VOTE FOR OBAMA EARLY – VOTE FOR NEWT NOW!
Newt Gingrich will not be able to beat Barack Obama in this year’s Presidential election. Why? Because he can’t win the independent vote. I’m probably speaking more from personal perspective than anything else, but I don’t believe Gingrich can pull centrist voters like myself. He’s just too divisive and too far right for my tastes. He won’t swing independents to his side. This outlook is confirmed in several recent polls:
“A new Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, running even with Obama at 45 percent each. The president holds a 50 percent to 39 percent lead over Gingrich, a former speaker of the U.S. House.
A Suffolk University/WSVN-Ch. 7 poll released Wednesday evening found Romney leading Obama 47 percent to 42 percent among Florida voters, but Obama ahead of Gingrich, 44 percent to 38 percent.
Both polls found the big difference between Romney and Gingrich is among independent voters, who support Romney over Obama much more than they back Gingrich over Obama.
Among independents polled by Suffolk/WSVN, Obama led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and held a commanding 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich.”
Romney, on other hand, is a much more attractive candidate from a centrist’s position and if he chooses the right running mate and handles the Obama debates fairly well, I think he can use some of Obama’s weaknesses over the last few years to make a solid case for election. As an undecided, I can be pulled into the Romney camp. But I can also be pushed away into the Obama camp (which is likely what Gingrich will do to voters like myself).
I don’t like to do politics here, but hey, we only elect a President once every four years. And in my opinion, a vote for Newt today, is a vote for Obama tomorrow….
I’ll keep my options open but I can say I agree 100%.
I keep reminding myself how morally causual(and kind of dick) Ben Franklin was said to be. When I think of Newt. Yes…that is about as far as I get with him. “Well Ben Franklin was a dick too”
Too far right for mine also. No politics from me..my turkish drycleaner keeps trying to bate me into a fight about Obama. I hate politics.
Read first half of your primer last night CR. Well done. I only had to look up one concept. Finally this stuff is sinking in.
You can be erudite and a Democrat – Woodrow Wilson, but you can’t be erudite as a Republican- Thomas Dewey. Independents know liberals always come off as high-minded, but they need their conservatives to regular guys (with the exception of Nixon). Even if you’ve made a lot of dough and been successful in life, as long as you don’t show up the hoi-polloi, you can still pull it off.
I agree with Cullen.
I have contemplated sending a few hundred dollars to Newt for this very reason…. However, my personal opinion is that Obama will be re-elected regardless of his opponent.
@ CuriousLurker
I know Newt personally…please send me the hundred dollars and I will deliver it to my old friend tonight. Thursday is Srip Club night..actually so is Wed, Fri, Sat and if I dont’ see him tonight..we do have “Swinging Sundays” my wife will give it to him(no pun)
As a right-leaning independent voter, I fully agree. I would vote for Romney but not for Newt.
I agree with the authors statements that a vote for Newt is a vote for Obama. I plan on voting for Romney and I expect the primaries will be tougher for him to win than the general election. Obama is a failure in the eyes of anyone with a brain.
All the candidates are a heartbeat away from being a failure to the country as a whole.
“Obama is a failure in the eyes of anyone with a brain.”
Funny, because you throw out stuff like this, without any discussion of particular policies that you disagree with, and it looks like you’re the one lacking a brain.
Besides lowering taxes all around and not bashing the “fat cats”, how else will romney be an improvement over obama? And is lowering taxes all around what the economy needs?
As a left-leaning independent, I agree. I wouldn’t dream of voting for Newt, but I would consider Romney. Not thrilled with Obama, but how much can anyone accomplish with most unpopular congress ever?
Like everyone else I also claim to be centrist independent. But I find this ambivalence toward the Geithner, Holder, Bernanke regime to be highly disappointing. H Paulson was criminal, and this crew comes in and doubles down on his degree of wall street capture.
I can plug my nose and agree with people’s preference for Romney over Gingrich. And I agree with everyone’s view about how distasteful Gingrich’s arrogance and divisiveness might be. But if Gingrich survives the primary, could his election to the presidency be worse that what we’ve seen the last 3 years, at least where wall street capture and the economy are concerned?
To vote for OBama simply to vote against Gingrich, and effectively give the Geithner, Holder, Bernanke cabal a pass for their pampering of wall street at the expense of the middle class, elderly and retired, would be very sad. krb
Hear, hear.
Americans are becoming increasingly more stupid. However, they haven’t reached the Newt level barring a stock market meltdown. But I would love to see the Republicans forfeit the election and have to suffer through another 4 years of Obama.
Newt is divisive but Obama is not? gimme a break…
Who said Obama wasn’t divisive? This isn’t about Obama though. It’s about Newt vs Romney and which one is electable. Newt’s not electable in my opinion because he won’t swing the independent vote. In fact, if Ron Paul runs independent Newt will get buried by Obama.
