2nd Presidential Debate - Hempstead, New York

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

IMO… If Romney does win this election, I think Democrats would need to look to someone else rather than Hillary in 2016 if they want a chance. They probably owe the nod to Hillary, but I think the voters attitude towards her is changing for the worse. She’s starting to look weak, and little more than a whipping girl. She put up with Bill’s antics, let Obama outmaneuver her in 2008 and been taken advantage of by the Obama administration, and now has taken the heat off Obama and claimed responsibility for the Benghazi debacle. Although she will have 3 years to rebuild her reputation, somehow I don’t think Democrats give many second looks to losers.

But if the economy and jobs take a turn for the better over the next four years, Romney would almost be a lock for reelection, so Hillary might be a good choice for them knowing she would lose.

Any up and coming Democrats in the wings? Evan Bayh perhaps?

Yes Clinton is a liability IMO. She looks more and more bedraggled as time goes by. She is not as good as she thought she was and would be a poor Presidential candidate. She could always switch to the Republican side, I always thought her credentials were more of that persuasion than Democrat.

nagilum2

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes Clinton is a liability IMO. She looks more and more bedraggled as time goes by. She is not as good as she thought she was and would be a poor Presidential candidate. She could always switch to the Republican side, I always thought her credentials were more of that persuasion than Democrat.

Whether Romney wins or not, 2016 nominee should be Brian Schweitzer, democratic governor of Montana, FTW.

IvySlayer

Will they really pass up Hillary? First female President?

nagilum2

IvySlayer wrote: »

Will they really pass up Hillary? First female President?

Hillary turns 65 in a couple weeks. If she won, she'd get elected just after her 69th birthday.

She's not a viable candidate.

Duck Soup

nagilum2 wrote: »

Hillary turns 65 in a couple weeks. If she won, she'd get elected just after her 69th birthday.

She's not a viable candidate.

Whoever wins this election, pretty much all economists are predicting the next four years will be the start of the long-awaited upswing. Romney is promising 12m new jobs in the US by 2016 because economists are forecasting that 12m new jobs will be created in the US by 2016, whoever's in power. It's like Canute waiting for low tide and then ordering the water to come in. It will happen, but it will happen regardless of who mumbles what on the foreshore.

That means that should Obama win, he gets to end his second term as the man who saw America back to the glory days and comes as near as possible to handing the next Democratic candidate the keys to the White House.

There's no shortage of names to be floated on the Democratic side for 2016, but the base of the party - the primary voters - would be massively in favour of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

nagilum2

Duck Soup wrote: »

Whoever wins this election, pretty much all economists are predicting the next four years will be the start of the long-awaited upswing. Romney is promising 12m new jobs in the US by 2016 because economists are forecasting that 12m new jobs will be created in the US by 2016, whoever's in power. It's like Canute waiting for low tide and then ordering the water to come in. It will happen, but it will happen regardless of who mumbles what on the foreshore.

That means that should Obama win, he gets to end his second term as the man who saw America back to the glory days and comes as near as possible to handing the next Democratic candidate the keys to the White House.

There's no shortage of names to be floated on the Democratic side for 2016, but the base of the party - the primary voters - would be massively in favour of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

Well, I disagree on both counts. Those predicting a fast recovery just aren't looking at the facts of the US economy. Overextended national, state, business and personal debt loads, a dysfunctional health care system that can't be fixed without an overhaul much more fundamental than obamacare, plus overleveraged and insolvent financial institutions.

I think regardless of who wins, the US economy will limp along over the next 4 years just as it has for the past four, flirting with dipping back into recession a time or two along the way. That's if the US is lucky and the dip isn't bigger - which it could well be.

[-0-]

Barry O is on The Daily Show tonight.

Ozymandius2011

Fox reporting huge Obama gaffe on the Daily Show. Called the deaths of the 4 American embassy workers "not optimal".

Duck Soup

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Fox reporting huge Obama gaffe on the Daily Show. Called the deaths of the 4 American embassy workers "not optimal".

No, he called the administration's response to the deaths not optimal. The huge gaffe is listening to Fox News.

nagirrac

Obama will destroy Romney in the Foreign Affairs debate. Most rational Americans are aware that bad things happen and that no administration is immune from it. It is a slippery slope to start blaming the administration for what happened in Libya, was Bush responsible for 911 in that security was a total failure in the months leading up to that attack and on the day of the attack? Attacking how they dealt with the media in the immediate aftermath is a weak argument.
By and large Obama has done what he said he would do, ended the war in Iraq, targeted terrorist leaders, killed bin Laden, set a timetable to get out of Afghanistan, and most importantly did not commit American troops to any more unwinnable wars. I would give him a B+ which is about 4 grades higher than his predecessor.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

I doubt you really want my viewpoint, but I will give it in the hopes others might be interested (at a minimum it will give them ammunition to call me hopelessly out-of-touch ).

Not so much out of touch as maddeningly blinkered.

Amerika wrote: »

On the economy, his attack on Obama was effective with the point-by-point critique of his economic record. Romney's five-point plan played well to the viewers. (Hey, at least he has a plan and an agenda ).

Except he doesn't, really.
At least not one he's seen fit to detail in any meaningful way, Sorry, you don't get a pass for just having an "agenda".

Amerika wrote: »

Later he cemented the economy topic with the Bush question, noting he was for small businesses rather than big businesses. It all played well into those undecideds who are disillusioned with Obama.

