• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
recceguy said:
Yeah and the polls had Harper in trouble until the votes started getting counted. ;)

Polls only give the results that the person commissioning it want. They are absolutely that last thing to depend on for insight or decision.

The real trick is to understand what the poll is telling you. How many people actually believed the "Orange Crush" was real despite repeated polling results? I am on record as not believing (and so are lots of others); the trend was so far outside of expectations that *we* simply denied it. OTOH as Recceguy points out, there was lots of ambiguity about how well the CPC was going to do according to the polls, the one that counted gave them a mandate and a majority government.

WRT 2012, this will be very much an election about the margins. With almost 50% of Americans not paying income tax, there is a huge built in constituency for the status quo and any politician who supports it. The "independents" are going to be the ones who decide, and the margin of victory will be fairly small. The TEA Party movement is very right in focusing on the downline elections which are much more "winnable" and also have the potential to craft real, if small scale changes at the local level.
 
The "50% don't pay income tax" meme is going to go nowhere, I suspect. It's relatively meaningless, in comparison to interest in how little some pay at high income levels. I'm wondering what the product of Romney's evasive attitude to his taxes will be in the end.

I'm not a betting man, but I won't be surprised if the Tea Party fades into oblivion afterward. That said, I won't be shocked if their impact is significant in some areas.

Thucydides said:
The real trick is to understand what the poll is telling you. How many people actually believed the "Orange Crush" was real despite repeated polling results? I am on record as not believing (and so are lots of others); the trend was so far outside of expectations that *we* simply denied it. OTOH as Recceguy points out, there was lots of ambiguity about how well the CPC was going to do according to the polls, the one that counted gave them a mandate and a majority government.

WRT 2012, this will be very much an election about the margins. With almost 50% of Americans not paying income tax, there is a huge built in constituency for the status quo and any politician who supports it. The "independents" are going to be the ones who decide, and the margin of victory will be fairly small. The TEA Party movement is very right in focusing on the downline elections which are much more "winnable" and also have the potential to craft real, if small scale changes at the local level.
 
If conservatives in the US decide their choice is "vote for" and go all fratricide on Romney, he is done.  If they decide this is a "vote against" election, I think Obama is done.
 
So where does the President and his administration get their cues from?:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/worst-white-house-aide_616736.html?nopager=1

The Worst White House Aide
Valerie Jarrett’s perfect record . . . for giving bad advice.
Jan 23, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 18 • By MATTHEW CONTINETTI

If for nothing else, Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas will be remembered for an anecdote from 2010. After he spent hours disputing an allegation in the French media that Michelle Obama thought life in the White House was “hell,” press secretary Robert Gibbs encountered senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. She told him the first lady was unhappy with his work. Gibbs exploded in a rage, informing Jarrett that she didn’t “know what the f— you’re talking about” and that if Mrs. Obama was displeased, well, “f— her too.” Subsequent relations between the senior adviser and press secretary were strained. Gibbs told Kantor he stopped taking Jarrett seriously “as an adviser to the president of the United States.”

It’s about time. Many have wondered—and the Washington Post asked last year—“What, exactly, does Valerie Jarrett do?” No one has a clear answer. Whatever she does, the U.S. taxpayer pays her $172,200 a year to do it. A confidante of the Obamas for more than two decades, variously described as the president’s “closest adviser” and a member of the “innermost ring” of influence, Jarrett clearly has the first couple’s ears. She seems to function as a sort of third party to the Obama marriage, guarding the president and his wife from bad news and outside influence while meeting with Lady Gaga. Her lack of any national political experience whatsoever—she had never been to Iowa before Obama competed there three years ago—has not prevented her from shaping the White House’s political strategy and influencing economic and foreign policies. One might liken her to Don Corleone’s consigliere Tom Hagen, bedecked in a designer shawl, except Hagen gave better advice.