Obama’s failures, IMHO as a Dem, is two fold. One, he most likely was in over his head vs. Paulson et al. I read everything I could get my hands on at the time, but without a Wall St or banking background i also bought the TBTF and “this is the only thing that can save the world” argument. Probably only now does he realize there were alternatives. Second, he tried way too hard to deal with the GOP even when they made it clear at every turn they were going to be against whatever he was for. It took over 2 years before he put away his Lincoln playbook and went to bat for his constituency’s beliefs. To wit, we have the Obama haters here even though it looks like the GOP got nearly everything it wanted out of every negotiation – it is even their health care bill, not anything remotely like what us Dems wanted – yet they still hate it. So imagine if Obama gave his base what they wanted – the ring wing hatred would be no less than it is today, but the election day euphoria from Obama’s base would have continued and the 2012 election would have already been decided. And we know from an MMT perspective if we got real stimulus, and real gov spending, our economy would be way ahead of where it is now.
My ONLY hope for the GOP is if Romney is lying now about what he would do if he were President. More tax cuts for the rich and more deregulation and less government is stupid. And it amazes me that right wingers want anything but Obama with the choices they have – a flip flopped Romney not withstanding..
My thoughts exactly – best hope is for Romney to revert to form and flip-flop again. Hopefully something a bit more mainstream. But that might be wishful thinking for someone who thinks the minimum for a friendly bet is $10,000.
It is all politics for the Republicans. No matter what Obama does, their aim is only to unseat him, without regard to the needs of the nation.
Be careful what you wish for. Independents vote their family’s unemployment, and their own 401k’s. They don’t care so much about big picture issues. If the market keeps going up and unemployment keeps on inching lower, Obama is likely to be reelected anyway. But if the EU lays a big egg that blows up Wall Street, Obama becomes very vulnerable. Even to Newt.
The biggest strike against Newt is that he is mean. The US voter does not like to vote for mean guys, especially for the most powerful office in the land. This IS the fundamental reason Hillary lost her bid for the nomination in 2008, IMO. But if he Independents are really angry over a new recessionary collapse, they will be in a mood to vote for someone just like Newt.
btw,
Newt is just the kind of guy who could be persuaded to embrace MMT as President. He wants to colonize the Moon. There is no way he is doing grandiose things like that if has to be operating under a conventional economic paradigm. The money simply won’t be available. But MMT tells us that in very weak economy like we have now, the Government could simply print dollars to do something like this without worrying about inflation. Cullen should be trying to become Newt’s advisor.
I agree. Newt is a corrupt egomaniac with psychopathic tendencies, but he also is the kind of guy who would wake up one morning and say, “We need to do something completely different. The conventional wisdom is wrong, and econ professors are idiots. Let me appoint Cullen Roche as Secretary of Treasury”
:>)
Timmy is gone! Roche is in! I also have been thinking of a new colony I’d like Mr. Bernanke to visit.
And the 3 of them are crooks, including Gingrich which has some nasty past precedents too.
Americans doomed you are if you do, and doomed you are if you don’t lol. Unfortunately I feel as sorry or more for us european nations with the crony system in place we currently have and the pushing agenda to demolish any sort of prosperity for the majority.
Politics state of affairs after years of capture by corrupted elites and ideology to perpetuate it will be by far the most difficult part to solve of all the current crisis.
M. R. has a big problem.
He’s a Massachusetts limousine liberal (of the Averell Harriman mold) running in Republican primaries.
Amusing to watch it, though.
Cullen,
Please vote for me. If elected, I promise to fill the Federal Reserve with MMT’ers and will appoint Paul Krugman to an ambassadorship in Mongolia where he can teach the Mongols all about Keynes.
Sincerely,
Newt
LOL !!!
Culen,
You are right. However, a vote for Romney is a vote for Bush. Don’t forget that. Since you opend the thread,
Finally, I’ll add the folowing, as well: A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney (the Romney that you think is a centrist).
That’s my two cents. So: If you want to vote for Obama, vote for Newt, but if you want to vote for Romney, vote for Obama!
Now you really have me confused.
Good thing I do not vote.
@ VII
LOL. I heard he is looking for wife #4.
Just to be clear………… I think they all stink.
(holds nose)Me too…I hate politics. Every 4 years..we do absentee and I try and send my wives in with out her knowing. That’s how I get through all the debates..every 4 years I get to play that game.
Now- I would take a look at media companies leading up to ad spending. Coorporate balance sheets are strong. The media companies should benefit from companies marketing budgets during elections and 2012 Olympics in London. Should be a great year for them. Heck if oil continues up the couch potatoes should get bigger watching the boob tube.(damn those kardasians)If you get a pull back this is probably another way to hedge the emotional misery I experience listening to both sides.
Newt has made a mistake, he and wife are now Catholics; his next divorce will be a headache.
Agree 100% with your comment. Im a conservative and even though Gingrich and Romney actually have similar positions (but who cares in a primary), one has proven he can get elected with independents votes (see Massachussets), the other has never even tested a people’s election nor is appealling to them. I am just amazed at republicans voting for Newt at the moment, they cannot be serious about removing Obama from office. They just don’t understand independents will make this election, not conservatives. Do they really think by just being a good debater he can make it to the presidency? And the comparaison to Reagan (anti-establishment candidate) is crazy since Reagan was at least charismatic and could even attract democrats. These conservatives are just angry and they think Newt trashing Obama in a couple of debates (still not a given since he will be accused of being condescending most of the time) will make him a winner…dream on!
