34
   

The Case For Biden

 
 
snood
 
  6  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2015 08:23 pm
@ehBeth,
It really is priceless. Like arguing with a bulkhead. I gave him a NYT chart and he dismisses it as NYT propaganda. I can find a WSJ chart that supports my argument that Democrats are better for the economy, but he would dismiss that on some other grounds. True entrenched ignorance - contempt prior to, and in spite of, investigation. I mean, get this - he still defends trickle down economics. I bet he still thinks Saddam had wmd.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2015 08:58 pm
@snood,
Timing is everything: Why the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents

Quote:
new research suggests it has more to do with luck.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2015 09:06 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Timing is everything: Why the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents

Quote:
new research suggests it has more to do with luck.



Yeah, bet if the economy tanked in the last 6.5 years, you'd have found a way to blame it on Obama, though. Just can't give him any credit for anything can you, you koolaid heart pumping jaggoffs?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2015 10:05 pm
@snood,
If I were a registered republican I would vote for him in the primary. If he is the candidate the democrats would win the senate for sure and maybe even the house.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2015 10:07 pm
@snood,
I just blame Obama for his excessive use of executive orders, his continuation of 90% of the Bush policies he said he would over turn, Obamacare, and the fact that the recovery hasn't been as robust as it could have been.

What happens, you see, is that a Democrat gets into office and ruins the economy. Doesn't look like at first, but that is because the economy is like a giant oil tanker. Nothing happens very fast. So, people see the economy going to hell and elect a Republican to fix it. Over the course of their term, the Republican fixes all of the **** ups by the previous admin and just as the economy makes the turn, their term is over. So, a Democrat gets voted in and as a result of the slow moving economy, the Democrat looks like a golden boy for fixing the economy only to spend their term jerking it around until a Republican has to come back and fix it. It's a vicious circle. You can't see that because you don't believe it. C'est la vie.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 03:05 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Timing is everything: Why the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents

Quote:
new research suggests it has more to do with luck.



Yeah.

In golf...there are some people who are just luckier than others.

Almost always the luckiest are the people who practice the most...and the more they practice...the luckier they get.


revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 06:28 am
I know I seem overly fond of fivethirtyeight, because I am I guess, but there is another article which is very good, imo.

Quote:
Will Joe run? It’s the biggest unanswered question hanging over the Democratic primary. The vice president is making some of the traditional campaign stops (late night talk shows, parades and speeches), but he sometimes sounds like a man who’d rather sit this one out.

How would a Biden run affect the race? Being a hypothetical candidate is easier than being a real candidate — just ask Fred Thompson — so the early polls that include Biden can’t tell us much. But they still hold a couple of clues: Even as a hypothetical candidate, Biden is eating into Hillary Clinton’s support, and black voters, in particular, appear open to him.

Four national polls released this month (ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, YouGov and CNN/ORC) asked Democratic voters who they’d vote for with Biden in the race and without him. Clinton led Bernie Sanders by an average of 44 percent to 26 percent with Biden in the race. Clinton’s 19-percentage-point edge in those polls equals her lead in the Huffington Post/Pollster aggregate. Without Biden, Clinton’s lead on Sanders jumps to 28 percentage points, 57 percent to 29 percent.

In other words, almost all of Biden’s support is coming from people who, without Biden in the race, would support Clinton. So if Biden decides not to run, Clinton’s standing could snap back to where it was earlier this year.

In fact, if you look only at polls that don’t include Biden, Clinton’s margin over Sanders hasn’t changed all that much in the past couple of months. Clinton averaged a 30-percentage-point lead in such polls in August; she’s averaged a 28-point edge in them so far in September.

Still, there are a few rays of hope for the Sanders camp in these numbers, even if Biden doesn’t enter the race.

In the ABC News/Washington Post survey, Clinton’s lead among non-white voters — a group Sanders has so far failed to make any inroads with — goes from 44 percentage points over Sanders with Biden in the race to 59 percentage points over Sanders without Biden. With whites, she goes from being down 2 percentage points to Sanders to being up 2 points — a minimal difference.



Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has a lot of non-white voters, so to win those states Sanders doesn’t need Biden drawing away Clinton supporters. The most recent Des Moines Register poll in Iowa had Clinton ahead by 7 percentage points with Biden in the race and by 8 points without him. Quinnipiac had Clinton down 1 percentage point with Biden running in Iowa and up 3 points without him. Monmouth had Sanders up 7 percentage points in New Hampshire both with and without Biden.

If Sanders wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps his victory would throw the whole race into enough turmoil that non-white voters would give him another look. Of course, it’s also possible Clinton would hold onto her large lead among non-white voters and easily win the contests in the more diverse states that follow, Nevada and South Carolina.