Bonus points for anyone willing to come up with an explanation of what that piece of fluff even means.

Amerika wrote: »

Then, although not extensive, Romney explained his tax plan well enough to garner voter satisfaction and willingness to give it a chance.

Given you're already willing to give this anti-maths you generously call a "tax plan" a chance I'm not sure we're getting much by way of substance from you here.

Amerika wrote: »

Romney also played on everyone’s attitude that Obama is anti-oil, anti-coal, and anti-gas, and that gas prices have doubled.

Everyone's attitude?
I have a feeling that much like the myth of the poor, put upon republican having to deal with everyone being out to get them, this "attitude" exists solely in your own head.

Amerika wrote: »

He then pointed out his plans for a reasonable move to energy independence. I think people believe his multitude of plans will help to bring good paying jobs back unlike the green jobs initiatives the president focused on which can be summed up by one word… bankrupt.

Or, one could take the view that Romneys plan is short sighted and involves drilling and digging with reckless abandon
But good job on focusing on Solyndra - shows you have no understanding of the issue beyond the one company you've heard about.


And I asked for substance on his policies, not how you feel about him.

Amerika wrote: »

No, it's reality.

Not even slightly and never will be.

Amerika

hooradiation wrote: »

But good job on focusing on Solyndra - shows you have no understanding of the issue beyond the one company you've heard about.

One? Let me educate you. Of the $80 billion in stimulus set aside to subsidize Obama’s politically preferred energy projects, 10% have already dong bankrupt or are in the process. These include Evergreen Solar ($24 million), SpectraWatt ($500,000), Solyndra ($535 million), Beacon Power ($69 million), EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million), Abound Solar ($374 million), A123 Systems ($279 million), Raser Technologies ($33 million), Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million), Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million), Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million), Range Fuels ($80 million), Thompson River Power ($6.4 million), Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million), LSP Energy ($2.1 billion), UniSolar ($100 million), Azure Dynamics ($120 million), Nordic Windpower ($16 million), Navistar ($10 million), and Satcon ($3 million). I guess it’s just a drop in the bucket eh? And the future doesn’t look bright for many of the others.

But that kind of thinking on your part answers a lot about the rest of your post.

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

One? Let me educate you. Of the $80 billion in stimulus set aside to subsidize Obama’s politically preferred energy projects, 10% have already dong bankrupt or are in the process. These include Evergreen Solar ($24 million), SpectraWatt ($500,000), Solyndra ($535 million), Beacon Power ($69 million), EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million), Abound Solar ($374 million), A123 Systems ($279 million), Raser Technologies ($33 million), Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million), Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million), Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million), Range Fuels ($80 million), Thompson River Power ($6.4 million), Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million), LSP Energy ($2.1 billion), UniSolar ($100 million), Azure Dynamics ($120 million), Nordic Windpower ($16 million), Navistar ($10 million), and Satcon ($3 million). I guess it’s just a drop in the bucket eh? And the future doesn’t look bright for many of the others.

But that kind of thinking on your part answers a lot about the rest of your post.

If you're just going to copy and paste something you found plastered all over the internet then you probably shouldn't be lecturing others about the art of thinking.

Amerika

karma_ wrote: »

If you're just going to copy and paste something you found plastered all over the internet then you probably shouldn't be lecturing others about the art of thinking.

Yes I get data from a sources, and am usually asked to provide data for my claims (and if I just cut and paste, I doubt the source would use the word "dong" instead of "gone"). By the way, how do you get your data... osmosis?

nagilum2

karma_ wrote: »

If you're just going to copy and paste something you found plastered all over the internet then you probably shouldn't be lecturing others about the art of thinking.

But what about the examples he gave? Are you going to address those or just attack the person for finding them and posting? I think they're quite good examples - what else do you want???

Look, Obama is a crony who is rewarding his buddies. You may like him better than Romney, but he's a crony. Note that I have no illusions that Romney would be any better.

Ozymandius2011

Interestingly, while only two-thirds of today's Rasmussen tracking poll are post-debate, the firm says Romney is slightly ahead in that part of the poll....

Duck Soup

nagilum2 wrote: »

But what about the examples he gave? Are you going to address those or just attack the person for finding them and posting? I think they're quite good examples - what else do you want???

Look, Obama is a crony who is rewarding his buddies. You may like him better than Romney, but he's a crony. Note that I have no illusions that Romney would be any better.

Okay, so let's address the examples given.

Here's one. LSP Energy apparently owes the American taxpayer $2.1bn and has filed for bankruptcy. That it's filed for bankruptcy is true.

http://www.thedeal.com/content/energy/lsp-energy-powers-on-chapter-11.php

But strangely, no mention of a $2.1bn loan from the US government. If the story is true - two billion mofo-ing dollars down the green drain - then I'd expect 'LSP' to be every second word from Romney's lips and in every ad he runs.

The problem is, outside of a continually cut-and-pasted list that's circulated around the right-wing blogosphere, I can't find a single mention of LSP Energy being loaned $2.1bn by the government from an actual news source.

Perhaps someone can help me.

Duck Soup

Anyone get any joy finding a news article mentioning the $2.1bn loan to LSP Energy? I went through 10 pages of Google search results and came up empty.

One thing I did find out. The type of high-falutin' green energy source that LSP Energy used? 'Clean' coal.