Ohio Chatter DEV

Ty Webb

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/08/30/forecasting_model_says_obama_will_win.html

Allan Lichtman, author of The Keys to the White House, a forecasting model that has correctly called every president since Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election, says President Obama will win in 2012, Washington Whispers reports.

Said Lichtman: "Even if I am being conservative, I don't see how Obama can lose."

"Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins."

Notes Lichtman: "They've never missed. They've been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to."

BGFalcons82

So I clicked your link and then several more embedded ones. Where or what are the 13 criteria? How do we know Barry has 7+ covered if you won't post how he's being evaluated? I know the book costs $49...do you work for the book publisher or something???

Cleveland Buck

Rick Perry isn't much different from we have had. Texas spending increased by around 70% under his tenure, while federal spending has increased by around 88% over that same time. He isn't going to cut spending. He is going to keep the printing presses running and destroying the currency, because he doesn't know any better. He doesn't know anything about economics, and he is going to have the same advisers every President has that say to print the money and prop up and bail out the rich by stealing purchasing power from the poor. He is trying to steal some of Ron Paul's supporters by attacking the Federal Reserve and reciting Tea Party talking points, but to me he is no different than George W. Bush.

Writerbuckeye

Meh, Gibby posted all kinds of crap before the mid-term elections and swore there was no way the Dems would lose the House. I see this as much of the same crap, different election.

2kool4skool

If you guys are really confident in Obama losing, you could make some nice coin betting on the Vegas lines. Republicans are currently 3-2 dogs to win the 2012 election.

HitsRus

he is going to have the same advisers every President has that say to print the money and prop up and bail out the rich by stealing purchasing power from the poor

Oh please. Stop with the class warfare shit. I understand that's all you got, but it's so disingenuous.
For example I have an employee who makes about $40 K. She has 3 "baby daddies" and gets almost everything back that is withheld for taxes from her paycheck. I contribute $1200 tax free to her 401(K). Now my traditional family unit makes 5X as much as she does but pays 25,000X the amount of taxes. Yeah....stealing purchasing power from the "poor". LOL. I think you have that backwards.

Cleveland Buck

Depending on what the economy looks like it may be tough for a Perry or Romney to beat Obama. The debates and campaigns would be the same as last time, as every time. Republicans will say cut spending and less government when their records show they favor the opposite. Obama will say cut spending and more government, and everyone knows he will never cut a penny of spending. They will argue about the typical nonsense and no matter who wins, nothing will change.

If Obama were running against Ron Paul, all it would take is enough Republicans to support a true conservative. I would think that Paul is the last guy Obama would want to debate.

Talk about spending. Ron Paul has never voted for an appropriations bill. Never voted to borrow from Social Security. Obama claimed he would cut spending and only added trillions to the debt.

Talk about the economy. Obama wants to print money. That's been done and won't work anymore. The bubble can't be reinflated. Obama wants to spend money. Been done, doesn't work. Obama wants to bail out the big bankrupt companies. Ron Paul actually knows something about economics and will tell Obama why what he wants to do hasn't and won't work.

Foreign policy. Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home and stop making enemies abroad and give Congress back their Constitutional authority to wage war. Obama hasn't ended any wars like he promised, instead he started a couple new ones, and did it without even telling Congress.

Class warfare. Even this won't work for Obama. He robbed the American people of the value of their money by continuing Bush's policy to bail out bankrupt banks and corporations and print trillions of dollars. Redistributing worthless dollars accomplishes nothing. Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to change the fact that the higher prices people pay for gas, food, clothes, etc. goes right back into the pockets of those rich.

Ron Paul pretty much neuters everything Obama wants to run on. If he could just get the nomination there is no reason he couldn't beat Obama in an election. The big government/big business team won't let him get the nomination though.

Cleveland Buck

HitsRus;878069 wrote:Oh please. Stop with the class warfare shit. I understand that's all you got, but it's so disingenuous.
For example I have an employee who makes about $40 K. She has 3 "baby daddies" and gets almost everything back that is withheld for taxes from her paycheck. I contribute $1200 tax free to her 401(K). Now my traditional family unit makes 5X as much as she does but pays 25,000X the amount of taxes. Yeah....stealing purchasing power from the "poor". LOL. I think you have that backwards.

When I say rich, I mean rich, like Bank of America or Apple rich. Not $200,000 a year. You get fucked by inflation too. Everyone does. The less money you make the more you get fucked because you have to spend a higher percentage of your money.

