only encourages this kind of comparison.

 

[MarcoD]

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.

Putting numbers like that out only encourages this kind of comparison.

Hmpf, I still think the problem of the US is just that they need to compete with all the emerging markets. Fiscal stimulus won't change a bit, probably only will make it worse. IMO, the US just needs import restrictions and relevantly 'normal' state budget.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Putting numbers like that out only encourages this kind of comparison.

IMO - we don't need any new jobs programs - we just need to open the existing programs up to all unemployed people and all business locations. Currently, the tax incentives are available to employers that hire from select groups of people - with the greatest incentives for hiring in the "Empowerment Zones". Unfortunately, the programs don't work as designed - evidenced by the $Billions in unused credits (about $9 Billion unclaimed in 2009) and high unemployment rates.

This company website provides a (biased in the context of their marketing pitch) overview.
http://www.taxbreakllc.com/tax_credit_services.html

"The Opportunities

Billions of dollars are forfeited every year because business leaders and managers do not have the means to track, research and take advantage of the available government incentives. TaxBreak’s due diligence in tracking employer business incentives is focused on the following key categories:

Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
Employee FICA Tip Credits
Geographic Based Credits
Disaster Relief Tax Credit
Indian Employment Credit
Research and Development Credit
Cost Segregation
State Tax and Incentive Credits"

 

[WhoWee]

Some direct info on HIRE - from March 2010 - results are difficult to track (IMO). my bold

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=220745,00.html

"Under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, enacted March 18, 2010, two new tax benefits are available to employers who hire certain previously unemployed workers (“qualified employees”).

The first, referred to as the payroll tax exemption, provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

In addition, for each qualified employee retained for at least 52 consecutive weeks, businesses will also be eligible for a general business tax credit, referred to as the new hire retention credit, of 6.2 percent of wages paid to the qualified employee over the 52 week period, up to a maximum credit of $1,000."

IMO - again - the Government needs to stop trying to pick winners and losers and open the incentives to everyone.

 

[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.