Never-fail prediction system shows 2012 win for Obama

[The Rabbi]

No, of course you have a selective and poor memory.
The actual cause of war was Iraq's continued and repeated violations of UN resolutions, their failure to give over data on their WMD programs, and their state support of terrorism for about 20 years.

I didn't realize that the United States was in the business of enforcing UN resolutions? Why would the UN not enforce it's own broken resolutions? If it was because they were weak, why wouldn't the UN support us in enforcing their resolutions? Why didn't we listen to the UN weapon's inspector, Hans Blix?

I thought conservatives hated the UN? I guess you hate it until you need to use it to support Bush's war adventurism. You can't have it both ways.

Every time this lousy house of cards is set up, it is easily toppled.

The war went forward with Congressional approval, including many many Democrats, many of whom had access to the same intelligence the Administration did.
I remember the French agreeing to support the US in the UN until the actual vote when they stabbed us in the back. This is probably because they were sucking Saddam's dick, along with the Germans, making big money in the now-forgotten oil for food scandal.

And I hold Congress accountable for not doing due diligence. It cost HRC my vote in the last primary. Then again, there portion of the blame is much smaller in my eyes. The President made the case for war, the President either knowingly or unknowingly crooked the facts to trump up a case for war, and the President is the Commander in Chief.

"Pre-emptive war" is an idiotic doctrine and I don't think war would have been justified if there were WMDs (at least not a unilateral action). As it stands, there were no WMDs, we looked stupid and lost esteem in the world's eyes, we strengthened Iran and China, we weakened ourselves financially and for what? Because Bush believed that Iraq had WMDs.

Revisionism is an ugly thing. Do we need to rehash the many many quotations from Democrats demanding Bush do something about Saddam's WMDs?

Rehash all you want. Bush was the President. Only he could "pull that trigger". It doesn't matter how idiotic the Democrats were. In the end, Bush made the decision to go to war and that decision was made long before Democrats started screaming about it.

Dredging up quotes is as idiotic as pointing out that Clinton thought he had WMDs too. Obviously, Clinton didn't feel he had sufficient proof justify invasion.

Or maybe he realized something that the dullard Bush didn't: Invading Iraq would result in a slow bleed insurgency fight that would last years. Maybe he actually listened to Shinseki. Ironic that the "draft dodger" knew his tactics and military history better than the mighty warrior king from the TANG.

OK. So the US should rely on the UN to enforce its own resolutions and when it doesn't then the US should just do nothing in the face of threats?
Why bother with the UN, indeed.
That seems to be the Leftist strategy here: copy the Europeans in talking about problems rather than actually solving them.
Clinton didnt live in a post 9/11 world. And his responses to terrorism were the direct reason for 9/11.

You cannot deny the timeline and the reasons. The old "Bush lied, people died" is credible only to kooks.

 

[JohnA]

That's not a scandal. it's not even in poor taste. This:

Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube

Was in poor taste.

10.1% UE when he promised never over 8%.
vs
we found tons of bombs, some uranium, and the machines to makes all sorts of chemical/biological weapons but not specifically wmd's.

you will have to excuse me for not playing along

First of all, NO politician will ever make a promise when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome. That's why Obama didn't make that promise.

.

Where have you been living .under a fucking rock ?
ALL POLITICIANS ( and i mean all ) make promises to whomever the audience is to get there vote
thats one of the qualifications for being a * politician*

 

[JohnA]

Six trials hardly makes any system "never fail".

6 in a row is nothing to scoff at.

Yeah, its amazing that he was able to predict that SCOTUS would hijack and change the election result in 2000.

cus they didnt

 

[uscitizen]

First of all, NO politician will ever make a promise when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome. That's why Obama didn't make that promise.

So why did Barry promise to close GITMO?

Same reason Bush promised to not be in to nation building or for the US being the police force of the world.
To cut spending, etc.

 

[geauxtohell]

In light of the OP, I see Obama winning simply because the GOP isn't offering anything better.

 

[geauxtohell]

OK. So the US should rely on the UN to enforce its own resolutions and when it doesn't then the US should just do nothing in the face of threats?

Yes. You see, service members take an oath to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States" not to "Support and Defend UN resolutions".

You know it as well as I do. You are just grasping at straws. Rather desperately.

Why bother with the UN, indeed.

Indeed. Then why did you even reference them? Out of ammo and had to reach for the closest rock on the ground to throw?

That seems to be the Leftist strategy here: copy the Europeans in talking about problems rather than actually solving them.

When you are talking about war, the situation elevates far above the typical "problem" and your lame talking points about Europe.

What was the problem in Iraq? You won't even admit that over-riding reason we went to war on the belief that Saddam had WMDs

Clinton didnt live in a post 9/11 world. And his responses to terrorism were the direct reason for 9/11.

And here we go with the "Post 9/11" world idiotic talking point again. Another Bush Administration classic! As if the nature of warfare changed on 9/11. I have a hard time taking the hawkish right seriously. After all, didn't you believe this would be a walk in the park? "I doubt six months...."

I told my wife, the second we crossed the LD in Iraq that we'd be there for 10 years. It's not that I am a brilliant tactical thinker, I just was required to read military history and every LT in the Army has read (among other things) "Blackhawk Down: A Story of Modern War".