Writerbuckeye

Cleveland Buck;878080 wrote:Depending on what the economy looks like it may be tough for a Perry or Romney to beat Obama. The debates and campaigns would be the same as last time, as every time. Republicans will say cut spending and less government when their records show they favor the opposite. Obama will say cut spending and more government, and everyone knows he will never cut a penny of spending. They will argue about the typical nonsense and no matter who wins, nothing will change.

If Obama were running against Ron Paul, all it would take is enough Republicans to support a true conservative. I would think that Paul is the last guy Obama would want to debate.

Talk about spending. Ron Paul has never voted for an appropriations bill. Never voted to borrow from Social Security. Obama claimed he would cut spending and only added trillions to the debt.

Talk about the economy. Obama wants to print money. That's been done and won't work anymore. The bubble can't be reinflated. Obama wants to spend money. Been done, doesn't work. Obama wants to bail out the big bankrupt companies. Ron Paul actually knows something about economics and will tell Obama why what he wants to do hasn't and won't work.

Foreign policy. Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home and stop making enemies abroad and give Congress back their Constitutional authority to wage war. Obama hasn't ended any wars like he promised, instead he started a couple new ones, and did it without even telling Congress.

Class warfare. Even this won't work for Obama. He robbed the American people of the value of their money by continuing Bush's policy to bail out bankrupt banks and corporations and print trillions of dollars. Redistributing worthless dollars accomplishes nothing. Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to change the fact that the higher prices people pay for gas, food, clothes, etc. goes right back into the pockets of those rich.

Ron Paul pretty much neuters everything Obama wants to run on. If he could just get the nomination there is no reason he couldn't beat Obama in an election. The big government/big business team won't let him get the nomination though.

If elections were decided solely by logic and reason, you might have a point. They're not, for the most part.

Regardless of what was done in the past, the current candidates are going to be forced to go along with spending cuts or else be the first president to be in charge when the country had to declare bankruptcy.

I'm betting if things truly aren't any better a year from now, and jobs are not being created at a much faster pace, with actual GDP growth (not just growth by government spending) taking place, Obama is toast. Fair or not, he'll have had four years to address economic issues and if he's unsuccessful, he will get the boot.

BoatShoes

BGFalcons82;877937 wrote:So I clicked your link and then several more embedded ones. Where or what are the 13 criteria? How do we know Barry has 7+ covered if you won't post how he's being evaluated? I know the book costs $49...do you work for the book publisher or something???

According to Wikipedia, these are the 13 "keys"

The Keys are statements that favor the re election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins.

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

fish82

Interesting. Looking at that list, he's most certainly on the bubble.

BGFalcons82

Thanks, Boat. I actually found the linked info after more research. He bends and twists some of his own items to fit into an Obama re-election. For example, he says there are no scandals (item #9). The Fast and Furious debacle could become an albatross if not a large scandal. He also says item 13, the challenger charisma quotient doesn't exist. Wrong. Just look how fast Perry has climbed in the polling..to claim he has no charisma is folly and absurd. Now, if he was talking about Huntsman or Santorum, then he's right.

Ty Webb

Writerbuckeye;878049 wrote:Meh, Gibby posted all kinds of crap before the mid-term elections and swore there was no way the Dems would lose the House. I see this as much of the same crap, different election.

So you're calling a guy who has called the last seven presidential elections wrong?

Everyone thought Bush would lose in 2004....this guy called that he would win

As first....no one thought Obama had a chance in 2008...this guy called he would win

Might want to listen to what he is saying

bigdaddy2003

I'm pretty sure you will be wrong this time Gibby.

Writerbuckeye

Ty Webb;878460 wrote:So you're calling a guy who has called the last seven presidential elections wrong?

Everyone thought Bush would lose in 2004....this guy called that he would win

As first....no one thought Obama had a chance in 2008...this guy called he would win

Might want to listen to what he is saying

Why would I give a damn what this guy says? It's not like I'm betting on the election or my livelihood is at stake. Besides, it's way too early yet to start evaluating a re-election against criteria that obviously could change dramatically in the next 15 months.

majorspark

Ty Webb;878460 wrote:So you're calling a guy who has called the last seven presidential elections wrong?