What about the christian right? Would they just vote for Newt with his 2 ex wives and associated scandals to get rid of Obama, who we all know is a Muslim from Kenya (not intended to be a factual statement)?
Also don’t forget Rick Santorum also won a primary. Ron Paul still doesn’t realize that he’s out.
Just to take this another step down the path. If the Christian right has a choice of Gingrich or Obama, you think they will vote for Obama because they find Newt that distasteful? That’s a serious question, I have always been under the impression that the Christian Right would most likely never vote for a Democrat for President, but I’m not a member of the Christian Right so I don’t know.
Staying home is always an option. That’s what I do when I like none of the choices (not voting in the USA though).
Now this I can relate to, I have a VERY comfortable couch.
I think the whole lot of them are a patently repulsive bunch of vile scoundrels. And it is ridiculous to think that they would do anything significantly better or different than Obama, who has done exactly what his banker-corporate financers have asked of him, and who has furthered the destruction of the Constitution begun by that knavish lout, G. Bush, and who has furthered the global war machine that America has become–as Eisenhower warned. Ron Paul, while not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is at least apparently a normal and decent human being who actually has principles–which of course means he is disqualified for the job.
Amen
I don’t think a Republican can win this election. They have been too pro big money and I don’t think they can defend that position given the current climate. All we really need is someone who knows how to take care of both capital and the middle class. Obama is making an effort…I’m going to have to say he’s the closest thing we’ve got to that. Am I in trouble? OK then, fire away.
It’s kind of a moot point. Chuchy, I mean Newt, is not getting the nomination.
Hej Cullen,
A more relevant question. Which of the three BO, MR or NG has the best ideas for the economy ???
You’re a fool if you think there’s a difference between Obama, Romney and Newt. They use wedge issues to make it appear there’s a difference. The fact is they all support Corporatism and the Military-Industrial Complex which is what’s destroying out country.
Everyone should read President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1961 speech on Military-Industrial Complex http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html. He was a wise man, but we ignored him.
You want REAL change vote for Bill Still http://still2012.com/
The Christian Right is going to vote for who ever the Republicans put in there due to Obama’s latest stab in the back with his Obamacare. The Catholic Church is pissed off and many other evangelicals as well. Obama has done a 180 since his speech in South Bend and many of the Evangelicals who voted for Obama the first time are going to switch their vote. Last Friday Obama phone called the Arch-Bishop of Baltimore (I believe) and informed him that the Catholic church was going to have to conform to the Obama health care plan and offer contraceptives through their health plan. This is not sitting well at all, and not getting much press.
Obama is not actually asking the Catholic church to change its actions, what he will do is cut off our government’s subsidies they need for their programs. They want to use their doctrines to discriminate when providing aid.
I am an Obama supporter and for the last few months, I have been hoping for anyone but Romney to win the nomination. Now I am not so sure.
First, what we think now might not be correct because even experts get this stuff wrong. For example, President Carter’s election team thought Reagan would be a push over in the general election and were hoping he would win the GOP nomination. So watch out for what you wish.
Two, a criteria that highly affects voters is likeability. Obama scores good on this criteria with independent voters. I do not think Romney is likeable. He seems aloof and bit daft; he is usually stiff like Al Gore, and he is condescending (watch him constantly sneer and stare at his opponents in debates.) I have heard Republicans say they cannot stand him after watching him in many debates. And I think this is confirmed generally with the GOP voters seeming to endless search for a non-Romney. Sure, they do think he is one of them, but they seem to simply not like him also.
Third, I think a Romney nomination increases the chances much more that a name-recognized Republican runs a serious independent bid for the office (Trump or Palin could easily do it just out of selfishness for attention), especially if Romney wins the nomination early, and then be able to move from the right sooner, making the GOP base more mad, a situation inviting another Republican to run independently and affording enough time to mount a real “attempt.” (I personally feel this election has a Perot twist coming – although time is running out, hence the qualification that Romney needs to tie it up early for that to play out.)
I think Independents are the most turned off by mean candidates, especially for President – because it is the most powerful office in the world. This is the big thing Romney has going for him. He is not very likeable, but he does not come across as mean. Gingrich does not even try to hide his meanness.
On the other hand, if you want a guy who will do radical things, you might want a mean SOB like Gingrich. He has been compared to Andrew Jackson for good reason.:)
Andrew Jackson killed the national bank because its bankers used federal money for their own investments.
Agreed. In addition, I believe that in a Presidential election, Gingrich would be sunk by 1) his mouth 2) a history of scandal and inappropriate behavior.
Anyone versed in MMT would know that all politicians are economically illiterate. Therefore the only good reasons to vote for one candidate over another in my opinion are lower taxes, better allocation of capital, less useless regulation and proper national defense.
Romney beats Obama on all counts. To me, further subsidizing a health care system that already squanders a colossal 17% of GDP is the most unforgivable thing Obummer did.
You guys are a scream. You actually vote believing in what these swine have as their “platform.” Do you have amnesia? Can’t you see what they are like? “Change you can believe in!” “Compassionate capitalism!” Blah, blah! What do the sheeple, the boobus americanus want to hear today?
We have the best government money can buy!
I like my candidates to be intelligent. What I mean is I like them to be able to discuss complex issues in an intelligible way. I don’t like Newt, but Newt and Obama both come off to me as people who while certainly not correct about everything (is anyone?), they demonstrate the ability to think deeply.
