History tells me Romney wont win and here's why

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
Walk with me for a second


In recent history the only two Presidents to not be re-elected where Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. While both had struggling economies like Obama, they also faced something Obama did not: a superior politician and campaigner. Reagan beat Carter because he offered a better, brighter future (didn't deliver but that's another story) and he was able to express clearly and strongly. On top of that, Carter was dealing with the Iran Hostage Crisis (which he ultimately did resolve) and had a massive military failure in the rescue attempt in the Spring of 80.
H.W. Bush had a successful war effort in Iraq but had been left a horrible economy by his predecessor. His opponent was the political animal in Bill Clinton, who was able to come across as sympathetic and "cool" at the same time, while Bush came across like an old rich guy who didn't know how grocery store scanners worked. Bush I also faced a very unique circumstance that ultimately killed his chance at re-election: H. Ross Perot, a third party candidate with conservative leanings that siphoned off a lot of Republican votes in key states.

Obama has the struggling economy working against him but not one single person, including Ann Romney, will tell you Mitt is anywhere near the level of a Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton as a campaigner, speaker, or politician. There won't be a third party candidate from the left to hurt Obama and, unless something horrific happens this fall, his military record looks great to most American voters.

Anything could happen but I got Obama winning.
 
Reagan beat Carter because he offered a better, brighter future (didn't deliver but that's another story) and he was able to express clearly and strongly. On top of that, Carter was dealing with the Iran Hostage Crisis (which he ultimately did resolve) and had a massive military failure in the rescue attempt in the Spring of 80.


Regan's first mid term campaign slogan was "Stay The Course". Reagan's first term was pivoting on disaster. The economy had crashed worse that it did under Carter.

"Stay The Course" was significant on a number of levels. First, it argued that if you just gave it enough time, Voodoo Economics would eventually work. Secondly, and tacitly to most people, even at that time, it acknowledged that the conservatives had a long term goal of fundamentally changing the government economically. This sowed the seeds of bank and economic crashes ever since.

So if those that claim President Obama doesn't deserve a second term, because his policies have failed, (I argue that they never had a chance to be fully enacted), then they think Reagan should have never been reelected.

But being intellectually honest as never bee a strong suit of the right!

source: Huffington Post

Stay the Course: Reagan's Example for Obama

obama-reagan-walking-lede-3.png


On February 8, 1982, after lunch at the White House with all-star players from the National Hockey League, President Ronald Reagan flew to Minneapolis to give his first political fundraising speech of the year. He was greeted by masses of demonstrators bearing a banner with the words, "Welcome President Hoover." After a lackluster speech about voluntarism, Reagan gave a rambling interview to a local radio station in which he said "1941" when he meant "1981" and referred to the recession of 1970 as a "depression." It was an absent-minded performance, reflective of a presidency that was back on its heels.

A year into his presidency, not quite halfway through what would prove a 17-month recession, Reagan was in worse standing with the public than President Barack Obama is today. In the Gallup polling of 1982, his approval rating hovered in the low forties throughout the year, bottoming at the beginning of 1983 at 35 percent. This turned out to be the lowest rating of Reagan's two-term presidency but at the time many who worked in the White House were privately betting that he wouldn't even be a candidate in 1984, let alone have a second term in the White House. His aides' gloominess was reflected in my reporting for The Washington Post, for which I was senior White House correspondent, and also in a book that year in which I predicted that Reagan would not run.

As it turned out, the doubters did not include the president. Early in Reagan's political career in California the incomparable William F. Buckley had written me that Reagan possessed "an undoubting perspective." Recovering from his shaky gambit in Minneapolis, Reagan demonstrated this repeatedly in the dark days of 1982. The economic circumstances then, though different in substance, were as grim in many ways as they are now.

Reagan, like Obama, had inherited an economic mess, with record peacetime levels of inflation and high interest rates. He had tried to jump start the economy with much-heralded tax reductions and spending cuts that were denounced as heartless by the Democrats but which only tinkered at the margins with the federal budget. In 1981, Reagan and his team had skillfully maneuvered their tax and budget bills through the Democratic-controlled House, although the budget provision became a Christmas tree loaded with pet projects for members of Congress. Neither measure had prevented the economy from sliding into recession. By 1982, the nation was still hamstrung with the inflation and interest rates of the Jimmy Carter years along with the added calamity of high unemployment. By the end of the year 11.5 million Americans were out of work and another three million had given up looking for jobs, a situation that prefigured the Great Recession that began under George W. Bush and continued through most of Obama's first year in office.

