Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A couple people I work with that voted for Obama last time just aren't voting at all this year (SC). My husbands ex-wife voted for Obama last year and will be voting for Romney this year(OH), same for one of my friends boyfriend (NC).
I'd be willing to bet that most of that was the typical American impatience and unrealistic expectation that coming out of the 2nd worst recession in US history, we should have by now gotten back to the ususal gangbusters US growth. I listen to what many would consider boring economic discussions, and when you look at the actual data and at history, it's clear that it's asinine to expect us to be back to gangbusters growth after this 2nd worst recession, growth is ALWAYS slow after the worst US recessions, if you even avoid economic depression. But Americans somehow think we should be back to Clinton era type growth that we got used to, where people left and right had sky high home prices and were taking equity lines of credit to buy stuff and pump money into the economy, and banks were lending people all that money to do it when folks really couldn't afford what banks were willing to lend.
So since Americans unrealistically expect us to have come out of that 2nd worst recession in US history where the whole banking system was about to collapse- and be back to gangbusters growth now in just 3 years' time, and we're not, to them it's Obama's fault and is an indication that he has failed when it comes to the economy. That's their gut feeling, but the actual data contradicts their gut feeling. Heck, people once had gut feeling that the earth was flat, but any actual scientific data that demonstrated otherwise was scientific data they really didn't care about- the earth was flat, and that was that. Same with their thoughts on this- the recovery should be strong as an ox, and that is that. They couldn't care less that historical economic data says that recoveries out of the worst recessions AREN'T as strong as an ox.
If you were to tell those people that this recovery now actually is a GOOD ONE coming out of that recession, they'd probably look at you as if you had two heads. And that would be indicative of them being clueless about the economics itself and them leading with their gut and the tone of the reports on the news. It would be them having no clue that the economic data says that 3 years out from the kind of recession we just had, this recovery IS a good one, and you just don't get great ones. It's about like telling somebody who broke their leg and has been in a cast for 3 weeks that if they haven't fully healed by now, they need to get a new doctor because the doctor they have has failed. If you look at the DATA on broken bones/legs, you KNOW not to expect full healing in 3 weeks, that it generally takes approximately 6 weeks. But if you aren't a data person and you just listen to what is said by people who are clueless or who just don't like your doctor, then all of a sudden it's the doctor who did a bad job and you're trying to get a new doctor who would have been able to heal your broken leg in 3 weeks. Sounds absurd, but that's exactly what many Americans are doing with this Obama failed on the economy thing. And guess what would that kind of person would think if they hired the new doctor and after another 3 weeks the leg was fully healed? They'd probably conclude that the first doctor HAD failed and the second doctor really did come through. If they stay with the first doctor, and after another 3 weeks the leg is healed, they'll probably think finally that darn doctor got his act together.
I'd be willing to bet that most of that was the typical American impatience and unrealistic expectation that coming out of the 2nd worst recession in US history, we should have by now gotten back to the ususal gangbusters US growth. I listen to what many would consider boring economic discussions, and when you look at the actual data and at history, it's clear that it's asinine to expect us to be back to gangbusters growth after this 2nd worst recession, growth is ALWAYS slow after the worst US recessions, if you even avoid economic depression. But Americans somehow think we should be back to Clinton era type growth that we got used to, where people left and right had sky high home prices and were taking equity lines of credit to buy stuff and pump money into the economy, and banks were lending people all that money to do it when folks really couldn't afford what banks were willing to lend.
So since Americans unrealistically expect us to have come out of that 2nd worst recession in US history where the whole banking system was about to collapse- and be back to gangbusters growth now in just 3 years' time, and we're not, to them it's Obama's fault and is an indication that he has failed when it comes to the economy. That's their gut feeling, but the actual data contradicts their gut feeling. Heck, people once had gut feeling that the earth was flat, but any actual scientific data that demonstrated otherwise was scientific data they really didn't care about- the earth was flat, and that was that. Same with their thoughts on this- the recovery should be strong as an ox, and that is that. They couldn't care less that historical economic data says that recoveries out of the worst recessions AREN'T as strong as an ox.
If you were to tell those people that this recovery now actually is a GOOD ONE coming out of that recession, they'd probably look at you as if you had two heads. And that would be indicative of them being clueless about the economics itself and them leading with their gut and the tone of the reports on the news. It would be them having no clue that the economic data says that 3 years out from the kind of recession we just had, this recovery IS a good one, and you just don't get great ones. It's about like telling somebody who broke their leg and has been in a cast for 3 weeks that if they haven't fully healed by now, they need to get a new doctor because the doctor they have has failed. If you look at the DATA on broken bones/legs, you KNOW not to expect full healing in 3 weeks, that it generally takes approximately 6 weeks. But if you aren't a data person and you just listen to what is said by people who are clueless or who just don't like your doctor, then all of a sudden it's the doctor who did a bad job and you're trying to get a new doctor who would have been able to heal your broken leg in 3 weeks. Sounds absurd, but that's exactly what many Americans are doing with this Obama failed on the economy thing. And guess what would that kind of person would think if they hired the new doctor and after another 3 weeks the leg was fully healed? They'd probably conclude that the first doctor HAD failed and the second doctor really did come through. If they stay with the first doctor, and after another 3 weeks the leg is healed, they'll probably think finally that darn doctor got his act together.