It seems that many of our politicians, including Romney (and Bush II), are just a bunch of first-world frat boys who sort of know what they’re talking about not because they spent their life learning, but because they’ve been fortunate enough to grow up and associate with other highly successful people. So it rubs off a little. But it isn’t hard to see through
This isn’t an endorsement for Newt, but doesn’t Romney seem very shallow?
I guess there is more to a candidate than what I just mentioned. Ethics violations? Leading the charge to impeach Clinton while participating in your own extramarital affair?
Sometimes I think people throughout the world must look at who the Americans put on a pedestal for high office and shake their heads in bewilderment.
I hate politics. It’s a white mans tequilla. Good people just get crazy…
Mosler is the obvious choice. Unfortunately, I don’t want to live in the USVI
(and they aren’t monetarily sovereign).
JK-I can’t believe you would put Romney and Bush in the same sentence. Romney is an extremely intelligent man who has succeeded in all his private endeavors. Bush is a privileged frat boy as you describe who got where he is because of connections.
I read Romney’s book. The man is extremely sharp and data driven. He would be a much better president than politician, but unfortunately he doesn’t say the things in public that he says (or writes) in private for fear of sounding too snobbish or boring or whatever he thinks. My hope is that the economy dooms Obama and Romney gets in there to solve problems.
I’ll do you one better. If the economy tanks – most likely due to a renewed global financial crisis – I hope Romney inherits the mess and the Republicans will finally get the blame they have earned for abandoning principled conservatism and running this country down.
(Romney may be smart and data-driven, but he appears to be lacking in any real political convictions and the capacity for original thinking.)
Then a Democrat – or a third party candidate – can come in with a mandate for real change.
Like you Cullen, I could go either way, and I’ve voted Republican/Libertarian in every election. I’m currently leaning Democrat. I enjoyed Obama’s state of the union speech and agreed with his vision. The Republican response was repulsive enough five minutes in I couldn’t listen to anymore. They are dead wrong about the Federal deficit. Their hysteria will send this country into a tailspin if they get away with their austerity, debt reduction wishes. Untrained, unknowledgeable, economic illiteracy is not what we need right now.
I think if we held democrats accountable, the world wouldn’t be so bad. Not too much government, but enough to serve a useful and beneficial purpose. The Republicans have their hearts in the right place, just the wrong worldview and therefore the wrong economic policies. Agree with them on much (e.g. gun laws, prudent state government economic policy, eliminating government spending waste, reasonable tax policy, etc.), but they are blowing it on economics. Romney is probably our best bet for a Republican leader who would give any real consideration to sensible economic policy.
Erik, that’s fair. I’m not actually familiar with Romney’s history. I still stand my impression that he seems shallow. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say something that impressed me. He seems like just another privileged white guy who’s only in the running because of family fortune and deep political ties (just like Bush II).
There can be no doubt that Romeny is a smart guy. He keeps quiet because his base is very exterme and he is more moderate. So, he is trying to sit on both chairs, as we say in Russia.
Exactly
I hope Ron Paul run as an independent against both Obama and Romney/Newt. I’d love to see the reaction on Fox News as Paul would take 5+ % from the GOP, essentially burying them in the contest!
totally agree. i’d like to see how many Americans are choosing for a righteous man instead of a politician.
It would only be fair for Ron to run as an independant if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination.
He was at the root of the tea party movement which got hijacked by the Republican nutjobs and turned it into a joke.
As for the right wing media, they really treated him unfairely (so did the left).
The guy finished second in a pole… nothing not even mentioned in the news, while they keep talking about all the others.
Go Ron! (but please tune down the rhetoric again and stay reasonable)
From my centrist German point of view, without exception all potential GOP candidates are extremely right-wing, anti-social enemy-of-the-state types. None of them would ever stand a chance to become nominated by the CDU/CSU in Germany. Which is over here the largest party comparable to the GOP (the FDP doesn’t count anymore).
GOP current style leaders wouldn’t stand a chance in any European country, at least not nowadays, now maybe a Reagan would, in some places, but with the current environment I doubt it as the trend is the contrary and the demands for intervention to the political establishment is rising not diminishing.
But the politics and the rhetorics of both continents are very different (including UK), in Europe there is a leaning towards statism and an high grade of interventionism (even if it’s of the ‘conservative’ type; and including the last neoliberal era) while there is not for a part of the population.
There are too many differences, starting with a radically different judicial system and rule of law (not better or worse, different considering how things are done).
1. I agree that a vote for Newt now benefits Obama. The US presidential election is – IMO – a contest about who stinks the least. And Newt has certainly one or more skeletons in his closet that can and will be used against him.
2. I don’t believe Obama will be reelected. With the US economy in this horrible state. Because even during the “”recovery”" in 2009 and 2010 his popularity has shrunk. Or at least, not grown.
3. What about President Santorum ?
I agree with your premise Cullen but I could not be persuaded to vote for Obama under any circumstances. I cannot understand how any capitalist could vote for such an ardent anti-capitalist to lead the nation. If Newt wins the nomination, I’ll just have to sit this one out.
