The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

Goes against what I would have thought. The below seem to indicate it was because of Obama's likability but could it be because either (1) current HBS don't understand Romney's tax policies are personally best for them long term (2) they do understand but they believe and are okay with Obama's redistribution or (3) just still a bunch of kids in a liberal institution.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...s+(Top+Stories)

Mitt Romney may be a Harvard Business School alum whose most productive working years were spent at Bain & Co., one of the big time recruiters of Harvard MBAs. But Romney's affiliation with the school apparently is giving him little advantage among current MBA candidates.

A survey of second-year students at Harvard Business School by The Harbus, the student newspaper, shows President Barack Obama beating Romney in a landslide: 57% of the respondents to the survey favor Obama, with only 34% in support of Romney, who graduated from Harvard with both law and business degrees in 1975.

The Harbus polled the students through its class of 2013 Facebook group, calling the survey itself "quick and dirty data," not exactly the stuff of a Gallup or Rasmussen poll. Indeed, the newspaper didn't even provide a response rate to its poll nor indicate how many of the school's second-year students participated.

Still, the margin of preference by eligible voters at HBS is remarkably wide: Among current second-years at Harvard, Obama beats the HBS alum by a whopping 23 percentage points. Compare that to the meager three or four-point margin Obama currently enjoys in most polls of the overall public vote.
:
:
Peterson, a second-year student himself who had been a legislative aide to conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), doesn't seem to think so. He believes that "Barack Obama is just a damn likable fellow, particularly to younger voters like HBS students. He seems to get it. He seems to speak the same language. There's a cultural and generational affinity."

[Edward64]

Article is about Cuomo vs possibly Hillary in 2016. I picked up on Hillary leaving if Obama wins second term. Not sure who would be good replacement but always thought that Obama should have used Bill as a special envoy more around the world. Maybe with a second term Obama would feel less threatened or overshadowed ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/ny...-way.html?_r=0

Neither she nor Mr. Cuomo has signaled any plans for the 2016 election, and the governor says he is focused on his current job. (Mrs. Clinton is not expected to stay in her cabinet post if Mr. Obama wins a second term.) But the potential collision between them is gripping the political world in New York.

[sterlingice]

That's very disappointing as Clinton has done such a good job as Secretary of State

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

On the other hand, what's the alternative? Should evaluating teachers be the sole discretion of the principal? The school board? I'm guessing that most teachers would say their principal does a piss poor job of evaluating teachers. So what's left?

I've worked in IT in the private (mainly) and now public (less than a year) sector. Every evaluation I've ever had was at the sole discretion of my manager with possibly some input from other managers I've worked with. As a field engineer, I guess I had tangible metrics in terms of tickets closed but I about middle of my team in terms of speed but excellent in quality. Metrics were, at most, a small part of the evaluation. The next two jobs I was in had even fewer metrics and the one I'm in now has none.

On a grander scale, it seems like this has some elements of "we want to evaluate the government on a higher standard than any of the rest of us" under the guise of "because it's our money".

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Goes against what I would have thought. The below seem to indicate it was because of Obama's likability but could it be because either (1) current HBS don't understand Romney's tax policies are personally best for them long term (2) they do understand but they believe and are okay with Obama's redistribution or (3) just still a bunch of kids in a liberal institution.

There's no question it's #3. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's no question it's #3. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Disagree. Not all HBS students are "fresh out of undergrad" - in fact the minority probably are.

Write it off all you want, but it's a bit surprising. Might be that it's more generational like the person quoted said.

[mckerney]

About those 2011 returns from Mitt Romney...

Romney's 2011 tax return shows manipulations to keep his tax rate high - Denver Grassroots Politics | Examiner.com

The former Massachusetts governor and his wife, Ann, could have claimed more in deductions, the trustee of Romney's blind trust said when the candidate's 2011 tax returns were released.

But, Brad Malt acknowledged, the couple "limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor's statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years."