If Obama and his aides are contemplating a makeover in the wake of sinking polls and the upset Republican victory in the Senate election in Massachusetts (and recent GOP wins in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races), they could do worse than to emulate the Reagan script of 1982. Undeterred by his slide in approval ratings, Reagan took two actions that in retrospect provided a basis for his remarkable political comeback.

On one hand, he stood up to members of his own party who wanted Reagan to dump President Carter's chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, a Wall Street banker who believed -- then and now -- in fiscal orthodoxy. Volcker, presently relegated to the backbench of Obama's economic team, was skeptical that the vaunted supply-side tax cuts that Reagan had embraced would accomplish economic miracles. He wanted to crush inflation the old-fashioned way by tightening the money supply and raising interest rates, which he did over the protest of Reagan's secretary of the Treasury, Donald Regan, who complained that Volcker was impeding economic recovery.

Reagan hadn't known much about the Fed when he became president -- at his first meeting with Volcker he asked him why the Federal Reserve was needed. Economist Martin Anderson, who was present at the meeting, later said that Volcker almost swallowed his ever-present cigar before launching into a cogent explanation of the role of a central bank.

Reagan was often more open to argument than either his boosters or detractors recognized. In this case, he soon became convinced that Volcker was right, and backed his policies. In retrospect, that seems an easy call, but it wasn't. Republicans, anticipating midterm losses in 1982 as Democrats do now in 2010, were calling for Volcker's scalp. Senate leader Howard Baker told a group of congressional Republicans, "Volcker's got his foot on our neck, and we've got to make him take it off."

Reagan's other key decision was to get out of the White House and campaign for Volcker's policies, which he had made his own. To this end he involved himself in uphill midterm election campaigns, ignoring the counsel that he would further jeopardize his own tumbling popularity in the process.

"Stay the course," Reagan proclaimed in speech after speech. The White House press became so accustomed to the slogan that they occasionally -- a bit derisively -- chanted "stay the course" with him. Reagan took it in good humor.

The Democrats, led by House Speaker Tip O'Neill, waged a skillful campaign in 1982 on traditional issues and picked up 26 House seats. But the gains were less than predicted, the Republicans held their seats in the Senate, and Reagan, always willing to see a half-full glass as overflowing, was heartened by the result. By then, Reagan's optimism was beginning to rub off on his aides, who admired his defiance. One of them, speechwriter Bentley Elliott, would later say that Reagan's willingness to stay the course in defiance of the polls was his finest hour as president.

In fact, the best of the polls showed even at Reagan's nadir that there was reason for his optimism. A prescient analysis by the Gallup Poll at the time declared: "Throughout the year [1982] a solid majority of Gallup's respondents have taken the position that Reaganomics will worsen, rather than improve their own financial situation. Yet, Gallup consistently has found somewhat more public faith that Reaganomics will help the nation as a whole and even more faith in the president's program when the question is posed with regard to the long run."

Gallup then observed that Reagan was more popular than his policies, a point that is true now about Obama. "While only one third approve of the way he is handling the economy, close to half express some degree of confidence that he will do the right thing with regard to the economy," the Gallup analysis concluded.

In 1983 the economy came roaring back with a growth rate of 7.6 percent. Mocking his critics, Reagan came up with a new line: "They don't call it Reaganomics any more." In 1984 he was re-elected in a momentous 49-state landslide, carrying nearly 59 percent of the popular vote. This would not have happened without the economic recovery; no president is immune to prolonged economic downturn. But Reagan's performance in 1982 was also crucial. As Gallup divined in the depths of the recession, millions of Americans responded to Reagan's unflinching optimism and believed he would do the right thing. By that measure, if he can once again display the rousing audacity that marked his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama can make a similar comeback.

Yes, he could.
<!-- surphace end -->
 
Wait so the Daddy Bush was a one-termer???? I didn't know that. I thought he was a two timer too in more ways than one.
 
You are entitled to your opinion Dave. I just don't agree with it.