OB has done remarkably well, especially given what he has to work with as a country: a military that can’t win wars, a Congress whose philosophy is one of nihilism, a public that is blinded by race and class and incapable of understanding national interest and the legacy of an 8 year nihilist indulgence in wars, deficits and class warfare.
The nonsense posted here is no exception. Certainly Romney is a better individual than Gingrich re character, competence, temperament. His policies? not so much.
Wow! Try stepping outside your biases and analyze data objectively. I’m sure in your narrow view then the problems between 2000-2008 were the president and not congress……congress only became incompetent beginning in 2008? And I’d argue that the US military has NEVER lost a war when the lay political leadership gave a clear objective and then got out of the way.
Your type of group-think is why we live in such a polarized society that can’t meaningfully address its problems……and why we get the pathetic leadership we deserve and get. Try calming down, stepping back and try understanding the solutions proposed by both sides before taking a view. Among the deep thinkers there are smart and sincere people among both liberals and conservatives….and I’m certain they could work together to provide 80% of what each needs and meaningfully address our major issues. Unfortunately there are too few deep thinkers……political Wash. DC sees this as little more than a chess game and how they can get there’s while the taking is good. If you believe this is a republican or democrat problem, you remain part of the problem yourself, not part of the solution. Just sayin’….. krb
sorry…..”…get theirs…”
Why are you only discussing the two major parties?……because they are the only parties who will derive large sums of campaign contributions from the banksters and large corporations who will profit from such contributions. God bless America.
I’m replying to myself? Yes. Why?
Because I can’t believe a bunch of smart people like those who respond to this blog can’t think “outside the box”.
The box I’m referring to is our present political box. On the one hand, Cullen bitches about how no one in the mainstream of politics takes MMT seriously, on the other hand, no one discusses anyone outside the mainstream. Talk about your disconnects!
Cullen, perhaps a different tactic is needed: like maybe if you connected with candidates that aren’t “owned” by banksters and big business, you might make a connection which could then spread into the mainstream. Duh!
Gingrich Rubio 2012!
Romney cannot beat Gingrich in a policy/issues debate. Romney the establishment’s dog. The establishment does not want any change. The Republican base has moved away from the establishment (tea party); hence, Romney cannot beat Gingrich on a level playing field and the establishment knows it. There is a reason the last several debates have been anything but about the issues. The major networks have distracted the electorate from policy debate to mud slinging, personal drama and anything but hard core policy issues with regard to the economy. We have been censored.
Romney = NO CHANGE to the establishment (i.e. Fed, Banks and Monetary Policy).
Gingrich = Change to the establishment.
When are we going to realize that the most influence the president has is in the foreign policy. The president is pretty powerless on domestic issues, everything is in hands of Congress. Obama is not bad when it comes to foreign policy. As for everything else, the culprit is the Congress not the President.
I am not even talking about Gingrich, he is a physho, plain and simple. Romney,at least, is normal.
Obama, Newt, Romney, Ron Paul – they don’t know how the monetary system operates. I am skipping voting, thank you very much, and will be very happy to see people not voting. US political system is dysfunctional.
Amen. And this is the best that 300 million of us can come up with!
The real problem America faces is that the Demos have moved from left to Socialism (oBama is a socialist) and the Republicans have moved from conservative pro-constitutionalist to the left! Only Ron Paul speaks for the Constitution and a Free America. The results of the socialist taking control of America are reflected within:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1417133379001/america-the-land-of-the-economically-free/?playlist_id=87185
So, American people will once again chose the path they want and under oBama and Romney we will continue down the path we are currently on, period!
Take it from someone who lived in USSR and Europe, most americans and definitely FOX news included in that category, have no idea what socialism is. USSR was a totalitarian state but,at least, we read socialist and communist works so I know the subject.
If anything, USA is much closer to a corrupt banana republic/plutocracy than a socialist state.
I agree
Also Agree.
I feel I have to weigh in with a deep South perspective (grew up in Louisiana and now in Atlanta) – it’s sad to say, but one negative for Romney in both the primaries and the general is that he’s Mormon. Many Christians that I knew growing up in Louisiana don’t believe that Mormons are Christians, and would tell me as much.
Obviously Romney would win the deep South anyway (against Obama), but at the margins I think the ambivalence to his religion could hurt Republican base turnout, which hurts him in swing states at the edges of the south – think Virginia, North Carolina, and even Florida.
Newt has the opposite problem – he will rally the base, but may turn independents away.
Given these handicaps, if Obama gets 100k jobs a month from here til November, I’d put my (Intrade) money on him. If the economy takes a serious stumble, it’s anyone’s game. But as a final spoiler, if there are one or more third party candidates – it totally depends on who they draw votes from.
Ron Paul 3rd party = Obama lock
Bloomberg-like 3rd party = Republican lock
Both at the same time? To paraphrase Cullen, the internet might explode.
You are correct as far as it goes. But a Yankee liberal running in the South is toast because the conservatives will stay home.
Ask Senator MAC.
I think Newt is smart enough to listen to his economic advisers that will tell him that they need to continue to spend money if they don’t want to collapse the economy. BUT, with out a war to spend on it will be interesting to see where they would put this money.
Mitt is definitely a little more to the center, but I think Newt is a Bushesque politician. Speak the conservative lingo than spend tons of money and rack up lots of debt.
