Silver: "Delusional People In Politics"

[L.K.Eder]

thanatos must be a left wing plant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obama failed miserably to lead, to accomplish, to provide direction, to see the bigger picture and address it. So are those who supported and/or voted for him delusional that he somehow was good in his job? Or that as bad as it was the first four years, he has somehow learned how to do it right now?

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I think he largely got re-elected because of the squishy "Personal Likability" factors and the fact the GOP ran Romney. A stronger candidate would have had a real job cut out for him to unseat Obama, but I think could have done it.

Maybe, but we'll never know will we. I still think the mainstream media is mostly going to support the Democrat no matter how bad or how incompetent or how wrong. They are just wired that way. And when the President can use both the bully pulpit AND the media to fool the people and demonize his opponent, I don't know who could overcome that unless they lie a whole lot about their intentions. And do we want a President with the ethical capability of totally lying to get elected?

I can't remember where I saw it, but I read recently that a media analysis calculated something like 7 to 10 negative media stories re Romney to 1 negative for Obama. Obama's media coverage was overwhelmingly positive or included something positive to offset the negative, a benefit that Romney never enjoyed.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Partisan ideology makes people talk themselves into some crazy stuff.

....And, some (like ALEX JONES) are full-blown insane, FROM THE OUTSET!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA]Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan on CNN (FULL ORIGINAL) No Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

*

....And, then, there's.....


​

 

[LoneLaugher]

But the fact is, to reelect Obama with the state the economy was/is in was so blindly partisan that some of us despair that we will ever regain common sense and a rational perspective in this country.

I can get this point. I was surprised all election season that the polling data was showing Obama carrying states like Wisconsin. I think the OP"s point, is that it takes real intelligence to see an uncomfortable truth and accept it as the truth. It's the height of lunacy to see an uncomfortable truth and deny it.

It was fairly clear that despite the state of the economy, the deficit, the debt, and the unemployment rate that Obama was going to win. I don't for the life of me know how that works but that happened.

Ok, that's a small lie. I do know how he won. It's the same way Bush won in 2004 and Clinton in 1996. The opposing party just decided to screw up a shot because they were scared of the incumbent. I'm just surprised the GOP actively blew the election.

I don't think the GOP blew it actually. I just think that with the help of the media, the Democrats were successful in demonizing Romney enough to lessen the enthusiasm for him. And when you have 50% or more of the people receiving some kind of government handout or benefit, it is too easy to protect that, however small, at the expense of doing what we intectually know is the right thing. Romney was honest that some of that had to go if we were to rein in runaway spending, get more people working, and move toward a balanced budget again. And that scared those who thought they might have to give up something personally. And enraged the hard core partisans who look to government to accommodate partisan interests.

Unsubstantiated talking points. Handouts is not the correct term. The media was not proven to have favored Obama in its coverage.

Romney's plan was to cut the max tax rate to 20% and kill cap gains taxes. You cannot say he was prepared to do what was needed to balancing the budget. Sorry.

Romney and honest are nor words that go well together.

But you sure do have a nice, calm way of expressing these inaccuracies. Very pleasant.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I can get this point. I was surprised all election season that the polling data was showing Obama carrying states like Wisconsin. I think the OP"s point, is that it takes real intelligence to see an uncomfortable truth and accept it as the truth. It's the height of lunacy to see an uncomfortable truth and deny it.

It was fairly clear that despite the state of the economy, the deficit, the debt, and the unemployment rate that Obama was going to win. I don't for the life of me know how that works but that happened.

Ok, that's a small lie. I do know how he won. It's the same way Bush won in 2004 and Clinton in 1996. The opposing party just decided to screw up a shot because they were scared of the incumbent. I'm just surprised the GOP actively blew the election.

I don't think the GOP blew it actually. I just think that with the help of the media, the Democrats were successful in demonizing Romney enough to lessen the enthusiasm for him. And when you have 50% or more of the people receiving some kind of government handout or benefit, it is too easy to protect that, however small, at the expense of doing what we intectually know is the right thing. Romney was honest that some of that had to go if we were to rein in runaway spending, get more people working, and move toward a balanced budget again. And that scared those who thought they might have to give up something personally. And enraged the hard core partisans who look to government to accommodate partisan interests.

Unsubstantiated talking points. Handouts is not the correct term. The media was not proven to have favored Obama in its coverage.

Romney's plan was to cut the max tax rate to 20% and kill cap gains taxes. You cannot say he was prepared to do what was needed to balancing the budget. Sorry.