What Valerie Jarrett does best is represent the Obama administration in microcosm. She embodies its insularity, its cronyism, its cluelessness. Born in Iran to a prominent African-American family from Chicago, she took degrees at Stanford and Michigan Law. She worked briefly as a corporate lawyer but hated every moment. So she decided to “give back,” which is Chicago code for cashing in. She campaigned for Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, and worked for him in the corporation counsel’s office. Washington died in 1987, but Jarrett remained in government, working for his successor, Mayor Richard M. “Richie” Daley, son of legendary boss Richard J. Daley. It was all upward from there.

Before long Jarrett stood at the intersection of private interest and public power. She became Daley’s deputy chief of staff and was later appointed to various boards and quasi-governmental agencies that award lucrative contracts—the Chicago Transit Board, the Commission for Planning and Development for the City of Chicago, the University of Chicago Medical Center, and so on. Her social standing, combined with her positions in government and her well-compensated seats on the boards of many companies, magnified Jarrett’s power. She knew everybody. Everybody wanted to know her.

In 1991, another disillusioned attorney, Michelle Robinson, applied for a job in Mayor Daley’s office. Jarrett interviewed her. The two women were instant friends. Before accepting the position, however, Robinson made an unusual request: Would Jarrett mind having dinner with her and her fiancé, Barack Obama? Jarrett accepted, and she has never been far from the couple since.

President Obama, who grew up partly in Indonesia, seems to be drawn to Americans who have spent considerable time abroad, who feel askew in their native land. Jarrett told author David Remnick that the reason she bonded with Barack Obama was that “he and I shared a view of where the United States fit in the world, which is often different from the view people have who have not traveled outside the United States as young children.” Remnick goes on to write that Jarrett viewed America “as one country among many, rather than as the center of all wisdom and experience.” Sounds like the president, all right.

Jarrett was an early supporter of Obama’s political career. From her post at the nexus of Chicago business and politics, she was helpful in introducing the ambitious state senator to rich and well-connected figures. The association was not without embarrassment, however. Jarrett was an occasional collaborator with the developer Antoin Rezko, whose 2006 arrest for public corruption became a shallow pothole in Obama’s road to the White House. And Jarrett herself provided some bad headlines: In addition to her public burdens, she ran Habitat Co., which received taxpayer subsidies to manage low-income housing projects seemingly into the ground. The feds seized one complex in 2006; another, Grove Parc Plaza, was exposed as a decrepit slum by the Boston Globe in 2008.

The Chicago method was on full display after Obama defeated John McCain, when functionaries from across the state of Illinois lobbied for the president-elect’s now vacant Senate seat. Evidence released at the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich reveals that Jarrett, who has never been elected to anything, wanted to replace her protégé in the Senate. This was something incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was only too happy to make happen, since he had no desire for Jarrett to join the Obamas at the White House. But the president-elect overruled both advisers. He wanted Jarrett by his side. Later she became mistrustful of Emanuel when she learned that he had tried to sideline her.

The feeling was mutual. One of Obama’s more flowery hagiographers, journalist Richard Wolffe, divides the administration into “revivalists,” who want the president to be true to the spirit of hope and change, and “survivalists,” who believe compromise is necessary in a divided country. Jarrett is the leader of the revivalists, and her fingerprints are on every blunder and boo-boo the White House has ever made. She bragged to a conference of leftwing bloggers that she had hired noted environmentalist and 9/11 Truther Van Jones, later forced to resign. She campaigned extensively for Obama to travel to Copenhagen and make the case for holding the 2016 summer games in Chicago before the International Olympic Committee. Obama took the trip; the IOC chose Rio. During this time Jarrett met with George Kaiser, the Obama bundler and investor whose solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra was up for a huge loan guarantee. Jarrett, according to government documents, was warned about Solyndra’s shaky finances on the eve of the president’s visit to the company’s facility in Fremont, California. Obama went anyway.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the president tends to side with the revivalists because they feed his ego. Jarrett’s descriptions of Obama are adoring. “I knew the unique combination of leadership qualities that Barack has would push him to greatness,” she told Richard Wolffe. “They always have. Barack has this kind of a—what’s the way to describe it?—restless spirit.” Obama, she told Remnick, has “been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what other people do.” Fed a constant diet of words like these, is it any wonder Obama decided to press on with his health care overhaul after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, refused any meaningful compromise with Republicans during last summer’s debt ceiling fight, and insisted on giving one “major” address after another even though they have done nothing to advance his agenda or salvage his underwater approval rating?