I didn't vote for Obama the first time around, for several reasons. First and foremost was that I didn't feel he was qualified to lead the nation. Over the last 4 years I've seen plenty of evidence that I made the correct call.
As for the recession and recovery issue, I don't think anyone is truly expecting a gangbuster economy. The problem is that we don't like being told that everything is going great when it obviously isn't. This administration has a history of throwing money at corporations which promptly turn around and crash. There is also the history of lies, class division, and pandering to the fears of the nation.
I know several people who did vote for Obama that are now voting for Romney, and it isn't strictly about the economy. Most are fed up with him due to his inability to give a straight answer on anything. Some are tired of the Democratic party's bogus race war. The vast majority of them are completely pissed off about Obamacare and the detrimental effect it is going to end up having on the middle class. What they all have in common is that they no longer feel comfortable with having Obama as president.
I do know a few who voted for Obama last time and are voting for him again, but to be perfectly honest, every single one of them is basing their vote on social issues with the stated understanding that this will likely lead us into more economic problems.
I don't like either one of them. I really don't know what to do.
Although that's the way many feel, the fact is one of them will be in office for the next 4 years. I'm going independent and have been told and read that is the same as voting for Obama, so I should vote Romney. I'm not going to vote for someone I personally don't want to see in office. I get one vote and will cast that vote to the person I would like to see in office, not to keep someone out of office and put someone in office that I don't want. If nothing else, my vote will be among may who want to send a message. We need a third party that has America and Americans interest first, which is far removed from the D and R mentality.
The number of people who are going the independent route is growing. The Rs and the Ds party mentality isn't going to change over the next 4 years, nor will it for some years after 2016, if ever. I think the number of votes this year will drop for both parties, while the number of independent vote will go higher. This will be an indication that people want change. If you want change you don't continue to vote for a party that won't change.
Do some research on the independent candidates.
So when Obama or Romney is in office and everyone is complaining about how either one of them is destroying the country, I won't be complaining because I didn't vote to put either one in office.
I didn't vote for Obama the first time around, for several reasons. First and foremost was that I didn't feel he was qualified to lead the nation. Over the last 4 years I've seen plenty of evidence that I made the correct call.
Lots of people didn't vote for Obama, that's not my issue. I felt he was what we needed after 8 years of Bush. Over the last 4 years, I've seen plenty of evidence that I made the right call. I don't take much issue with people not voting for Obama because they believe in different policies on the various issues and can articulate what policies those are. I believe the neocon America everywhere at all times doing everybody else's regional security for them on the American taxpayer dime Foreign Policy Philosophy is the exact wrong one. I believe the go it alone, we are America, strongest in the world, we don't need any help from any other nations so to heck with them Foreign Policy Philosophy is the exact wrong one. I SAW Bush held those philosophies and I felt McCain held similar views. I felt Obama rejected those views and would put rebuilding ally relationships and ramping DOWN military conflicts as America's priorities, and I felt those were the correct priorities. Over the last 4 years I have seen him implement those priorities, so to me that's evidence that I made the correct call.
I usually have 4 or 5 issues that define my vote in each election. The top two are ALWAYS economic policy and foreign policy. To summarize my views, my economic belief is basically what we saw with Bill Clinton, but with tighter bank regulation; and my foreign policy view is basically what we currently hear from Ron Paul and also from Rand Paul. So to me the candidate with policies that I believe best reflect those two is 90% of the way to getting my vote. My 2 or 3 other issues in a given election may shift my vote, but usually they do not because the candidate who wins my top 2 usually does not lose my other 2 or 3 in any major way. Again, my top 2 were my top 2 in 2008, and they are now. And I believe Obama has tried and is trying to steer America more towards Bill Clinton economics with tighter bank regulation than away, and more towards Ron and Rand Paul foreign policy than away. I feel Romney is trying to steer us away from Bill Clinton economics and away from tighter bank regulation, and that he is trying to steer us away from Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy and more towards Bush/neocon foreign policy, as evidenced by who his foreign policy advisors are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
As for the recession and recovery issue, I don't think anyone is truly expecting a gangbuster economy. The problem is that we don't like being told that everything is going great when it obviously isn't.
Except nobody is saying EVERYTHING is going great. People are saying that the US economy is growing, is growing consistently, and is on the right path. The economic data PROVES it. 2% growth is growth, 31 months in a row is consistency, and increasing GDP and jobs as opposed to what we saw at the depths of the recession IS the right path. Economy up is better than economy down. So the positive statements about the economy are actually backed up by the economic data. But again, if things aren't going like gangbusters, people don't even want to be told that things are going well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
The vast majority of them are completely pissed off about Obamacare and the detrimental effect it is going to end up having on the middle class.