Well, I guess it's nice that he decided to put in more than he technically owed even though he'd said it's something he wouldn't do.

Divine Comedy: Romney Releases His 2011 Tax Return And An SNL Skit Is Born - Forbes

Says Boston College tax law professor Brian Galle when commenting on the Governor’s generosity, “It’s noble. It also doesn’t prevent him from taking that deduction in an amended return if he were to file it after the election.”

Oh. I'm sure he wouldn't do something like that though.

[JPhillips]

I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.

Romeny at a GOP debate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Keep in mind that there's nothing to stop him from filing an amendment after the election to fix the fact that he "overpaid."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by stevew

I don't really care whatever rate Romney paid as much as I think he's a total dick for not releasing the tax returns. we know he's rich, no shit.

The only reason the amount he paid is relevant is if he's going to run around saying our tax system is unfair because the wealthy pay too much and that stifles growth blah blah blah, he loses credibility on that argument if he's only paying 13%.

And now I'm convinced that what he doesn't want us to see in his earlier returns is a deduction for donating to some unethical or unpopular group. If his rate is really no lower than 13% in any of the years, there's no other reason not to release the returns.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The only reason the amount he paid is relevant is if he's going to run around saying our tax system is unfair because the wealthy pay too much and that stifles growth blah blah blah, he loses credibility on that argument if he's only paying 13%.

And now I'm convinced that what he doesn't want us to see in his earlier returns is a deduction for donating to some unethical or unpopular group. If his rate is really no lower than 13% in any of the years, there's no other reason not to release the returns.

I don't think its unethical or unpopular group. My guess is tax shelters or tax avoidance strategies that will raise eyebrow from the common folk.

[Dutch]

I paid what is required by law in taxes and then also gave 30% of my pre-tax income to charities that I wanted to give my earned money to.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Romeny at a GOP debate.

Damn, that's pretty awesome.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Damn, that's pretty awesome.

I have a unicorn in my backyard that shits $100 bills.

(Absent any evidence the two statements are just as likely to be true).

[Dutch]

Oh snap, I thought he actually paid out 30% in charity. Didn't realize that was falsely reported.

[Edward64]

With Biden not likely in 2016, I think its Hillary's to lose if she wants it. Probably best if she did step away if Obama does win 2nd term so she doesn't get caught up in any failures and scandals. Don't know if I would vote for her as Obamacare will (hopefully) be sealed and delivered by then.

Bill Clinton Says He's Unsure of Wife's 2016 Plans - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton said Sunday that he had “no earthly idea” whether his wife might decide to run for the presidency in 2016, but that he had never met a more qualified public servant and that she would have his full support no matter what she decides.

So if it was not a “yes” or a “maybe” from the former president – who just might be expected to have some inside knowledge of the matter – it was certainly not a “no.”

The future career path of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a matter of fervid speculation since she made clear that she planned to step down at the end of President Obama’s current term. Mr. Clinton’s strong defense of Mr. Obama in his speech at the Democratic National Convention fueled a sense that he might be helping keep the Clinton brand before the public eye, and not just for his own sake.

Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about his wife’s plans, Mr. Clinton replied, “I don’t know.” After eight years in the White House, eight years as New York senator and now four years as secretary of state, he said, “She’s tired.”

[Edward64]

Geithner leaving also.

Robert Kuttner: Filling Geithner's (Small) Shoes

Timothy Geithner has said that he'll step down as Treasury Secretary at the end of Obama's first term. Assuming that Mitt Romney keeps self-destructing and Obama wins a second term, who should succeed him?

Just as Obama's choice in 2008 of an economic team led by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner told you a lot about what kind of president he'd be (and not be), Obama will signal a lot in his selection of Geithner's replacement.

In an economic crisis, the treasury secretary (tied with the Fed chairman) becomes the most important domestic public official after the president. Two huge and interconnected issues will face the next secretary: what to do about the still dysfunctional and largely unreformed banking system; and how to deal with the elite clamor for deficit reduction uber alles.

