[QUOTE=bitonti;4310837]W. Bush was in power when it happened, he gets the blame. It's not fair but that's how it works.
It should also be noted Reagan's repeal of Glass Steagal (anti trust laws) made the concept of too big to fail a reality.[/QUOTE]
You can try and ride the blame Bush train to 4 more years of misery with Obama but I doubt it will work. Obama is not running against Bush. He also isn't running against Eric Cantor/John Boehnor. He will run against Romney and all polling and anecdotal evidence suggests he is likely to lose.
[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4310984]You can try and ride the blame Bush train to 4 more years of misery with Obama but I doubt it will work. Obama is not running against Bush. He also isn't running against Eric Cantor/John Boehnor. He will run against Romney and all polling and anecdotal evidence suggests he is likely to lose.[/QUOTE]
Angry Bit will be so much better around here than "haha, my party may be fuggin' up the country but at least it's my party" Bit...
[QUOTE=bitonti;4311058]The GOP base hates Romney. they like d-bags like Santorum. there is no enthusiasm for a Romney presidency. He's a GOP John kerry and trust me "anybody but" is not a winning strategy.[/QUOTE]
Kerry was a far left liberal elitist. Romney is a center right candidate whose previous actions and history closely resembles the political tilt of the country. He has money backing him and will make a strong candidate. He lacks baggage as has been seen by the many attempts by his challengers to smear him. If you think that the base wont get fired up to get rid of Obama you are fooling yourself. This election will be won or lost on turnout and the independent vote.
Obama has lost independents. His base is no longer maniacal in their support of him. His luster has worn off. His economic policies have been a failure. He will lose the election and deservedly so.
[QUOTE=bitonti;4311204]the turnout in Iowa wasn't suggestive of an enthusiastic GOP. It was the same number of votes in 2008 more or less.[/QUOTE]
You think the turnout for a primary is relevant? I don't. The GOP will be fired up and turn out to vote against Obama. Independents and disaffected Democrats will do the same.
Obama has been hovering at 20% strongly approve. The Strongly disapprove numbers have been holding steady in the lower 40% range. He has an enthusiasm gap of -20% Plus. That's the facts. [url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll[/url]
Obama's job approval numbers are the lowest of any first term president in modern times at this point in their reign. Worse than Carter, Clinton, Bush and everyone else. Its not looking good. Economy is sputtering along and will likely have a negative event hit us with the Euro Zone collapse that is scheduled for sometime next year. I hope I'm wrong about that part but it is looking inevitable. Regardless the numbers don't bode well for your guy.
Partisan Trends: Number of Democrats Falls to All-Time Low
The number of Republicans in the country increased by a percentage point in December, while the number of Democrats fell back two points to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.
During December, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.3% in November and just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.
At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year. .
The number of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties rose to 32.0% in December from 30.8% the month before.
Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based on telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.
Furthermore note that Obama's economy looks alot more like Carters than Reagan's. Carter inherited a recession as well (seems like most Presidents do for some reason???) The economy floundered for 4 years eventually leading in to another recession (perhaps next year?) Note some of the high growth rate numbers need to be adjusted for inflation which at that time was as high as 16%. A better chart would be Real GDP Growth versus the Nominal Growth Charts being shown here. You need to discount inflation for the chart to be relevant. I will look around for those charts.
The question I addressed was “proof” that the economy is better now than it was in 2009 when the Obama Administration took power. GDP Growth rate proves that.
Your contention that the recession preceding Ronald Reagan was worse than the 2008 to 2009 recession is laughable. EVERY economist alive will tell you this was the worst recession since the Great Depression.