That's a fair policy difference of opinion. I believe children on parents' insurance until they're 26 is BETTER for the middle class than not having that. I believe having hospital freeloaders who purposefully don't get insurance and then go to the hospital with an emergency expecting service for free and GETTING IT because hospitals can't turn them away- I believe the costs of hospitals caring for those freeloaders is being passed on to the rest of us who DO behave responsibly and purchase insurance. Of course there is also the cost of insurance issue, so not everybody who gets the free care is a freeloader. But I believe Obamacare extending insurance to those people will in the long run make it so responsible people like me don't have as high a health care bill because I'm no longer being forced to cover the costs of the freeloaders and of those who can't afford insurance. I think that will be a POSITIVE effect on the middle class. And I would love for people who feel the way you say about Obamacare to tell me how those 2 things are NOT better for the middle class or how it is BETTER for the middle class if those 2 things are left status-quo before Obamacare- no minor coverage to 26, responsible people picking up the health care tab for the uninsured freeloaders and uninsured people who can't afford insurance. And I didn't even get into the Obamacare effect on pre-existing conditions, which I also believe is better for the middle class WITH Obamacare than without. So 3 things. I don't see how anybody can reasonably argue that Obamacare makes those 3 things worse rather than better.
If someone likes neocon foreign policy like Bush, fine, I can respect that difference of opinion. If they want Roe v. Wade overturned, fine, I can respect that difference of opinion. But don't try to sell folks on positive economic data and data vs. the recession somehow saying that we have not been headed in the right economic direction, and don't try to sell folks that reducing health care freeloading, extending parental coverage of children to 26, and forcing coverage even with pre-existing conditions are BAD for the middle class. Or if you're going to draw a negative conclusion about Obamacare, then AT LEAST do so having addressed those 3 areas, which in my estimation are a HUGE PLUS for the middle class. Address the actual facts/data is all. I can respect differences of opinion where we're analyzing the facts. That's why I respected and still respect McCain. Romney has shifted the wording of his position according to who was listening way too much for me to respect him. Stuff like he promises his government will create 12 million jobs, but government doesn't create jobs. I'm insulted by that intentional effort to obscure what he believes in, effort to trick me on what he believes in. If you believe your government is going to create 12 million jobs, YOU BELIEVE GOVERNMENT DOES CREATE JOBS. If you don't want defense spending held the same or cut because you believe that will kill American jobs in that industry- YOU BELIEVE GOVERNMENT DOES CREATE JOBS. I liked McCain but disliked his foreign policies. I dislike Romney's policies and dislike the man himself for that type of intentional trickery on what he believes in.
My wife voted McCain last time and has always voted Republican. She is voting for Obama. She said Romney is just too slimy.
I agree.
Good succinct way to put it.
A slimy politician says his government will create 12 million jobs while at the same time says government doesn't create jobs.
A slimy politician proposes a 20% tax rate cut equivalent to $5 trillion, with deductions and loopholes to pay for it and then tells America he doesn't have any $5 trillion tax cut.
A slimy politician tells his base that he will stand for a tax cut and then, after getting the nomination, tells American don't expect a tax cut from him because he'll eliminate deductions.
A slimy politician slams Obama foreign policy at his campaign events and then gets on tv in a debate telling America that he agrees with almost all Obama foreign policy.
A slimy politician agrees with a budget that cuts Pell Grants significantly and then turns around and tells America that he wants to keep the Pell Grant money flowing.
A slimy politician condemns the president taking China to court over unfair tire trade practices and then turns around and says that as President he will get tough on China's unfair trade practices.
A slimy politician takes the deaths of 4 Americans and instantly tries to score political points off it.
Mitt Romney is indeed VERY slimy. He tries to trick one crowd into believing he stands for one thing, then he shifts and tries to trick a different crowd into believing something different. From the mouths of Republicans themselves:
“They (voters) want to know what’s the truth. They’re not interested in a chameleon.” ~Michele Bachmann, criticizing Mitt Romney’s flip flopping, speech in Florida, December 2011
“He glosses over and doesn’t even tell the truth. … Here is a guy who is the ultimate flip-flopper running for president, and he’s attacking me for not being principled? That doesn’t wash.” ~Rick Santorum, campaign event in Tennessee, February 2012
“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again. But I will say, if you look at the exit polling data in Illinois, you’ll see that Mitt Romney is broadly acceptable to most of the factions in the party. You have to do that in order to become the nominee…” ~Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom, CNN, March 21, 2012
Mitt Romney is a slimy chameleon. I can respect a straight talk express where I don't necessarily agree with all the stated policies. A slimy chameleon I cannot respect and is really an insult to me because he is trying to trick me on what he believes in so he can get in the Oval Office and do whatever the heck he wants, with his Bush foreign policy advisory team in the next office over.
My wife voted McCain last time and has always voted Republican. She is voting for Obama. She said Romney is just too slimy.
I agree.
Assuming she has an IQ over 90, there's no way she'll pull the lever for Oblama if she was smart enough to figure out he wasn't qualified to be president in 2008.
Last edited by CaseyB; 10-27-2012 at 11:46 AM..
Reason: discuss the topic, not other posters
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they stay with the first doctor, and after another 3 weeks the leg is healed, they'll probably think finally that darn doctor got his act together. 