Obama, by rejecting the counsel of officials such as Paul Volcker and Sheila Bair, has already made clear that he is not interested in a drastic reform of the financial system. Dodd-Frank keeps getting nibbled to death by financial industry success in watering down its impact via weakened regulations.

On the deficit-reduction front, Obama has tacked back and forth, sometimes emphasizing the need for jobs and recovery now and deficit reduction when strong growth returns; and other times he has veered in the direction of the Bowles-Simpson austerity crusade, a demon partly of Obama's own making.

Ideally, a treasury secretary would be tougher than Geithner in following through on financial reform, and would emphasize jobs and recovery over premature economic contraction via deficit reduction

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's very disappointing as Clinton has done such a good job as Secretary of State

But that's pretty much been a foregone conclusion from Day One, hasn't it? Never mind any future aspirations, the job takes a certain toll on just about anybody & everybody who has it.

Have you seen the woman lately? I can't particularly stand her but I almost feel sorry for her at times, the strain of the job is extremely visible. (and that's not a shot at her looks, she just looks completely exhausted to me)

[larrymcg421]

I think we're overselling any importance to her stepping down. If she wants to be President (which, duh) then she cannot begin mounting a campaign while Sec of State. And since Pres campaigns start immediately after the previous one ended these days (and in some cases even sooner as it's pretty clear that Romney never actually suspended his campaign), she'll need to step down as soon as possible. I don't doubt that it's a tough, stressful job, but nothing compared to the one she's been seeking for a very long time now, and she knows that.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've worked in IT in the private (mainly) and now public (less than a year) sector. Every evaluation I've ever had was at the sole discretion of my manager with possibly some input from other managers I've worked with. As a field engineer, I guess I had tangible metrics in terms of tickets closed but I about middle of my team in terms of speed but excellent in quality. Metrics were, at most, a small part of the evaluation. The next two jobs I was in had even fewer metrics and the one I'm in now has none.

On a grander scale, it seems like this has some elements of "we want to evaluate the government on a higher standard than any of the rest of us" under the guise of "because it's our money".

SI

I'd say "because it's our children." You don't see these kind of metrics desired to evaluate other government workers, just teachers.

[JediKooter]

Like they say in the Dating World...desperation is a huge turn off.

Republicans look for voter fraud, find little - Yahoo! News

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Like they say in the Dating World...desperation is a huge turn off.

Republicans look for voter fraud, find little - Yahoo! News

I hate to say it, but this whole voter fraud thing smacks of voter suppression with just a tinge of racism.

I mean, geez: "In North Carolina, the nonpartisan state elections board last year sent letters to 637 suspected noncitizens after checking driver's license data. Of those, 223 responded showing proof they were citizens, and 79 acknowledged they weren't citizens and were removed from the rolls along with another 331 who didn't respond to repeated letters, said Veronica Degraffenreid, an elections liaison for the board.

She said the board did not find evidence of widespread fraud, noting there were only 12 instances in which a noncitizen had voted. North Carolina has 6.4 million voters."

12 confirmed cases and a possible 400 in a state of 6.4 million? If I were concerned with fiscal irresponsibility and and waste, I know that this would be a problem I'd tackle with a massive nation-wide campaign.

SI

[JPhillips]

A wonderful look at an Obama hater.

I did find one customer who had noticed the calorie labels: Dick Nigon of Sterling, Va. He and his wife, Lea, had stopped by McDonald’s after seeing an exhibit at the Renwick Gallery. Dick had ordered for the couple, noticed the calorie labels and liked them.

“I like that you have the information before you order,” he told me, when I asked about the labels. “It’s better than some kind of government health mandate in Obamacare.”

I told him that the calorie labels were, in fact, a government health mandate in Obamacare.