However, I still think Obama wins against Newt or Romney because the centrist, well at least me personally, is scared to death of the new age conservative movement that is pressing the Government to drastically cut spending and balance the budget.
Newt wants a base on the Moon. That is where he’ll spend the money. Chinese are planning a base on the Moon too, so it won’t be hard to scare americans into wasting trillions of dollars on space contracts. Chinese scientists, on the other hand, work practically for free.
Newt has made lots of enemies over the years, inside and outside his party. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination, because if he does the Republicans in the House and Senate will end up fighting a President of their own party, which would do way too much damage to them. Romney may be clueless, but he’s much more malleable and doesn’t pose much of a threat to the Republican machine.
Really? What part of the Republican budget balancing concept pretty much invented by Newt do you think Bohner and McConnell will disagree on?
As a no public safety government worker do I have a choice? Obama of course.
neither can romney, his showing with obama not even campaigning proves that, so what’s the difference? why should middle class vote for another obama, when the current one at least guarantees their social security. the idea is to make a stand and let america decide if they want to suffer more or have some significant changes.
Does it really matter who is president? Both parties believe that we’re running out of money. And no one seems to care about the plight of the unemployed.
True….real change won’t come until we can get MR or MMT out to the mainstream. Until then, it’s status quo. Especially with the budget likely to shrink in the coming years and the CAD to remain blown out….meager growth is a virtual guarantee. We might not get back to full employment for 5 years at this rate….but hey, at least inflation will remain low! Assuming our lack of an energy policy doesn’t result in oil prices blowing out, causing massive spikes in oil ending in deep recession and a snowball effect in the whole process….It’s fun to think about how badly misguided the current policy approach is, right???
It seems odd to me how so many people here who presumably are investors and trying to make as much money as they can are Obama supporters. He was an out-and-out Marxist as a young adult, and I’ll bet he’s at least a socialist even today. Of course, what we get from him is crony capitalism, but that’s just a means to an end.
It is amazing to me how many people who are presumably educated think that marxism and nazism and socialism are practically the same thing.
What is so scary about Marx works? That he thought that capital exploits workers to maximize profits? Isn’t it “increasing shareholder value” by any other name? Fot this very reason social contracts and regulations are requried to prevent capitalism from devolving into some of its ugliest forms.
Most people in the USA have a warped perception of socialism and communism. But the fear is not unjustified. The USA is a country that was mostly rooted in ownership of private production. Most of the great achievements in the USA are not due to the government or any form of social ownership of the means of production. They are private. I think MMT or Moneary Realism (I guess) show us that a government is necessary and good, but is not the means of production. The fear in the USA is that we will become a society that turns Marxist. Every little bit of a move in that direction scares Americans. I don’t think it’s unjustified, but it’s overstated a lot of the times.
I think the recent debate here over the JG is rooted in that. People are concerned that the government will become an increasingly important part of the means of production. And while some might view that as a positive it goes against the historical successes of the USA and the private means of production.
FD
This;
” Most of the great achievements in the USA are not due to the government or any form of social ownership of the means of production. They are private.”
Is BULLSHIT!
Most of the really big life changing things we have were because of large govt investments. Our power grid, highway system, nuclear energy and many high tech developments would have been MUCH slower in arriving if not for HUGE govt investment. This “hyper privatization” push in the crazy wing of the modern GOP is simply out of touch with reality. The US has bee the most successful country because it has for the most part simply been a pragmatist and done what was needed whether the investement came form private or public sector. Virtually all the earlier public sector investments have been allowed to be managed by (and huge profits have been made from) private entities. These boogeymen of decreased personal freedom wont come from Barack Obama but from Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon. Completely unaccountable, unelected plutocrats…….. in the PRIVATE sector. Thats who you should be on the lookout for, not Barack Obama.
Yes Greg. If there’s one really powerful message we need to spread in the next 20 years it is the fact that the govt and pvt sector are in partnership together. They are not competitors. The govt exists by us for us. We need to leverage that relationship exactly like it’s a business partner. An ally. And not push it away like it’s the enemy. We created this govt for us. And if we utilize it correctly it can do great things for us.
Well put Cullen.
I really like this; “We need to leverage that relationship exactly like it’s a business partner. An ally. And not push it away like it’s the enemy.”
Yes. A government that listens to proponents of regulating cow flatulence so polar bears can continue fishing off of ice bergs is a government that can accomplish anything.
And it will try.
My comment is tongue in cheek but the sentiment is there. For those of us on the right the government is the , at best, ideological enemy and must be thwarted.
But not to worry. Romney wins the nomination we stay home. Ask MAC and Palin.
What always surprises me on investing related forums that discuss politics, is how few support the healthcare reform. Do people not realize that technically there is a large risk you are not covered for major illnesses in this country.
For example, studies find that the #1 reason for individual bankruptcy in the US is because of major illness and the majority of those filing are by people who had health insurance. This is because health insurance companies rescinding policies around 15% of the time when individuals file large claims.