Romney and honest are nor words that go well together.

But you sure do have a nice, calm way of expressing these inaccuracies. Very pleasant.

and if you were honest, you would agree with her baloney.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obama failed miserably to lead, to accomplish, to provide direction, to see the bigger picture and address it. So are those who supported and/or voted for him delusional that he somehow was good in his job? Or that as bad as it was the first four years, he has somehow learned how to do it right now?

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I think he largely got re-elected because of the squishy "Personal Likability" factors and the fact the GOP ran Romney. A stronger candidate would have had a real job cut out for him to unseat Obama, but I think could have done it.

Please support those opinions.

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. Why would a strong candidate have his work cut out for him in a battle against such a piss-poor leader with a soft economy? Why?

 

[Dot Com]

Obama failed miserably to lead, to accomplish, to provide direction, to see the bigger picture and address it. So are those who supported and/or voted for him delusional that he somehow was good in his job? Or that as bad as it was the first four years, he has somehow learned how to do it right now?

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I think he largely got re-elected because of the squishy "Personal Likability" factors and the fact the GOP ran Romney. A stronger candidate would have had a real job cut out for him to unseat Obama, but I think could have done it.

Please support those opinions.

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. Why would a strong candidate have his work cut out for him in a battle against such a piss-poor leader with a soft economy? Why?

I notice neither of them provide links for any of their assertions either. Either too lazy or the links don't exist As I said earlier, we tried the deregulation & tax-cuts for the rich & got the tee shirts or rather, lost them to show for it. Thats all Repubs ever seem to offer.

 

[Plasmaball]

Hey boxer dog. Fuk you.

What about the year we are in and the country we are in.

Are you so fuking stupid that you don't know the year and the country? You got any evidence that todays unions are communist. If not, shut the fuk up.

What a fuking asshole you are. No ifs ands or buts about it.

So we should ignore the history of the communist organization and still ignore the socialist organizations that still support it cause you say it doesn't mater? I am sorry but some of us like using our brain.

well thats something you don't have to worry about.

 

[Dutch]

thanatos, how do you have a real conversation with someone who believe that if you are pro union you are a communist? Weird belief system. You got any proof of that opinion. Or does it just "feel" good to say?

I am sorry but why would you think I am wrong? The whole union structure is based on a communist structure.

That's equivocation. Are you a chimp because you've got the same basic structure?

I see you are a union member which happens to be a communist organization but that means you are not a communist?????? You eat paint chips when you were young?

You need to work on your literacy and get checked for lead poisoning son, I am not a union member. I support their right to exist and function just the same as I support the right of a business owner to exist and function.

You are a dumbass. apparently you need reading comprehension classes.

So I guess on Labor Day you go to work to protest this obviously commie holiday?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama failed miserably to lead, to accomplish, to provide direction, to see the bigger picture and address it. So are those who supported and/or voted for him delusional that he somehow was good in his job? Or that as bad as it was the first four years, he has somehow learned how to do it right now?

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I think he largely got re-elected because of the squishy "Personal Likability" factors and the fact the GOP ran Romney. A stronger candidate would have had a real job cut out for him to unseat Obama, but I think could have done it.

Please support those opinions.

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. Why would a strong candidate have his work cut out for him in a battle against such a piss-poor leader with a soft economy? Why?

It's hard to unseat an incumbent. Look back at the history of US Presidents, how many have been single term? In the past 100 years I think you're looking at a fairly small club. Ford, who pardoned Nixon. Carter who faced the Perfect Storm politically. George HW Bush who had a viable third party candidate and a rockstar opponent.

As for Obama's leadership, I'd point you to all of the concessions necessary to pass his signature piece of legislation, despite the fact he had a majority in the House and a Filibuster proof Senate Majority. He should have been able, as leader of his party, to get at least an up or down vote without all of the buy offs he had to include.

As far as the military, I'd note the open criticism that's he's taken from the officer corp. I'd especially point out that McChrystal was only asked to step aside after a second offense, the first should have been more than enough.

He's not a very strong leader and I seem to see more insubordination from his own party in Congress than I've seen in a while.

So yes, even a weak incumbent can be very difficult to unseat. Obama is proof of that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I think he largely got re-elected because of the squishy "Personal Likability" factors and the fact the GOP ran Romney. A stronger candidate would have had a real job cut out for him to unseat Obama, but I think could have done it.

Please support those opinions.

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. Why would a strong candidate have his work cut out for him in a battle against such a piss-poor leader with a soft economy? Why?