“Well that changes things a bit,” he responded. “I thought this was more of a voluntary sort of thing. Now I’m not quite sure how I feel about it.”

[Autumn]

lol

[sterlingice]

Keep your government hands off my Medicare?

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I hate to say it, but this whole voter fraud thing smacks of voter suppression with just a tinge of racism.

I mean, geez: "In North Carolina, the nonpartisan state elections board last year sent letters to 637 suspected noncitizens after checking driver's license data. Of those, 223 responded showing proof they were citizens, and 79 acknowledged they weren't citizens and were removed from the rolls along with another 331 who didn't respond to repeated letters, said Veronica Degraffenreid, an elections liaison for the board.

She said the board did not find evidence of widespread fraud, noting there were only 12 instances in which a noncitizen had voted. North Carolina has 6.4 million voters."

12 confirmed cases and a possible 400 in a state of 6.4 million? If I were concerned with fiscal irresponsibility and and waste, I know that this would be a problem I'd tackle with a massive nation-wide campaign.

SI

Oh it reeks of racism, no doubt. It's typical late 20th/early 21st century GOP strategy of inventing a boogeyman to rally up the massive amount of their uninformed voters instead of actually tackling, you know, real issues and actually practicing what they preach...fiscal responsibility.

I'm not saying that the democrats are the darlings of the political arena. They leave a lot to be desired in all honesty. It's just that I don't hear about this kind of thing coming from them. Usually it's more about redrawing of districts.

[Edward64]

Friends you do not need. Good thing no one really takes her too seriously nowadays.

Madonna calls Obama a 'Black Muslim' at Washington D.C. tour stop - NBC News Entertainment

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue or maybe it was misguided sarcasm, but Madonna called President Obama a "black Muslim" Monday night at a tour stop in Washington D.C. in what otherwise resembled a message of support.

After praising Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., Madonna turned her attention to Obama, saying, "It is so amazing and incredible to think that we have an African-American in the White House!" But the pop star didn't stop there. "So y'all better vote for (expletive) Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right, we have a black Muslim in the White House, OK?" she said. "It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights, OK? So support the man, (dammit)!"

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am sure I will get blasted for this but one of my personal "conspiracy" theories has always been that the government has people on the payroll that shell out all kinds of disinformation and then include a few nuggets of truth and that way they can blow it off as "You believe this guy?" So for example they might say space aliens are at Roswell, we didn't land on the moon, John Lennon was murdered by Stephen King, the UN is planning concentration camps, and then bury in there a couple of true outragous things that really happened and say "The federal reserve really lent 100 billion dollars to Europe? Where did you read that the alien website? "

Originally Posted by Edward64

Friends you do not need. Good thing no one really takes her too seriously nowadays.

Madonna calls Obama a 'Black Muslim' at Washington D.C. tour stop - NBC News Entertainment

HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm........

[JediKooter]

Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I posted in The Onion thread a story about a news site in Iran publishing it as a real story. Can't blame them too much for thinking quotes like, “He takes national defense seriously, and he’d never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does," are real.

[Passacaglia]

I wonder what they thought about having a beer with him, though.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A wonderful look at an Obama hater.

It works on immigration too!

Party Labels Rule Rural Opinions On Immigration | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural

When asked this way, with the party labels, 50 percent agreed with the Republicans, position 2. And 39 percent agreed with the Democrats, position 1.

The pollsters then asked the same question, only they dropped any mention of party. The statements simply began, “We are strongly committed….” And “We believe our highest priority….”

When asked which statement came “closer to your point of view,” this time rural voters agreed with the Democrats, position 1, 49 percent to 40 percent.

The mere mention of party changed what people believed.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I posted in The Onion thread a story about a news site in Iran publishing it as a real story. Can't blame them too much for thinking quotes like, “He takes national defense seriously, and he’d never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does," are real.

Ah crap. I very rarely look in that thread, sorry.