Everyone thought Bush would lose in 2004....this guy called that he would win

As first....no one thought Obama had a chance in 2008...this guy called he would win

Might want to listen to what he is saying

Nothing special about this guy. He is just making political educated guess with a little good luck.

jhay78

That guy forgot #14: Mainstream media- The incumbent administration gets the benefit of the doubt on any potentially harmful or embarassing news stories regarding its policies and/or scandals, and can also depend on the media to dig up dirt on every personal, educational and political pimple, scratch, wart, bruise, bump, abcess, and cut the opposing party's candidate has had since birth.

stlouiedipalma

jhay78;878600 wrote:That guy forgot #14: Mainstream media- The incumbent administration gets the benefit of the doubt on any potentially harmful or embarassing news stories regarding its policies and/or scandals, and can also depend on the media to dig up dirt on every personal, educational and political pimple, scratch, wart, bruise, bump, abcess, and cut the opposing party's candidate has had since birth.

I already see what your excuse will be when/if Obama wins reelection. You know, those of you who blame everything you perceive to be wrong on the "MSM" really break me up. I'm guessing you and your friends sit up at night wringing your hands at those "filthy East Coast liberal reporters".

Writerbuckeye

stlouiedipalma;878614 wrote:I already see what your excuse will be when/if Obama wins reelection. You know, those of you who blame everything you perceive to be wrong on the "MSM" really break me up. I'm guessing you and your friends sit up at night wringing your hands at those "filthy East Coast liberal reporters".

I saw nowhere that he made any excuses in advance. Not one.

I did see where he wrote a thoughtful and accurate summary of how the media treats Obama compared to anyone who challenges him.

I did not see anywhere that he wrote he sat up at night worrying about what the media might do.

Otherwise, great post, Louie. You nailed it.

stlouiedipalma

Writerbuckeye;878661 wrote:I saw nowhere that he made any excuses in advance. Not one.

I did see where he wrote a thoughtful and accurate summary of how the media treats Obama compared to anyone who challenges him.

I did not see anywhere that he wrote he sat up at night worrying about what the media might do.

Otherwise, great post, Louie. You nailed it.

I'm sorry, writer. That post reminded me so much of your incessant whining about the media and how they don't follow your Tass-influenced guidelines that I could have easily mistook it for one of your own.

In your case it is a built-in excuse and it is something which keeps you up at night. Your history of histronics makes that much crystal clear.

Writerbuckeye

stlouiedipalma;878721 wrote:I'm sorry, writer. That post reminded me so much of your incessant whining about the media and how they don't follow your Tass-influenced guidelines that I could have easily mistook it for one of your own.

In your case it is a built-in excuse and it is something which keeps you up at night. Your history of histronics makes that much crystal clear.

You are such a pathetic buffoon. You try to make yourself look smart by throwing the word Tass around like you actually understand the difference between what they did and what journalists in the US used to do. Nice try...utter failure.

As for the rest, thanks for the laugh. The more you whine about people who accurately and succinctly point out the bias in the media covering politics in this country, the more energized we are to continue doing it.

fish82

Ty Webb;878460 wrote:So you're calling a guy who has called the last seven presidential elections wrong?

Everyone thought Bush would lose in 2004....this guy called that he would win

As first....no one thought Obama had a chance in 2008...this guy called he would win

Might want to listen to what he is saying

Dude...a phucking trained monkey could have correctly picked 5/7. No soup for you.

Manhattan Buckeye

jhay78;878600 wrote:That guy forgot #14: Mainstream media- The incumbent administration gets the benefit of the doubt on any potentially harmful or embarassing news stories regarding its policies and/or scandals, and can also depend on the media to dig up dirt on every personal, educational and political pimple, scratch, wart, bruise, bump, abcess, and cut the opposing party's candidate has had since birth.

Incorrect, W was an incumbent when RatherGate happened....BTW looking back at that after a few year period it is insane that it happened. How anyone trusts any media is beyond me.

believer

Manhattan Buckeye;879003 wrote:Incorrect, W was an incumbent when RatherGate happened....BTW looking back at that after a few year period it is insane that it happened. How anyone trusts any media is beyond me.

I concur.

By the way, Jihay78's #14 scenario is good only if it reads, "Mainstream media- The incumbent Democratic administration gets the benefit of the doubt on any potentially harmful or embarassing news stories regarding its policies and/or scandals, and can also depend on the media to dig up dirt on every personal, educational and political pimple, scratch, wart, bruise, bump, abcess, and cut the opposing party's candidate has had since birth."

QuakerOats

Was this splashed in the mainstream media --No; if it was W's uncle would it have been -- Yes.

PAPER: Obama's illegal alien uncle has valid Social Security ID, driver's license...

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012