Bush Sr. made a fatal mistake when it comes to republican politics. He agreed to raise taxes. That separated him from his base.

I'm pretty sick of hearing "well president A inherited president B's bad economy". Doesn't every economy resets itself due to the new political reality?

Carter had the same issue with the Kennedy's.

Now, on a lesser end, President Obama has issues with the Clinton's. There's been many times President Clinton has went against the Obama's campaign efforts.

Now to the Romney not a good campaigner part. Remember how bloody the fights in the primaries were? Do you think that was just by coincidence? Underestimate Romney at your own risk. I learned a hard lesson on Romney.
 
You are entitled to your opinion Dave. I just don't agree with it.

Bush Sr. made a fatal mistake when it comes to republican politics. He agreed to raise taxes. That separated him from his base.

I'm pretty sick of hearing "well president A inherited president B's bad economy". Doesn't every economy resets itself due to the new political reality?

No, it doesn't. Nothing magically happens on Jan. 20 because someone new might be in the White House.

Carter had the same issue with the Kennedy's.

What does this even mean? Jack and Bobby were dead and we were more than ten years and three Presidents removed from the Kennedy term. His problem with Ted was that Ted wanted to be President.

Now, on a lesser end, President Obama has issues with the Clinton's. There's been many times President Clinton has went against the Obama's campaign efforts.
You mean the same Clinton that campaigns for him? There have been instances when Bill wasn't spouting off the perfect Obama storyline but that's what honesty in politics looks like (with Clinton of all people).


Now to the Romney not a good campaigner part. Remember how bloody the fights in the primaries were? Do you think that was just by coincidence? Underestimate Romney at your own risk. I learned a hard lesson on Romney.

Let's be honest, you aren't good at politics so the fact that you misread Romney isn't a surprise, especially since you're still doing it.
Romney didn't outcampaign anyone, he outspent them. In fact, Santorum was a far better campaigner but didn't have the financial resources to break through. Pawlenty was a joke. Perry imploded almost instantly. Bachmann was/is a damn fool. Cain and Gingrich weren't serious about winning just about selling books and cashing personal appearance checks. Not exactly the same depth of the Democratic contenders of 08.
The fact that he had such a rough time with that lackluster set of bumbling idiots shows he's still not ready and he's been running for close to a decade.
 
No, it doesn't. Nothing magically happens on Jan. 20 because someone new might be in the White House.



What does this even mean? Jack and Bobby were dead and we were more than ten years and three Presidents removed from the Kennedy term. His problem with Ted was that Ted wanted to be President.


You mean the same Clinton that campaigns for him? There have been instances when Bill wasn't spouting off the perfect Obama storyline but that's what honesty in politics looks like (with Clinton of all people).




Let's be honest, you aren't good at politics so the fact that you misread Romney isn't a surprise, especially since you're still doing it.
Romney didn't outcampaign anyone, he outspent them. In fact, Santorum was a far better campaigner but didn't have the financial resources to break through. Pawlenty was a joke. Perry imploded almost instantly. Bachmann was/is a damn fool. Cain and Gingrich weren't serious about winning just about selling books and cashing personal appearance checks. Not exactly the same depth of the Democratic contenders of 08.
The fact that he had such a rough time with that lackluster set of bumbling idiots shows he's still not ready and he's been running for close to a decade.

1. I forget who I'm dealing with.... I meant the economy tends to readjust to the political climate. You usually get a mini recession in the first couple of months of an administration. Some are worst than others.

2. Ted primaried Carter....So he had a Kennedy problem.

3. So, you mean to tell me that you think that the Clintons are President Obama's best friends? Talking about delusional.

4. I will agree with you that Santorum was a better campaigner than Romney. However, I'm warning you to not underestimate Romney. That is all.

5. You telling me that I'm bad at politics, but you the one saying that Romney should of got Huntsman for VP? You really understand the Republican party huh? :lol:
 
You are entitled to your opinion Dave. I just don't agree with it.

Bush Sr. made a fatal mistake when it comes to republican politics. He agreed to raise taxes. That separated him from his base.

I'm pretty sick of hearing "well president A inherited president B's bad economy". Doesn't every economy resets itself due to the new political reality?