After what happened to TF Ranger in Mogadishu in '98 (on Clinton's watch), the Army damn well knew that the war of the future would be low intensity conflict in urban terrain. Every maneuver division built mock up cities and implemented MOUT into their required training tasks. The Pentagon damn sure knew it wouldn't be a quick and easy deal. That's why Shinseki told Bush he would need about 10x more troops then he had. For that, he was fired, a move that ensured five years worth of "yes men" with stars on their collar. And you guys wonder why Iraq was such a colossal fuck up. Perhaps, like Rumsfeld who was enamored with the Air Force and gadgets, you think wars are won from the air as opposed to on the ground.

At any rate, perhaps you would have had to have been in the military at the time to get all of this. I can excuse the average American citizen for being completely ignorant of tactics. I can't excuse the president and the SECDEF.

You cannot deny the timeline and the reasons. The old "Bush lied, people died" is credible only to kooks.

I don't deny the reason. It was "WMDs". I don't know why it is so hard for you to admit that.

 

[The Rabbi]

So now you want the US to abrogate its treaty obligations?
I wish you lefties would make up your minds.

You can scream WMDs all you want. That was part of the equation, a part everyone in government, Democrat and Republican, as well as all the European intelligence services, agreed on.

 

[geauxtohell]

So now you want the US to abrogate its treaty obligations?
I wish you lefties would make up your minds.

You can scream WMDs all you want. That was part of the equation, a part everyone in government, Democrat and Republican, as well as all the European intelligence services, agreed on.

Treaties? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about UN resolutions. And yes, if the UN is not willing to enforce it's own resolutions, we should not enforce them unilaterally.

The UN didn't even support us in Iraq. Obviously, they knew something we did not. Perhaps you should stop digging on this issue as you continue to look stupid.

I will scream WMDs. It was more than a part of the resolution. It was the major force behind it. Once again, the American people would have never supported invading Iraq simply to "spread democracy". Their had to be a link to our own security interests.

That link was WMDs. WMDs that didn't exist. As much as you want to downplay it. If you feel for the "bait and switch" where WMDs turned into "spreading democracy" then you are a sucker. I suspect you "didn't fall for it" though. I suspect you are just desperate to defend the indefensible to get your boy, Junior, off the hook.

Which is so much worse.

 

[Kuros]

Here's a good critical analysis of the 13 keys employed upon Obama and Hoover.

How Do Obama's Re-Election Chances Stack Up to Hoover's?

Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, "Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss." Obama loses this key. So does Hoover.

Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama's unchallenged status, "I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary." Obama wins this key. So does Hoover.

Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama. So does Hoover.

Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point. So does Hoover.

Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an "undecided." Hoover loses this one.

Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, "I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession." Obama loses this key. So does Hoover.

Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. "There have been major policy changes in this administration. We've seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change," says the scholar. Another win for Obama. Well, Hoover also delivered what was then the biggest stimulus in history, the largest tax increase in history, and some sizeable innovations in the banking system, so I guess we call this one for Hoover as well.

Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, "There wasn't any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn't." Obama wins a fifth key here. Hoover loses.

Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. "This administration has been squeaky clean. There's nothing on scandal," says Lichtman. Another Obama win. Also Hoover.

Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, "We haven't seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don't foresee anything." Obama wins again. Hoover too!

Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. "Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success." Obama wins his eighth key. Tempting to call Hoover's negotiations on German war debt and his mediation of Latin American border disputes a substantial success, but I'll say he loses this one.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, "I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He's really led from behind. He didn't really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn't use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He's lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election." Obama loses this key. So does Hoover.

Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, "We haven't seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won't." Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection. I'd say FDR was pretty charismatic, so Hoover loses this one, bringing his total to six keys, apparently just enough to secure his re-election.

Update: A commenter says that the authors of the article screwed up in saying that Obama's nine keys were three more than he needed for re-election; in fact, it's one more than he needs. Which I think points up even more how much work the subjectivity is doing here; depending on how you score domestic and foreign policy successes, and charisma, Obama/Hoover are both either a shoo-in or a dead loss.

More importantly, if you change even one variable, it comes down to . . . whether we're in recession next year. Which is what the other models usually look at, anyway.

I wouldn't put too much faith into these indicators, or particularly into the analysis on which they were performed. Especially since the authors of the article screwed up.

 

[Mustang]

Six trials hardly makes any system "never fail".

For one of his 'keys' he uses the fact there has been no scandal with the Obama adminstration.

Fast and Furious comes to mind-- which is getting worse by the day.

You're confusing scandals with garden variety screw ups.

 

[BDBoop]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is you second thread TODAY that is a duplicate of another thread.

Just stop already and go back to your coloring books.

 

[Fyght]

If Obama is reelected, it will be the end of America. Sadly, millions of libs will line up to vote for the destruction of America.

 

[The T]

How many times we gonna see this shit?

Ever tried a search? It works just fine...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rong"+Pundit+Predicts+2012+Win+for+Obama

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

First, no one is never wrong, to err is human.

Second, Namath was never wrong until he predicted that Dallas would beat Pittsburgh in 1978.

 

[imbalance]

Short of cloning black voters, I don't see any real chance of Obama winning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Six trials hardly makes any system "never fail".

6 in a row is nothing to scoff at.

My record is longer. I have been right on every presidential election I predicted since Nixon's second term.

 

[NGSamson]

Don't count him out. He is like a good dose of the clap. If you dont take all your pills it comes roaring back with a vengeance.

 

[Immanuel]

Six trials hardly makes any system "never fail".

6 in a row is nothing to scoff at.

My record is longer. I have been right on every presidential election I predicted since Nixon's second term.

Giving your predictions on the Monday after election day doesn't count.

Immie

 

[GWV5903]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

First time for everyone...