Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

criddic3 wrote

Sabin wrote:
Will you concede, criddic, that Ron Paul has a substantial college/youth following w/r/t his how vocal he us about tearing down the Fed? He as very loyal (and young) constituents).

To a certain extent this is true, but I don't believe that he can expand on that beyond libertarian-minded youth. Many of these people will not turn out in the general election, and even if they do, they are not a large enough group to be of much help in the general let alone the primary vote.

Explain that first part, criddic. I would argue the flip-side, that this group would ecstatically endorse Ron Paul and wait in line for hours to do so. How on Earth do you know this?

That Rick Perry isn't viewed as a fringe candidate is so powerfully sad...

Sabin wrote:Will you concede, criddic, that Ron Paul has a substantial college/youth following w/r/t his how vocal he us about tearing down the Fed? He as very loyal (and young) constituents).

To a certain extent this is true, but I don't believe that he can expand on that beyond libertarian-minded youth. Many of these people will not turn out in the general election, and even if they do, they are not a large enough group to be of much help in the general let alone the primary vote.

Interesting polls have been popping up in the last few days, showing President Obama's GOP opponents gaining on him for the general election match-ups. I can link it, but I believe it was Gallup. It showed Romney leading Obama with 48%-46%, Perry tied with him at 47% and even Bachmann only four points behind at 48%-44%. Just a few posts ago, some people were telling me I was crazy for suggesting this could be the case. Another Gallup poll this week shows the president's approvals down to 38% and his disapproval up to 54%.

Recently Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polls have shown bad numbers for President Obama both nationally, as well as in states like Pennsylvania and Florida.

And the CBO is projecting 8% or higher unemployment through 2014.

None of this guarantees a loss for the president, but it doesn't look good right now. With Rick Perry's rise in the primary polling, he's not going to get an 'unelectable' or 'easy' candidate like Bachmann or Paul as his general election foe. Whatever any of you think of Perry, he is not a fringe candidate, and has a case to make for his election. I'm sure I don't agree with him on every issue, and I think he could go overboard on his rhetoric sometimes, but he's certainly a reasonable choice.

And the Obama administration continues unabated to poke liberals in the eye.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/2 ... 34517.html

Will you concede, criddic, that Ron Paul has a substantial college/youth following w/r/t his how vocal he us about tearing down the Fed? He as very loyal (and young) constituents).

You can't really say that Ron Paul has been shut out by Fox news. After all, he was included in their debates. Gary Johnson was not. Paul has no chance. His economic policies, or some of them, are good. Foreign policy less so. Probably unelectable, not really a youth attraction.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But he has a strong, young base.

While I appreciate Ron Paul's solid anti-war stance, I think his economic policies would push the United States right into a Second Great Depression, especially with his insistence that the United States returns to the gold standard. Basically, Ron Paul believes there are only two legitimate functions for the federal government, patrolling the borders and maintaining the gold standard, with maintaining the gold standard the more important of the two.

Yes, he is a perennial candidate but in this current political climate, he is more than a LaRouche fringe character. The Tea Party would seem to march to the beat of a drum he has been thumping for years. This isn't like Al Sharpton running. Ron Paul appeals to a considerable constituency, but aside from being pretty much unelectable, he doesn't embody that which the GOP and FOX wishes to include in their narrative, so they're writing him off. I hate to preface that statement by saying that he is unelectable because it feeds into the narrative that FOX and the GOP are fabricating, especially considering that Ron Paul could tap into the same youth enthusiasm that Barack Obama has seemingly lost.

I don't know that they are shutting him out, but he's a perennial candidate. He almost feels like a joke of a figure like Lyndon LaRouche was. I'm sure he's a more serious and viable candidate, but when you put your name into the race every year and expect a different result, I think people just want to ignore him. Of course, it could be a media bias and probably is, but he's not going to win any nomination, so that may also be a factor...

What do you guys think about Ron Paul? I saw an interesting piece on Jon Stewart about how the media (specially Fox news) are completely shutting him out. He seems to have some support from Stewart, Howard Stern and specially Bill Maher...

OscarGuy wrote: and would you rather have more jobs at minimum wage or more jobs at a livable wage? I know I'd rather have the latter, but as we've seen in places like Texas, they may have excellent job creation, but those jobs are minimum wage jobs, which means an individual must make sacrifices and often has to take two jobs to live.

I agree in principle, but not all jobs created in Texas have been mimimum wage. Jobs generally pay less in Texas than they do for similar work in other states, but the cost of living in general is less so many people are better off relocating there from other states.

I think, though, if people vote for Perry on the assumption that he will do for the rest of the country what he did for Texas they are in for another bitter disappointment.

