I don't agree with you, jopatmc, but I credit you for at least laying out a theory as to why you think what you do. Silver, however, had Obama winning the whole time in 2008, even when McCain took short-term leads in the polls post-Palin when everyone wanted to say McCain was back. His prediction wasn't just a few days before the election.
I took the risk because I'm convinced I won't be leaving. I'm really not interested in booting anyone. But one thing I can't stand is petty name calling and people posting crap with no substantiation behind their comments. The poster (I don't even remember his name) that took the deal, he'd had been going on ad nauseum and retorting to my posts with no substantial facts. I don't mind losing him. Only wished I had included mc mark and some others. For veteran posters like Sam Fisher, once you reach a certain veteran status, you should be able to neg rep other posters. Sam deserves some negative rep. His posts are all negative and the vast majority of them are just cutting down anyone that he disagrees with and making absurd statements against them. He wants to drive personal negativity instead of having a substantive discussion. I'd like to be able to neg rep posters like that. And I think once a poster reaches a certain positive status, they should be able to neg rep posters. IMO, I really wished Clutch would institute a rule on this board of no name-calling. I get so tired of that petty childishness. Sometimes I do it myself just to make a point about the foolishness of it. (Yes, I do it intentionally for that very reason.) As long as a person differs in their beliefs than I do and wants to have a substantive discussion within reason without making it a personal attack, I am very happy to engage and will share mutual respect with that person. But when posters start name-calling and acting like little kids, I think they should be treated as such. They should have to go into time-out for a period of time until they can post like an adult. And at some level, vet posters with extreme positive rep should be able to neg rep other posters within limits similar to what you can positive rep them. In other words, you can't gang up on one poster for selfish reasons. I made the deal with the poster because I was fed up with his childishness. I only wished I had included some others with him. By the way, I've paid my tipjar bets with I owed them. Don't know if those that lost bets with me ever paid up however.
Yes, but once again, the polls were distorted for that election. They did not take into account it was an anomaly in regards to voter turnout. But they should have seen it coming. The 08 race was over almost before it started...once Obama got past Hillary....who, by the way, would have won against McCain in 08 also. And she would have been a much better president than Obama because of her ability to work with both sides of the aisle, and if she had been elected, we would probably be looking at a certain landslide re-election today because she would have been more successful than Barack. And no, I am not a Hillary supporter. But if women voters were given the choice between an incumbent woman who had been somewhat successful and Romney, there would be a 20 point spread for Hillary among them, enough to propel her in for a second term landslide.
No, this is different. The only thing that can change this election is a serious health issue or death of Mitt Romney. Let's hope that doesn't happen and the American can vote in the man they want.
that is pure speculation on your part. When her health care reform was brought up while Bill was president, there was no bi-partisan support at all for it. The right has accused her of being involved of murder. It's doubtful that they would have worked with her. Obama has given Republicans everything they've asked for time and time again, and Republicans have changed what they wanted. It hasn't been Obama's fault that one side won't work.
The right worked with Bill, didn't they? And he was accused of murder and he was a womanizer while in office. OH....they impeached him too. But, you know what...he still had the political aptitude to get something done while in office by appealing to the right just enough to make the vote happen. Both parties working together balanced the budget. That was a major accomplishment and was a result of outstanding politicians who recognize the need to work together. Obama has none of that. Hillary has it in spades. Once again, I'm not a Hillary supporter. Wasn't a Bill Clinton supporter. But you have to recognize when people get things done and when they can't. Obama has been a terrible president because he has steadfastly refused to give and work with the other side of the aisle to get anything done. You can't be president of the United States and totally ignore the fact that this is a right leaning nation. You have to work with both sides of the aisle. The last 4 years have been wasted time and a worsening of our problems. Oh, the campaign rhetoric sounded great in 08. I have to admit as a conservative leaning independent, I was totally, totally outraged by Bush shoving through the stimulus at the end of his term. So, from a fiscal standpoint, Obama's rhetoric was appealing. Unfortunately there has been zero follow-through. Only a further movement to the extreme left. It hasn't worked. He's done. Hillary would have done something. She would have enraged the extreme left by moving to the center and working with the Republicans enough to get through positive changes for our economy, just like her husband did. She's not an idiot. At the end of the day, you can't be a two-term president in this nation without doing something of substance, without being a person of substance. I don't care how much you flirt with Hollywood and the hip-hop crowd. I don't care how much personal appeal you have with young people. You gotta do something positive in office. You gotta bring something to the table in that first term. If you don't...you won't get re-elected.
The myth that Obama didn't want to be bi-partisan is so overblown I'm surprised a vet poster like you would even begin to perpetuate it (though based on your hilarious election predictions, maybe I shouldn't be). In order to work with the other side, the OTHER SIDE HAS TO BE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU. The Republicans in Congress have been nothing short of shameful during Obama's tenure. Mitch McConnell: Also, if you think Nate Silver doesn't know about things like "voter enthusiasm" and "turnout" for his predictions, you're truly delusional. The 2008 "anomaly" isn't some sophisticated argument only you came up with. I'm sure him and other pollsters have already taken that into consideration. Sorry dude, Obama is winning this thing.
Boehner rejects the word compromise, obviously Obama's fault. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RBYSltbiu8U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You can like or dislike Obama but this is flatly untrue. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc2c091e" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=35322522&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed name="msnbc2c091e" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=35322522&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O0TYwTjRqb0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Part of being an effective leader is getting those around you to come and work together. Nobody wants to work with someone who is constantly blaming others, regardless if they are right or wrong. Obama has been constantly blaming Bush, the previous administration and Republicans. He is an ineffective leader. There is no doubt about that.
There's plenty to doubt about it. One of the biggest Hope and change mantras for Obama in 08 was his willingness to work across the isle (to the consternation of his "base"). Republicans from the beginning rejected the idea after the election. So much so that they abandoned their own ideas and principals anytime Obama tried to incorporate them into policy. To say Obama was not willing to compromise is ridiculous and the height of rewriting history. In spite of that Mr. Obama has been the most effective president since FDR. I'm looking forward to his second term.
Words do not denote actions. Name the times he actually attempted to work with the Republicans and what he did to work with them.
It's sweeter than wine! <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3i0DMbCKnAg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