The House is lost, Obama’s reelection looks dicey, but Jarrett is flying high. In one sense she is the most successful Obama courtier of them all: She has outlasted her rivals. Gibbs is gone. Internal clashes led to Emanuel’s sudden discovery that he had always wanted to be mayor of Chicago. Emanuel’s replacement, fellow Chicagoan Bill Daley (brother of Richie), was muscled out last week; word is he fought with Jarrett too. Her persistence is matched only by her tone-deafness. Wolffe describes the president’s first visit to Chicago after his inauguration. From the window of his helicopter Obama could see that his arrival had caused a major traffic jam. “We shouldn’t have come here in rush hour,” he reflected. This was too much for Jarrett. “You know what, Mr. President?” she said. “You may not be enjoying your new life, but I am.”

Better enjoy it while it lasts—which won’t be for long if Obama continues to listen to his inept political fixer.

Matthew Continetti is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and editor of the Washington Free Beacon.
 
consider_uggie645__120105170347-630x313.jpg
 
Something to throw into the mix.....
Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.
Statement via transportationnation.org, 18 Jan 12

More from the U.S. State Department:
Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.

Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada’s permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project. As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, on November 10, 2011, the Department announced that it could not make a national interest determination regarding the permit application without additional information. Specifically, the Department called for an assessment of alternative pipeline routes that avoided the uniquely sensitive terrain of the Sand Hills in Nebraska. The Department estimated, based on prior projects of similar length and scope, that it could complete the necessary review to make a decision by the first quarter of 2013. In consultations with the State of Nebraska and TransCanada, they agreed with the estimated timeline.

On December 23, 2011, the Congress passed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“the Act”). The Act provides 60 days for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest – which is insufficient for such a determination.

The Department’s denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects.
 
Well now that President Obama nixed the XL Pipeline, what are his chances at reelection now? I guess energy security and economy concerns are not his administration's priority.
 
While it will make the environmentalists happy they were not going to vote GOP anyway. The GOP will play this hard, trying to convince the independents that Obama has his priorities skewed.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
While it will make the environmentalists happy they were not going to vote GOP anyway. The GOP will play this hard, trying to convince the independents that Obama has his priorities skewed.

...............and Harper's priorities right, about  our choices.

I think Obama just pissed off (on?) a whole lot of hard working, salt of the earth people, from all parties, who just want to work. And in more than one State also.
 
recceguy said:
I think Obama just pissed off (on?) a whole lot of hard working, salt of the earth people, from all parties, who just want to work. And in more than one State also.

I agree but November is a long way off and the public usually has the attention span of a goldfish.
 
CDN Aviator said:
I agree but November is a long way off and the public usually has the attention span of a goldfish.

Not if you were depending on the pipeline for a few years of sorely needed work ;)
 
recceguy said:
Not if you were depending on the pipeline for a few years of sorely needed work ;)

Good point. I have to agree, i just have little to no faith in the public at large.
 
recceguy said:
Not if you were depending on the pipeline for a few years of sorely needed work ;)

Perhaps, but that's a pretty small number of people, all things considered.
 
Redeye said:
Perhaps, but that's a pretty small number of people, all things considered.

What would have not been considered? Does building the pipeline mean there's an automatic leak?

On that basis we would still be living in caves, because we would be afraid of doing any damage to anything or anywhere.
 
Redeye said:
Perhaps, but that's a pretty small number of people, all things considered.

And many elections have been won, or lost, by those very same small amounts.
 
Smart Republicans can play the Keystone XL pipeline like a violin. There are the 200,000+ direct jobs in building the pipeline, then throw in the putative families of the people who were hoping for a pipeline job, the suppliers looking for contracts to provide materials and services to construct the pipeline and the secondary markets down to lunch truck operators who could have sold meals and coffee to pipeline workers. ("This could have been your job. Vote for us and we will approve the Keystone XL pipeline.")