Carter had the same issue with the Kennedy's.

Now, on a lesser end, President Obama has issues with the Clinton's. There's been many times President Clinton has went against the Obama's campaign efforts.

Now to the Romney not a good campaigner part. Remember how bloody the fights in the primaries were? Do you think that was just by coincidence? Underestimate Romney at your own risk. I learned a hard lesson on Romney.

Bush Sr. made a fatal mistake when it comes to republican politics. He agreed to raise taxes. That separated him from his base.

Clinton and the Democratic congress raised taxes without one republican vote, which led to the longest economic expansion since WII. He served two terms and is currently the most popular president of the last 25 years.

I'm pretty sick of hearing "well president A inherited president B's bad economy". Doesn't every economy resets itself due to the new political reality?

Now, on a lesser end, President Obama has issues with the Clinton's. There's been many times President Clinton has went against the Obama's campaign efforts.

Oh, yea? We will see if Clinton is a major speaker at the Democratic Convention.

BTW, where is GW at the 2012 republican convention>

Well if you are handed a budget surplus, a slowing debt increase and a growing economy and then hand the next president the worse economic debacle in 70 years, I would say that's a reset. Of course I'm referring to your hero, GW.

Now to the Romney not a good campaigner part. Remember how bloody the fights in the primaries were? Do you think that was just by coincidence? Underestimate Romney at your own risk. I learned a hard lesson on Romney

You know damn well nobody in the republican party likes Romney as the republican presidential candidate. They only reason he was nominated is because the rest of the republican fools were too extreme to run.

Why do you think the republicans are trying to disqualify millions of legally eligible voters?
 
Raising taxes leads to economic expansion?

Perfect for this thread. History doesn't mean shit to people and reality is apparently next to last on BGOL as well.
 
Raising taxes leads to economic expansion?

Perfect for this thread. History doesn't mean shit to people and reality is apparently next to last on BGOL as well.

What happened between 1992 and 2000?

Were you alive then?

Check history, don't take my word for it.

Once again you're caught in between ideology and reality. I would stick to reality.
 
I'm looking at your amazing confidence that raising taxes is the trigger for growth.

Do you have an opinion why Clinton himself wouldn't dare to say anything like that?
 
I'm looking at your amazing confidence that raising taxes is the trigger for growth.

Do you have an opinion why Clinton himself wouldn't dare to say anything like that?


Clinton raised the top tax rate from Reagan's 32% to 38%. Why should I speak for someone else. He just didi it and the results were economic growth.

That's a fact!
 
1. I forget who I'm dealing with.... I meant the economy tends to readjust to the political climate. You usually get a mini recession in the first couple of months of an administration. Some are worst than others.

That's not true. Economic slowdowns and presidential elections aren't connected. The first couple months of any term are going to be slow because it's the post Christmas time when spending dips coming out of December. Add to that, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Obama came into office under bad economic circumstances with Bush II coming in after the expansion from his predecessor's years had slowed but not recessed.

You must have forgotten who you were dealng with because you brought some very weak game.

2. Ted primaried Carter....So he had a Kennedy problem.

No, he had a Ted Kennedy problem because Ted was an ambitious f#ck.
And as someone else pointed out
Reagan primaried Ford. What problem did Reagan have with Ford?


3. So, you mean to tell me that you think that the Clintons are President Obama's best friends? Talking about delusional.


If I meant to tell you that I would have said that. Please stick to trying to counter the actual arguments I make.
It doesnt matter if the Clintons are his "best friends" or not. One of them works for him and has for almost 4 yrs and the other will be and is campaigning for his reelection.

4. I will agree with you that Santorum was a better campaigner than Romney. However, I'm warning you to not underestimate Romney. That is all. [/QUOTET]

I'm not underestimating him at all. He's a horrible candidate and if he wasn't backed by a shitload of money and had any type of moral compass that would prevent him from blatantly lying, this wouldnt be close.

5. You telling me that I'm bad at politics, but you the one saying that Romney should of got Huntsman for VP? You really understand the Republican party huh? :lol:

I do understand the Republican party and Huntsman (I said that? Maybe I did) would be a much better pick than Ryan. It wouldn't get all the moron Tea Party types all wet in the panties but it wouldnt hurt him in a must win state like Florida and would help him win over more moderates and Independents than an idealogue like Ryan, who now has to act like he's not an idealogue.
By convention time, it's not about still reaching for those people who wouldnt' vote for your opponent anyway but reaching those who are on the fence. Huntsman (and Pawlenty for that matter) would help with that, Ryan does not.