I always find it amusing when people say "smaller government, more jobs". Do they realize that the U.S. Government is the single largest employer in the country? And when there are more jobs, a lot of them are government-based construction jobs or clerical jobs? And the whole less taxes issue is a red herring. Even Warren Buffet has confirmed that less taxes doesn't encourage investment just like high taxes don't discourage it. A sound investment is a sound investment regardless of tax implications.

and would you rather have more jobs at minimum wage or more jobs at a livable wage? I know I'd rather have the latter, but as we've seen in places like Texas, they may have excellent job creation, but those jobs are minimum wage jobs, which means an individual must make sacrifices and often has to take two jobs to live.

And just so you're aware, living at minimum wage means living below the poverty line. There's something wrong about that.

Sonic Youth wrote:Tea Party's popularity falling faster than Obama's

Even if the "Tea Party" loses popularity as a movement, the underlying premise of that movement remains popular. Smaller government, less taxes, more jobs. I was never a tea partier specifically (ie: I never attended one of their rallies), but I supported their overall message. Besides, the Tea Party isn't an actual political party and will never field actual candidates under that banner. Thus their influence is limited as a group. What they do well is pressuring more conservative (not just Republicans) politicians to cut gov't waste and spending. History will record their triumphant use of that limited influence in 2010 as one of the most significant mid-term elections we've ever seen. Movements have a way of fading over time, but they can yield lasting and far-reaching effects.

FilmFan720 wrote:

criddic3 wrote:1.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1044.html
As you can see, Gallup has the president at 41% approval and 51% disapproval as of their poll of August 7-9.

FYI: Bush hit as low as 46% as late as May of 2004. Clinton was at 41% in Jan of 1996, and was only 46% at this point right now in his term. Reagan was at 44% in August 1983. Bush the elder was over 70% in August 1991. Opinion polls at this point have no marking on the eventual outcome.

The other thing to remember is that the Republican nominee still has to get through what looks like a pretty rough, cutthroat primary. The party is pretty splintered, and getting the nomination is going involve quite a bit of compromise and enemy-forming.

Yes, that is all true, but Gallup today has a poll that shows Obama at a new low of 39%. President Bush didn't hit that until well after he'd been re-elected in 2004. Clinton didn't have this massively bad economy to deal with and he won largely because Bob Dole ran a terrible campaign (though, credit where due: Clinton also worked with the Republicans after the 1994 Congressional blow-out to balance the budget). Although it must be reminded that Clinton never won 50% of the vote. Reagan soon had a rapidly recovering economy and could boast one of the best re-election campaigns in modern American history, and carried 49 states.

I do agree that there is little correlation between today's polls and what will happen in 15 months. However, President Obama is continuing to lose support in key states, and on issues like the economy. If the economy remains in poor condition (which many economists seem to think is the case, even suggesting another recession is on the way), it will be incredibly hard for him to win. Even if the economy gets marginally better, it may be too late to change the perception that his leadership has been wanting.

Suggesting that polls mean next to nothing and then Bog listing poll numbers of match-ups with his prospective opponents seems like a strange exercise. But I offer the fact that, while several of those people have no chance (Ron Paul, probably Sarah Palin unless Obama's numbers hit low 30s) or have ruled out a run (Christie, Ryan, Rubio, Thune). Rick Perry just got in the race on Saturday, and his polls will likely get better. Romney has polled well against Obama this early in the game, showing him between 3 and 5 points behind). But elections are won by the electoral college, where President Obama will have a tough time in states like Ohio and Florida. One recent Quinnipiac poll showed him down 49%-46% in New York. Now I certainly don't expect him to lose NY, but even seeing one poll like that should give his supporters some pause. If it doesn't, then they clearly think he's invincible and that shows a lack of objectivity. No clear opponent is yet waging a campaign against him. The generic polling has swung to and fro, as has been discussed here. Often they have showed Obama in a difficult situation when it comes to voters willing to declare they are going to re-elect him.

Yes, I concede that Michele Bachmann probably cannot win in the general election against the president. She has a similar background as the president did when he was running, and people aren't looking for that this time. Plus, she is a woman and, sad to say, many people (even many women) will not consider a woman for that office. Just a fact. She also may be too conservative for a wide swath of the voting public. I'm a Giuliani supporter. I don't agree with him on abortion, but I think he'd be a credible candidate and a good leader. If he runs, I'd like to see him wage a solid campaign and be the compromise choice. I've seen Perry a few times, and I think he's got what it takes to build a decent campaign. I do not like Romney all that much, based on several issues (but especially Romneycare). No candidate is perfect. Obama is not perfect, as we all know. He will be vulnerable, and against a formidable opponent, he can fall. I doubt any of the other prospective challengers can win. I like most of them, though. Herman Cain is impressive, Newt Gingrich usually very smart, etc. But they either have too little experience or have shown a lack of organization in their campaign style.

So, my point in all this is that President Obama can definitely lose this election. The underlying circumstances may be to much to overcome. However, I also have to keep a level head and know that he can also turn things around somehow by November of next year.