Adding all these people together and you are now talking about perhaps a million people negatively affected.

As a BTW this isn't playing well in Alberta either; the leader of the Wild Rose Alliance has castigated the new leader of the Alberta PC party for not aggressively pushing the project, since this takes a potential $2 billion in revenues and economic growth off the table for Alberta. Albertans will push the pipeline to BC, and many here have noted there is a potential market for a pipeline to Eastern Canada, I'm sure someone is calculating the potential market and ROI for that project even as we speak
 
On a different subject, Newt Gingrich is having the race card played against him for the "Foodstamp President" remark. A bit of history has come to light which cancels the race card:

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/18/exclusive-document-private-1980-gingrich-memo-to-ronald-reagans-campaign-manager-reveals-former-speakers-racial-attitudes/

EXCLUSIVE: 1980 Memo Shows Gingrich Urged Reagan to Reach Out to Black Voters
by Wynton Hall

With members of the mainstream media now hurling charges of using racially coded language against GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Big Government has uncovered a private memorandum written over three decades ago that offers a unique glimpse into Mr. Gingrich’s longstanding attitudes about race.

The private memo, dated July 1, 1980, was written by Mr. Gingrich on his official House of Representatives stationery and was sent to then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager, Bill Casey, who would later become President Reagan’s CIA Director.

In the memo, Mr. Gingrich urges Governor Reagan’s campaign to reconsider its decision not to speak to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Convention.

“This is a great opportunity to prove that a conservative Republican can speak to the hearts and pocketbooks of Black Americans,” Gingrich urged in the memo.

The memorandum goes on to explain that a decision not to speak at the NAACP convention would insult African American voters and be a “tragedy” for the nation:

Many middle class Black Americans who would vote for Reagan will be insulted by his non-attendance.  I urge you to schedule the speech and talk about Kemp’s Inner City Jobs Bill, which Kilpatrick and George Will have both endorsed as acceptably conservative.
Failure to attend the NAACP convention will be a tragedy for Gov. Reagan and the country.  Symbolic events are vital.  Thank you for considering this.
The 1980 Gingrich memorandum aligns with comments the former Speaker has made more recently.

At a January 5, 2012 event in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Mr. Gingrich said that if he were invited to speak to the NAACP he would accept:
And so, I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention to talk about why the African American community should demand pay checks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and I’ll explain a brand new social security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African American males, because they’re the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span. And under social security today, you don’t build up an estate, but if you’re allowed to build up an estate, if your tax money went into your savings and it was your money, if something happened to you, your family got you restate, the difference in transfer of wealth to the black community would be amazing.

Those and subsequent comments have sparked controversy among liberal critics who have taken issue with Mr. Gingrich’s contention that President Barack Obama has been America’s greatest “Food Stamp President,” a reference to Mr. Obama’s unprecedented expansion of the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Mr. Gingrich’s 1980 plea that the Reagan campaign should reach out to the NAACP and make inroads with black voters was just the first of many he has made to GOP candidates over many years.

As ABC News has reported, in his book Real Change, Mr. Gingrich criticized President George W. Bush’s “failure to address the NAACP,” which according to Gingrich, sent a “clear signal to the African American community that Republicans did not see them as worthy of engagement in dialogue.”
Also, in 2008, Mr. Gingrich criticized those 2008 Republican presidential candidates who declined to participate in a black voter forum hosted by Tavis Smiley.

Still, while it’s unlikely that Mr. Gingrich’s 1980 private memorandum urging the Reagan campaign to speak at the NAACP convention will change the minds of those determined to play the race card against him, the document reveals that Mr. Gingrich’s desire to restore the historic relationship between the Republican Party and black voters extends over three decades.

Now you could make the counter argument that speaking to a group like NAACP is simply walking into the lion's den, but symbolism is important and a man offering persuasive arguments might be able to sway some people to reexamine their premises.
 
GAP said:
What would have not been considered? Does building the pipeline mean there's an automatic leak?

On that basis we would still be living in caves, because we would be afraid of doing any damage to anything or anywhere.