The insurance companies basically play lawyer-ball with large claims. You get a major illness and during your claim, they have actual departments, and it is the department’s main focus, to scour your policy looking for a preverbal non-dotted I or non-crossed T, for reason to rescind the policy. For example, during the 100s of questions for the initial policy underwriting, you forget to indicate that you went to a dermatologist for minor acne 7 years ago and now that you have lung cancer, that unrelated slip of your mind while dealing with all those bureaucratic questions, gives the company reason to cancel your policy, refunding all your previously paid premiums paid, less any prior claims you were paid and tell you good luck. It routinely happens every day. Basically it is a free option to these companies. They collect your premiums month after month, then you make a major claim, and they have a decent chance to say no.
Also, only two states in the union (MA and NY) even have laws legally defining what health insurance is. For comparison on where our legal system places values, I think every state defines what home and auto insurance are. So in all other states, health insurance is little more than a contract between you and your insurance company. So some contracts, even if honored, have all kinds of “gotchas” in them. Consumer Reports did a full study on this a few years ago. They found all kinds of “gotchas” in all the policies they examined. I remember a common one: around 15% of policies did not cover the first day of hospitalization (this was of course buried in small print. ) That might not sound drastic at first glance, but Consumer Reports added that a majority of hospitals, they polled, charged for 100% of surgery on your first day of stay even when the surgery might not be performed for days (so the insurance companies knew what they were doing on that.)
Now, maybe one has a group policy through an employer. Rescission is not that much of a threat under a group policy. But what if you get a major illness that precludes you from working. After 18 months of COBRA coverage, no more insurance and you have a pre-existing condition and can’t get covered going forward.
The current healthcare reforms fixes both of those risks. 1) Insurance companies will have to show intentional fraud to rescind a contract (no more lawyer ball) and 2) Pre-existing conditions have to be covered.
How can investors, people who are actively looking toward their futures, over look those risks (again it is the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country – it happens everyday)? Do you not think it will happen to you? Do you think you will fight any company that did that too you – while you are suffering from a major illness and against a multi-billion dollar company’s legal department and its outside corporate council that will postpone the case year after year while you are bankrupt?
I just cannot understand how anyone does not see this risk and want to eliminate it, especially active investors.
Investors tend to be capitalists. They don’t want anything that increases costs or sags the bottom line. That’s why most in the investor class don’t support big government social programs. They view it as a roadblock in the capital formation process. We know that deficits drive corporate profits, but that’s all relative. Like the output gap, there is a limit to the void that deficit spending adds positively to corporate profits. There is a point where the means of production are diluted by government spending. This is the fear. Luckily, with so many idle resources we’re not near that point, but it’s not unwarranted in the long-run.
Precisely why big and small business should support universal single-payer basic coverage: to relieve themselves of the burden of providing it.
Keep costs down by limiting ocverage to very basic care and cost-effective preventive measures – modest co-pays (waived in cases of real need) might also be appropriate. Let optional private insurance cover elective and luxury treatment. As krb points out, actuarial and related costs of basic coverage are eliminated and his inclusion of measures to maintain provider cost/effectiveness also holds promise.
Crake,
I’m glad you brought it up, but this topic is so broad it at least deserves its own article, or even its own blog site!
A couple brief thoughts…..
You say “…..is how few support the healthcare reform….”, specifically “the”. Consider that few may support “this” reform. I’ve spent time in the insurance and financial services business, and this isn’t reform at all. It’s just one more example, like so many others the last several years, where we try to take action in the name of “reform”, but without anyone suffering any pain or negative consequences……TRUE reform will have costs somewhere.
Let’s apply some simple logic for a moment…..
Insurance is an actuarial exercise business……trying to determine the likelihood of claims, pricing it properly or not covering at all when the likelihood for claims is too high. If the govt reform is intended to cover everybody, then eliminate the insurance industry. All that would be required would be the sectors of the industry to process the paperwork, pay the medical bill…….any actuarial activity and related layers of management and cost are no longer necessary……now we can see some real cost savings! Of course, without an insurance push back on medical costs, those costs may begin to rise faster and some other cost restraint mechanism would need to be found……how about some type of policy of eliminating the bottom 10% providers each year in cost effectiveness…some measure of cost of service and patient outcomes…to motivate providers to remain effective while keeping costs reasonable. Then there’s the tort reform piece that forces defensive medicine….3-4 opinions when 1-2 would suffice. There’s the preventative piece…we’re obese, lazy, eat poorly, yet want guaranteed medical outcomes when go for service or an ambulance chasing atty will sue the provider’s ass…..”and you won’t have to pay unless we collect for you”.
When trucking came along we didn’t choose to wholesale keep freight trains employed, when airplanes came along we didn’t wholesale keep passenger trains employed, when corporate farms came with their ability to feed many more families we didn’t wholesale keep the family farmer employed, etcetc. So in my view, “THE healthcare reform” you speak reverentially about is just another example of my generation’s attempt at govt “reform” without pain, which in reality is only “reform” for PR’s sake.
We have a generation of politicians that want to “appear” to be governing without really governing…..and we give them a pass on it……by turning it back on us……dem vs. rep.
Sorry to get on such a rant, but we have big issues and we’re getting exactly the govt and leadership, as pathetic as it is, that we deserve. We’ll continue to get sophomoric leadership until we pay attention to the details and begin to demand grown-ups in office. krb
Thanks for an intelligent comment, a pleasure to have on this site.