I thought pretty much the same thing you did. The Onion article probably hit the nail on the head on several of the things it mentioned, so I can see they would go for it.

[Edward64]

Obama seems to be doing very well. Anyone here believe the polls are not truly reflective or that short of a big Obama stumble that Romney can win it?

First Thoughts: After nine battleground polls - First Read

After nine battleground polls: We've now released nine battleground state NBC/WSJ/Marist polls in the last three weeks, and what have we learned? President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in all nine, with his biggest leads being 7 and 8 points (in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa) and his smallest edge at 2 points (in Nevada and North Carolina). Obama's average percentage in these polls is 49.5% and Romney's is 44% -- which is consistent with the national polls (see below). Our state surveys also show a slight improvement in voters who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction. And they find Obama and Romney essentially tied on who would better handle the economy, while Obama mostly enjoys double-digit leads on foreign policy.
:
:
Romney needs a game-changer: But here's the only expectation you need to know: Romney needs a game-changer, while Obama needs a split decision. That’s what happens when one person is behind and the other is ahead. And in his weekly National Journal column, Charlie Cook appears to agree. “If the presidential race stays on its current course for another week or 10 days, Romney faces the very real prospect that Republican donors, super PACs, and other parts of the GOP support structure will begin to shift resources away from helping him and toward a last-ditch effort to win a Senate majority—which once seemed very likely—and to protect the party’s House majority.” Essentially, Charlie is warning of political Darwinism kicking in with the rest of the GOP. Bottom line: With less than 40 days until Election Day and with votes already being cast, Romney needs to change the dynamics of this race -- ASAP -- if he is going to win. And his clearest opportunity is at next week's debate in Denver.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've worked in IT in the private (mainly) and now public (less than a year) sector. Every evaluation I've ever had was at the sole discretion of my manager with possibly some input from other managers I've worked with. As a field engineer, I guess I had tangible metrics in terms of tickets closed but I about middle of my team in terms of speed but excellent in quality. Metrics were, at most, a small part of the evaluation. The next two jobs I was in had even fewer metrics and the one I'm in now has none.

On a grander scale, it seems like this has some elements of "we want to evaluate the government on a higher standard than any of the rest of us" under the guise of "because it's our money".

SI

With zero metrics, in the current job, how are people evaluated and how are they responsible for their performance?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

With zero metrics, in the current job, how are people evaluated and how are they responsible for their performance?

It's all project-based work. It's more about whether projects get completed and with what efficacy. But there's no hard and fast metrics. It's not as if someone who works on 5 is worse than someone who works on 10, particularly if the 5 are much larger. Similarly, there's no rating as to how one does on a particular project. So it's much more on the manager to see how people are doing.

In most of the IT world I've worked in, it's been like that. There were 3 of us at a data center and the only metric you could have used was number of tickets done. But that wasn't the deciding criteria- it was more about ability to do the job and somewhat about seniority (tho more because the better people had been there longer).

SI

[Edward64]

Never thought about the highlighted below much, but it makes sense to me. He's a capitalist, a moderate republican pretending to be more right wing than he really is (e.g. healthcare).

Bob Burnett: Why Is Romney Losing?

Thirty-nine days before the Presidential election, Mitt Romney doesn't appear to be the formidable challenge to President Obama that many expected. Indeed, Romney's ineptness has turned the tide in Obama's favor. What happened?
:
There are three explanations for the implosion. The first is that the Obama campaign was able to define the Republican candidate before Mitt could introduce himself to voters.
:
Next came a string of epic gaffes. Romney went on a European tour and insulted the British security at the 2012 Olympics. On the home front, he claimed, "corporations are people," and noted, "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me." On September 18, Mother Jones magazine published a tape of a private Romney fundraiser where Mitt observed, "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them... my job is not to worry about those people."