I meant, the number of people who were "waiting for jobs" related to the pipeline is relatively small in terms of the US electorate.
 
I think you will hear an approval as an October surprise, if not mid summer.

Read the statements closer. The reason for rejection was solely due to the arbitrary deadline put in place by the Republican House. There was never enough time to do the environmental studies for the new routes under that deadline. If you didn't see this coming back in November when they were fighting over it, you need to get your eyes checked.

And the job numbers are all in how the you define it. First off, the direct jobs was 20,000 with an over all 250,000 long term indirect jobs (per the oil industry lobbyists). But the 20,000 jobs are temporary construction jobs for the term of the construction. AND that is 20,000 person-years, not actual jobs. As is the 250,000 person-years of long term employment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/2011/12/19/gIQApUAX8P_story.html

But the Tree Huggers need to give their heads a shake as well. It's not like Tar Sands oil isn't coming into the US now. There was a very interesting story on NPR that basically shoots down the myth that not building the Keystone pipeline will keep dirty tar sands oil from getting into the  to US markets. It's all ready being shipped in by tanker from the terminal in Richmond BC. And the various other existing pipelines carrying oil into the Western US are carrying Alberta Tar Sands oil. And one company has applied for a permit to reverse the flow of a pipeline coming into Ontario so that Tar Sands oil can be carried back to the US.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/18/145347485/blocking-keystone-wont-stop-oil-sands-production
 
Thucydides said:
Smart Republicans can play the Keystone XL pipeline like a violin. There are the 200,000+ direct jobs in building the pipeline, then throw in the putative families of the people who were hoping for a pipeline job, the suppliers looking for contracts to provide materials and services to construct the pipeline and the secondary markets down to lunch truck operators who could have sold meals and coffee to pipeline workers. ("This could have been your job. Vote for us and we will approve the Keystone XL pipeline.")

Adding all these people together and you are now talking about perhaps a million people negatively affected.

Two hundred thousand direct jobs?! You may as well say "eleventy billion". It's not that much more ridiculous. The materials were bought overseas, and already as I understand it purchased, so that's not an issue. A study commissioned by Trans Canada made such outlandish claims, other studies (like this one: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf) are somewhat more conservative. They also dissect that Trans Canada study as best they can and even if the real numbers lay somewhere in the middle, I don't think the benefits are anywhere near what was claimed. I was interested to try and find a number for how many people were involved in the building of the Interstate Highway System just to get an idea, unfortunately I couldn't find anything clear cut.

Here's the best part of the briefing paper:

A Note on Energy Independence
and “Ethical Oil”
This paper is primarily concerned about jobs, but the findings below also shine light
on another claim made by the industry—that KXL will get the US further on the road
to energy independence. The idea of energy independence clearly resonates with
the American public, and the paid advertisements depicting Canadian Tar Sands as
the source of “ethical oil” (and therefore a better option than oil from dictatorships
like Saudi Arabia) plays to that sentiment. But KXL is a global project driven by
global oil interests. Tar Sands development has attracted investment capital from
oil multinationals—with Chinese corporations’ stake getting bigger all the time.1 If
approved, KXL will be almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working
with steel made in Canada and India. Much of the Tar Sands oil will be refined in Port
Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned
oil company of Saudi Arabia.2 And a good portion of the oil that will gush down the
KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond
the territorial United States.3 Indeed, the oil industry is also trying to build another
pipeline, Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway, to carry Tar Sands oil across British
Columbia for export to Asian markets, although this pipeline also faces serious public
opposition. Clearly, Tar Sands oil and energy independence really do not belong in
the same sentence.

Thucydides said:
As a BTW this isn't playing well in Alberta either; the leader of the Wild Rose Alliance has castigated the new leader of the Alberta PC party for not aggressively pushing the project, since this takes a potential $2 billion in revenues and economic growth off the table for Alberta. Albertans will push the pipeline to BC, and many here have noted there is a potential market for a pipeline to Eastern Canada, I'm sure someone is calculating the potential market and ROI for that project even as we speak

And it seems a whole slew of people are going to push back. It'll be interesting indeed to see what happens.
 
Back
Top