I’m glad you brought it up, but this topic is so broad it at least deserves its own article, or even its own blog site!
A couple breif thoughts…..
You say “…..is how few support the healthcare reform….”, specifically “the”. Consider that few may support “this” reform. I’ve spent time in the insurance and financial services business, and this isn’t reform at all. It’s just one more example, like so many others the last several years, where we try to take action in the name of “reform”, but without anyone suffering any pain or negative consequences……TRUE reform will have costs somewhere.
Let’s apply some simple logic for a moment…..
Insurance is an actuarial exercise business……trying to determine the likelihood of claims, pricing it properly or not covering at all when the likelihood for claims is too high. If the govt reform is intended to cover everybody, then eliminate the insurance industry. All that would be required would be the sectors of the industry to process the paperwork, pay the medical bill…….any actuarial activity and related layers of management and cost are no longer necessary……now we can see some real cost savings! Of course, without an insurance push back on medical costs, those costs may begin to rise faster and some other cost restraint mechanism would need to be found……how about some type of policy of eliminating the bottom 10% providers each year in cost effectiveness….some measure of cost of service and patient outcomes….to motivate providers to remain effective while keeping costs reasonable. Then there’s the tort reform piece that forces defensive medicine….3-4 opinions when 1-2 would suffice. There’s the preventative piece….we’re obese, lazy, eat poorly, yet want guaranteed medical outcomes when go for service or an ambulance chasing atty will sue the provider’s ass…..”and you won’t have to pay unless we collect for you”.
When trucking came along we didn’t choose to wholesale keep freight trains employed, when airplanes came along we didn’t wholesale keep passenger trains employed, when corporate farms came with their ability to feed many more families we didn’t wholesale keep the family farmer employed, etcetc. So in my view, “THE healthcare reform” you speak reverentially about is just another example of my generation’s attempt at govt “reform” without pain, which in reality is only “reform” for PR’s sake.
We have a generation of politicians that want to “appear” to be governing without really governing…..and we give them a pass on it……by turning it back on us……dem vs. rep.
Sorry to get on such a rant, but we have big issues and we’re getting exactly the govt and leadership, as pathetic as it is, that we deserve. We’ll continue to get sophomoric leadership until we pay attention to the details and begin to demand grown-ups in office. krb
Just a good argument far a national health plan. Oh my, Socialism, like a national army.
The current Republican situation does show how far that party has been pulled to an extreme by a tyrannical minority. In fact, pulled over the cliff, in my opinion.
You mean like the 2010 cliff? The establishment Republicans are on corporate payrolls and we hate them more than any liberal. I’d stay home before rewarding their lapdog Romney, get it?
That’s why Romney Romney Romney is all you’ll get from these gangsters who got us into this DEPRESSION.
Millions of us conservative voters are convinced Oba mama and Romney are two peas in the pod and are supported by establishment. And voting for either one is anathema.
Civil war is always messy just ask the Republican establishment hacks we fired in 2010. We can even live with a lame duck Oba mama. (Ever hear of GRIDLOCK?)
Economics is a weapon to win hearts and minds and has little to do with reality but that’s the way it’s done.
P.S Cullen and the rest of the MMT’ers now the solution but are a tiny voice in the wilderness. And will be as long as the vast majority of voters are benefiting from the status quo. (Just mention cuts to there hard earned benefits they worked all their lives for!)
I agree with Mr. Roche 100%
SO, you’d order a turd sandwich- a second time, because you can’t have steak? I’l take the meat loaf, and be satsfied I got that.
I’m resigned to another 4 years of Zero, because independents would cut off their nose to spite their face. If there is a God, Marco Rubio will run in ’16.
Gingrich might seem to say more interesting things than Romney, but Romney is a less antagonistic type personality. We need a deal maker with the Democrats, who may still have some blocking majority in Congress. We have done little but delay tough decisions with Obama.
America already is a Socialist country…………….
Too far right, Cullen? He’s been for the individual mandate (before he was against it), for cap and trade (before he was against it), for creating a space station on the moon (WTF kind of fiscal conservative is he?!) and essentially he shows largesse for any absurd cause he happens to support. I don’t see much of a conservative in there, just a hypocrite. But I agree with the premise – Newt can’t maintain a balanced campaign. Neither can Romeny. Or Santroum. We should have a Paul v Obama election just for the rest of us to figure out the ideological questions that actually matter. The election has been a personality battle more than an ideological battle for too long.
Bottom line!
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1417133379001/america-the-land-of-the-economically-free/?playlist_id=87185
Reality will always “eventually” win!
Fox – “reality”??
Gimme a break. There is so much misleading and biased info in this piece, and from Heritage in general, that it’s worthless.
Just getting around to reading older posts. I can live with three outcomes:
1. Obama is re-elected with a predominately Republican congress.
2. Mitt or Newt is elected with a predominately Democrat congress.
3. Paul is elected without consideration to congressional makeup.
As the two parties stand today, gridlock is a conservative’s best friend, since giving either control of the legislative and executive branches guarantees a run toward the left (Obama and nationalized healthcare; Bush with war, Patriot Act, Medical Plan D, TSA, Dept of Homeland Security, etc., etc.)
I like it just the way it is now, thank you.