Some believe Romney's implosion reveals psychological problems. On the PBS News Hour New York Times columnist David Brooks observed, "And with Mitt Romney, he's faking it. I think he's a non-ideological guy running in an ideological age who is pretending to be way more ideological than he really is.

[JPhillips]

He's a shitty campaigner that nobody likes trying to run on ideas people hate.

It's amazing he's doing as well as he is.

[molson]

So if Romney was even a decent campaigner he'd be the next president. That's kind of crazy to me.

[Marc Vaughan]

Isn't part of the reason for the lead that Romney is basically stockpiling vast wadges of cash for advertising in the final run in to the election - I'm expecting a carpet bombing of wall to wall anti-Obama adverts ...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Isn't part of the reason for the lead that Romney is basically stockpiling vast wadges of cash for advertising in the final run in to the election - I'm expecting a carpet bombing of wall to wall anti-Obama adverts ...

It'll be too late by then. He needs to start now and win those swing states, he's behind in all of them by most polls.

[JPhillips]

Romney made the same mistake as Kerry. He let the opposition define him without a significant pushback.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

So if Romney was even a decent campaigner he'd be the next president. That's kind of crazy to me.

Would have been the same for Kerry in '04, and probably a good number of many 2-termers. Clinton was vulnerable in '95, and if the Rs had a decent front runner, his approval possibly doesn't steadily increase in '96 on the way to a fairly easy win.

George H.W. Bush was beat trying for #2.

Reagan was vulnerable in '83, but his approval rating steadily increased from '83-'84.

Carter was beat trying for his 2nd term

Ford was beat trying for his 2nd term

Nixon easily won his 2nd term

LBJ probably would have lost in his 2nd election but he didn't run (possibly wouldn't have even won his party's nomination)

Kennedy assassinated

Eisenhower was safe, but then again, the Democratic nominee in 1956 was the same guy Ike easily beat in '52, so it's not like they were even trying.

Truman - the 22nd Amendment was ratified during his presidency, but he was exempt, so he could have run for another term (which would have been his 2nd presidential election), but he lost a few primary races so he dropped out.


Historically, it seems very difficult to win a 2nd term for President unless 1) Things are going really well (or at least much better than 4 years prior) and/or 2) The other side pretty much just runs a token guy so they can run their strong candidate(s) 4 years later.

And also, I think the days of a sitting President not winning his party's nomination are over, aside from a massive disaster of a scandal occurring where the party knows the President can not win reelection.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Isn't part of the reason for the lead that Romney is basically stockpiling vast wadges of cash for advertising in the final run in to the election - I'm expecting a carpet bombing of wall to wall anti-Obama adverts ...

Last time I read about it, Romney was way behind Obama in dedicated campaign money. The rest is money he's got to split with the House and Senate races. If the GOP (and the Dems for that matter) decide this race is a lock, then look for party money (The RNC has the edge) and super PAC money (RNC winning by a landslide here) to go to fighting for controll of congress. There won't be a massive spenditure of bad money after a lost cause that some are suggesting will happen. There really is no point...unless something dramatic happens in the next 50 days or so.

I don't remember where I read it but it was basically like this.

Dedicated Campaign Money: Obama $90M; Romney $50M
Party Campaign Money: Romney $170M; Obama $110M
super PAC: Right-wing $BILLIONS; Left-wing $47.50 in loose change

The Dedicated money I believe has to be spent...
The Party money is spent on ALL campaigns and can be moved to Senate and Republican battles if the Presidency stays out of reach.
super PAC can do whatever they want as well.

Basically, their is potential for a TON of cash to be dropped on the race, but only if it's realistic to do so, because quite frankly, it's looking like working on the Senate and House is the safer play with those dollars.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Would have been the same for Kerry in '04, and probably a good number of many 2-termers. Clinton was vulnerable in '95, and if the Rs had a decent front runner, his approval possibly doesn't steadily increase in '96 on the way to a fairly easy win.

George H.W. Bush was beat trying for #2.

