The Democratic Convention

I think very little of the real hatred, and the profound distrust and suspiciousness of Obama, has to do with a differing set of beliefs. Obama's political ideology doesn't differ much from that of other Democrats.

I disliked George W. Bush intensely, because I vehemently disagreed with him on certain policies, but I did not hate the man, and I still retained my respect for the office of the President, and I still felt he deserved to be regarded with respect as our President, like him or not. I'm not sure that Obama gets that kind of respect all of the time, or enough of the time.

I really think that the hostile/suspicious undercurrent directed at Obama is related to race.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romneys-path-to-victory-incredibly-narrow-and-perhaps-impossible-to-navigate/

While you guys are patting Obama on the back and trying to guarantee a win for him, you might want to look at this...

While you guys are patting Obama on the back and trying to guarantee a win for him, you might want to look at this...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win

Actually, Cyclo DID guarantee an Obama win this November. I copied it as my Sig line, all you have to do is read it.

The New York Times
Sept. 7: Polls Find Hints of Obama Convention Bounce
By NATE SILVER

The three national tracking polls that were published on Friday all moved toward President Obama, probably reflecting momentum from the Democratic convention.

In the Gallup national tracking poll, Mr. Obama moved into a three-point lead over Mitt Romney, up from one point on Thursday.

What’s a bit more worrisome for Mr. Romney is that Gallup’s reporting of the head-to-head results in its poll occurs over a lengthy seven-day window, meaning that only a minority of the interviews in the poll were conducted before the major speeches at the Democratic convention.

In fact, most of the interviews in the poll were conducted just after the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., a period in which Mr. Romney should have been enjoying a convention bounce of his own.

Gallup’s approval ratings, however, are published over a three-day window, meaning that they will be quicker to respond to shifts in opinion. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings shot up to 52 percent in the version of poll published on Friday, while his disapproval ratings declined to 43 percent. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model does not use approval ratings directly, but this is a sign that there could be more good news for Mr. Obama in the head-to-head portion of the poll in the days ahead.

Mr. Obama still trails Mr. Romney in the Rasmussen Reports national tracking poll, but he narrowed his deficit to one point from three on Thursday. Rasmussen publishes its results using a three-day window, quicker than the Gallup, though almost none of their interviews yet reflect reactions to Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday night.

Finally, Mr. Obama moved into a two-point lead in the online tracking poll conducted by Ipsos, which had given Mr. Romney a one-point lead on Thursday. About half of the interviews in the Ipsos poll were conducted after Michelle Obama’s speech on Tuesday — although only about one-quarter will reflect reaction to former President Bill Clinton’s Wednesday night speech, and almost none to the speech given to Mr. Obama.

It’s certainly important to be cautious when interpreting one-day changes in the polls. But so far, this data is tracking toward a decent-size convention bounce for Mr. Obama. It’s quite unlikely, in fact, that the movement in the polls reflects statistical noise alone.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/sept-7-polls-find-hints-of-obama-convention-bounce/

It is ridiculous that people still give obama the stamp of approval that he is doing what is best for the economy when there is still a gaping wounded that has not been addressed. Everyone is eating obama's placebo pill while the economy bleeds to death.

Further, the recession faced by President Obama was caused by a financial crisis, not a monetary adjustment. As several economists have noted, recessions associated with financial crises are more severe and hamper recovery far more than other kinds of economic downturns.

Further, the recession faced by President Obama was caused by a financial crisis, not a monetary adjustment. As several economists have noted, recessions associated with financial crises are more severe and hamper recovery far more than other kinds of economic downturns. Writing for Bloomberg View, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff explained:

After a normal recession (which for the average post-World War II experience in the U.S. lasted less than a year), the economy quickly snaps back; within a year or two, it not only recovers lost ground but also returns to trend.

After systemic financial crises, however, economies of the postwar era have needed an average of four and half years just to reach the same per capita gross domestic product they had when the crisis started. We find that, on average, unemployment rates take a similar time frame to hit bottom and housing prices take even longer. With the Great Depression of the 1930s, economies on average needed more than a full decade to regain the initial per capita GDP.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/06/fox-attacks-clintons-dnc-speech-with-scrambled/189778

Our research makes the point that the aftermaths of severe financial crises are characterized by long, deep recessions in which crucial indicators such as unemployment and housing prices take far longer to hit bottom than they would after a normal recession. And the bottom is much deeper. Studies by the International Monetary Fund concluded much the same.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/five-years-after-crisis-no-normal-recovery.html