I'm looking at your amazing confidence that raising taxes is the trigger for growth.
Do you have an opinion why Clinton himself wouldn't dare to say anything like that?

Can't speak for T1 but I don't think raising taxes is the sole trigger but if you're telling me that the deficit is holding the economy back, then raising revenue would be a way to help that.
What we have seen, positively, is that cutting taxes isn't the trigger for growth either.
 
Hold up.

The dems had congress for two years. They could of higher taxes a long ass time ago. I swear some of you guys just like to bitch. :lol:

Why not ask your president why he elected to extend the Bush Tax Rates?
 
The same problem Kennedy had with Carter. They were terrible presidents.

Carter wasn't a terrible president at all.


Hold up.

The dems had congress for two years. They could of higher taxes a long ass time ago. I swear some of you guys just like to bitch. :lol:

Why not ask your president why he elected to extend the Bush Tax Rates?

Since most of us get our information from reliable news sources, we already know why. We also know that Senate Republicans have been historic in their obstruction.
They gave the President two options: raise taxes on everyone during a recession or extend them two years. If you don't care about actual governance, you could go for the first one but the only legitimate answer was the latter.

Point of fact, the Dems had control of the Senate but it wasn't the 60 vote filibuster proof some people believe it was.
 
Can't speak for T1 but I don't think raising taxes is the sole trigger but if you're telling me that the deficit is holding the economy back, then raising revenue would be a way to help that.
What we have seen, positively, is that cutting taxes isn't the trigger for growth either.

Raising or lowering taxes marginally doesn't matter.

If people (real people not politicians) are indifferent to the rate change then you'll get no change in behavior. That statement shouldn't be controversial. People aren't going to act on something they don't care about. The validity of this statement has already been proven by the sheer size of the current tax code. They offer different effective tax rates for different activities.

However, a substantial change in the rate should be behavior changing. Take a 15 percentage point difference. Raise it to 50% or lower it to 20%. Will you get a change in behavior? Likely. Will the lower rate result in an increase in private sector productivity? Likely. Is an increase in private sector productivity good relative to the short-term decease in tax revenue? Likely.

So why not lower taxes? Maybe your priority isn't private sector productivity and instead is a perception of fairness.

Either way, stop saying raising taxes is a trigger for growth in any way, shape, or form.
 
Raising or lowering taxes marginally doesn't matter.

If people (real people not politicians) are indifferent to the rate change then you'll get no change in behavior. That statement shouldn't be controversial. People aren't going to act on something they don't care about. The validity of this statement has already been proven by the sheer size of the current tax code. They offer different effective tax rates for different activities.

However, a substantial change in the rate should be behavior changing. Take a 15 percentage point difference. Raise it to 50% or lower it to 20%. Will you get a change in behavior? Likely. Will the lower rate result in an increase in private sector productivity? Likely. Is an increase in private sector productivity good relative to the short-term decease in tax revenue? Likely.

So why not lower taxes? Maybe your priority isn't private sector productivity and instead is a perception of fairness.

Either way, stop saying raising taxes is a trigger for growth in any way, shape, or form.

That sounds fair but the problem is the argument is framed as the deficit is holding back growth but the most reasonable way to address that (raise revenue and cut spending) is twisted around into several, related and unrelated topics. The two sides aren't "Raise taxes" and "Cut taxes". They're "Raise some taxes and cut others" vs "Cut taxes".
 
That sounds fair but the problem is the argument is framed as the deficit is holding back growth but the most reasonable way to address that (raise revenue and cut spending) is twisted around into several, related and unrelated topics. The two sides aren't "Raise taxes" and "Cut taxes". They're "Raise some taxes and cut others" vs "Cut taxes".
That's politician shit. That has nothing to do with me. I've already completely rejected the Republican/Democratic model of government. What I've noticed is "cut some taxes" vs "raise some taxes.". You can't realistically think both groups aren't going to exempt some people from their genius machinations.
 
Back
Top