Reagan was vulnerable in '83, but his approval rating steadily increased from '83-'84.

Carter was beat trying for his 2nd term

Ford was beat trying for his 2nd term

Nixon easily won his 2nd term

LBJ probably would have lost in his 2nd election but he didn't run (possibly wouldn't have even won his party's nomination)

Kennedy assassinated

Eisenhower was safe, but then again, the Democratic nominee in 1956 was the same guy Ike easily beat in '52, so it's not like they were even trying.

Truman - the 22nd Amendment was ratified during his presidency, but he was exempt, so he could have run for another term (which would have been his 2nd presidential election), but he lost a few primary races so he dropped out.


Historically, it seems very difficult to win a 2nd term for President unless 1) Things are going really well (or at least much better than 4 years prior) and/or 2) The other side pretty much just runs a token guy so they can run their strong candidate(s) 4 years later.

And also, I think the days of a sitting President not winning his party's nomination are over, aside from a massive disaster of a scandal occurring where the party knows the President can not win reelection.

Funny, I have always looked at it slightly different. I see it as very likely one party wins two terms, but very hard to win three.

Eisenhower - GOP - 2 terms

Kennedy/LBJ - Dem - 2 terms

Nixon/Ford - GOP - 2 terms

Carter - Dem - 1 term

Reagan/Bush - GOP - 3 terms

Clinton - Dem - 2 terms

Bush - GOP - 2 terms

Obama - Dem - 2 terms?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Last time I read about it, Romney was way behind Obama in dedicated campaign money. The rest is money he's got to split with the House and Senate races. If the GOP (and the Dems for that matter) decide this race is a lock, then look for party money (The RNC has the edge) and super PAC money (RNC winning by a landslide here) to go to fighting for controll of congress. There won't be a massive spenditure of bad money after a lost cause that some are suggesting will happen. There really is no point...unless something dramatic happens in the next 50 days or so.

I don't remember where I read it but it was basically like this.

Dedicated Campaign Money: Obama $90M; Romney $50M
Party Campaign Money: Romney $170M; Obama $110M
super PAC: Right-wing $BILLIONS; Left-wing $47.50 in loose change

The Dedicated money I believe has to be spent...
The Party money is spent on ALL campaigns and can be moved to Senate and Republican battles if the Presidency stays out of reach.
super PAC can do whatever they want as well.

Basically, their is potential for a TON of cash to be dropped on the race, but only if it's realistic to do so, because quite frankly, it's looking like working on the Senate and House is the safer play with those dollars.

Romney had the problem of having spent his primary money against other GOPers. Then he couldn't spend his general money until after the convention. Obama was able to spend primary money against Romney and then start again with general money after the convention.

It's the same problem Kerry had against Bush.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Latest information on food stamps show that number of recipients has more than doubled from 1.9M to 3.9M people since requirement to work at least 20 hours a week was removed in the first Stimulus package.

CRS Memo ABAWD

[JPhillips]

Hmmm. I wonder what might have happened that kept people from finding jobs. Clearly this is a socialist plot.

edit: Read the memo.

Percent of participants with earnings

2007 - 20.4%
2008 - 20.2%
2009 - 21%
2010 - 20.3%

The percentage of Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents(those subject to the work rule) -

2007 - 6.6%
2008 - 6.9%
2009 - 8.4%
2010 - 9.7%

[cartman]

Read the fine print. There was no complete removal of the work requirement with the stimulus. States could apply for a waiver, granted they submitted an alternate plan to the work requirement.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by cartman

Read the fine print. There was no complete removal of the work requirement with the stimulus. States could apply for a waiver, granted they submitted an alternate plan to the work requirement.

Wasn't it an option for the states if they came up with an alternate plan and something that had been requested by Republican governors, including Mitt Romney?

[JPhillips]

My reading is that the state waiver ability was written in the nineties, but the stimulus waived the rule for all states for FY 2009 and 2010.