Either way, Biden’s strength with non-white voters, and specifically black voters, suggests they could be peeled away from Clinton under the right circumstances. Given that Sanders is still fairly unfamiliar to black voters, maybe he can improve his standing with them. The potential problems for Sanders: Minority voters are closer to Biden and Clinton ideologically, and Sanders’s reception among African-American crowds hasn’t been all that enthusiastic.

A Biden run would be bad news for Clinton. He can reach party actors and voters that Sanders hasn’t been able to win over so far. And the hypothetical Biden candidacy has exposed some soft spots in Clinton’s support. Still, Clinton maintains a lead in the polls and the endorsement primary that’s better than Al Gore’s was at this point in the 2000 campaign, and Gore went on to win every single primary and caucus.


Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight



source
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 06:36 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Timing is everything: Why the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents

Quote:
new research suggests it has more to do with luck.



Yeah.

In golf...there are some people who are just luckier than others.

Almost always the luckiest are the people who practice the most...and the more they practice...the luckier they get.





Economics ain't golf.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 12:27 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Timing is everything: Why the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents

Quote:
new research suggests it has more to do with luck.



Yeah.

In golf...there are some people who are just luckier than others.

Almost always the luckiest are the people who practice the most...and the more they practice...the luckier they get.





Economics ain't golf.


Luck...ain't always luck!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 12:58 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

I just blame Obama for his excessive use of executive orders


excessive in comparison to what/who?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

(Obama's numbers up-to-date to 09.20.15)


Quote:


President

Total Orders

George Washington
8 1

John Adams
1

Thomas Jefferson
4

James Madison
1

James Monroe
1


John Quincy Adams
3

Andrew Jackson
12


Martin van Buren
Total
10

William Henry Harrison
0


John Tyler
Total 17

James K. Polk Total
18


Zachary Taylor
Total 5

Millard Fillmore
Total 12

Franklin Pierce
35


James Buchanan
16

Abraham Lincoln
48

Andrew Johnson Total
79


Ulysses S. Grant
217

Rutherford B. Hayes Total
92


James Garfield
6

Chester Arthur
96

Grover Cleveland - I
113

Benjamin Harrison
143


Grover Cleveland - II
140

William McKinley
185


Theodore Roosevelt
1,081

William Howard Taft
724


Woodrow Wilson
1,803

Warren G. Harding
522


Calvin Coolidge
Total 1,203

Herbert Hoover
Total 968

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Total 3,721

Harry S. Truman
Total 907


Dwight D. Eisenhower
Total 484

John F. Kennedy
Total 214

Lyndon B. Johnson
Total 325


Richard Nixon
Total 346

Gerald R. Ford
Total 169

Jimmy Carter
Total 320

Ronald Reagan
Total 381

George Bush
Total 166

William J. Clinton
Total 364

George W. Bush
Total 291

Barack Obama
Total 219
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 01:00 pm
@ehBeth,
Uh oh ehbeth, you're trying to get them to justify their Obama derangement with actual numbers. Brace for extreme bullshyt onslaught.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 01:26 pm
@ehBeth,
Tnx for that search, ehBeth.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 01:30 pm
@ossobuco,
It's a good website

I like their data section

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data.php

this kind of thing makes me nerd-happy

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

Political Party Platforms of Parties Receiving Electoral Votes: 1840 - 2012
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 01:38 pm
@ehBeth,
Saving it to roam around in. You know me, I'm usually roaming around food, but I can still learn.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 01:45 pm
@ehBeth,
I think the issue for Obama isn't so much the number of the executive orders, as it is their content. In many areas, ranging from immigration and border enforcement to health care and the actions of the NLRB he has issued orders that in effect rewrite established law. In addition with the aid of Harry Reid thile he was Senate majority leader, he effectively circumvented the legally established process for the Federal Budget, and because Reid refused to schedule Senate votes even on the President's budghets absolved Democrat Senators from the political risk attendfant to the votes they never had to cast.

The Republicans did their part as well in contributing to the budget debacles.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 02:00 pm
@georgeob1,
I think McGentrix can speak for himself.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 03:08 pm
@ehBeth,
Very interesting. Teddy, the progressive, populist Republican, Wilson the progressive's progressive and the big liberal Kahuna, FDR combined account for over 6,000.

I can't say with any certainty at all, but I would not be surprised to find out that most of Coolidges were directed at reversing Wilson's.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 03:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You can look it up - that website has backlinks with the numbers of the orders (and whatever it was they were called before they were called executive orders) I edited that bit out, but it's at the link- as I said, terrific nerdy website.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 03:15 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I just blame Obama for his excessive use of executive orders

excessive in comparison to what/who?

In comparison to himself.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2015 03:33 pm
@McGentrix,
Probably why he gives so few of them in comparison to other presidents. A couple of times he was forced due to the inaction of congress before the 2012 reelection when McConnell said the best thing he could do is make sure Obama has only four years as President by saying no.

Quote:
Biden says that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any cooperation on many votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” Biden says.

The vice president says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along these lines.


source
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Case For Biden
  3. » Page 25
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:04:17