It's hard to unseat an incumbent. Look back at the history of US Presidents, how many have been single term? In the past 100 years I think you're looking at a fairly small club. Ford, who pardoned Nixon. Carter who faced the Perfect Storm politically. George HW Bush who had a viable third party candidate and a rockstar opponent.

As for Obama's leadership, I'd point you to all of the concessions necessary to pass his signature piece of legislation, despite the fact he had a majority in the House and a Filibuster proof Senate Majority. He should have been able, as leader of his party, to get at least an up or down vote without all of the buy offs he had to include.

As far as the military, I'd note the open criticism that's he's taken from the officer corp. I'd especially point out that McChrystal was only asked to step aside after a second offense, the first should have been more than enough.

He's not a very strong leader and I seem to see more insubordination from his own party in Congress than I've seen in a while.

So yes, even a weak incumbent can be very difficult to unseat. Obama is proof of that.

You are mistaking a willingness to compromise in the interest of moving things forward in the face of obscene obstructionism from a less-than-loyal opposition for weak concessions. The legislation passed. He led.

Military insubordination from the officer corp? Outside of McChrystal..who no ,onger has the gig.....what are you talking about?

 

[Some Guy]

The media was not proven to have favored Obama in its coverage.

What? It was just as unproven as it was proven; no one has ever made an attempt to scientifically gauge media partisanship, to my knowledge anyway. Anyway, it doesn't take a world of political experience to notice that the large majority of the media was much softer on Obama than it was on Romney: same for Obama vs. McCain. It's because most media outlets lean left. There really is no denying that.

Romney and honest are nor words that go well together.

On the whole, politicians, not just Romney, are full of a shit and lie around every corner. Obama is just as big of a liar as Romney is. But again, you didn't have any major media outlets pointing that out. You had them either ignoring it or defending it, in large part.

 

[deaddogseye]

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I think he largely got re-elected because of the squishy "Personal Likability" factors and the fact the GOP ran Romney. A stronger candidate would have had a real job cut out for him to unseat Obama, but I think could have done it.

Please support those opinions.

You contradict yourself in that last sentence. Why would a strong candidate have his work cut out for him in a battle against such a piss-poor leader with a soft economy? Why?

It's hard to unseat an incumbent. Look back at the history of US Presidents, how many have been single term? In the past 100 years I think you're looking at a fairly small club. Ford, who pardoned Nixon. Carter who faced the Perfect Storm politically. George HW Bush who had a viable third party candidate and a rockstar opponent.

As for Obama's leadership, I'd point you to all of the concessions necessary to pass his signature piece of legislation, despite the fact he had a majority in the House and a Filibuster proof Senate Majority. He should have been able, as leader of his party, to get at least an up or down vote without all of the buy offs he had to include.

As far as the military, I'd note the open criticism that's he's taken from the officer corp. I'd especially point out that McChrystal was only asked to step aside after a second offense, the first should have been more than enough.

He's not a very strong leader and I seem to see more insubordination from his own party in Congress than I've seen in a while.

So yes, even a weak incumbent can be very difficult to unseat. Obama is proof of that.

i agree with that and its something i emphasized throughout the campaign. the fact is that icumbents are beaten occassionally but its rare and never a shock when they win (ok, had Hoover won it would have been a shock), but other than that no). also most incumbents win with an increase in their voting base -- obama is only one of three i beleive who saw his shrank. so IMO there was nothing impressive about his win; to the contrary -- it was a reaffirmance of the power of incumbency and not much else despite what his media supporters want to convince people and themselves. even in the critical state of ohio -- what was the supposedly critical difference? the auto bailout -- incumbency!!! Romney was never the favorite to win that election; not for a day.

also as for ford - remember that he was never even elected in the first place so he was that much less of an incumbent. one aspect of the incumbent advantage is that we voted him in once already. not so with ford. and lets not forget Bush and his foolish (at least politically) abandonment of his no new taxes pledge. That was a major factor ias well.

i also think romney missed the boat some with his campaign strategy. he was singly focused on the economy which seemed to make sense except that the polling data consitenetly showed that agree or disagree the public still didnt blame the poor eceonmoy on obama so it was falling on deaf ears to a large extent. he should have responded to the negative ads in kind although i dont believ at the end of the day that would have made the difference either -- just made it more entertaining

 

[zeke]

Dear Doctor, are you in? If so.....If a newly hired CEO of a major corp. comes to his seat and the company is burning and sinking and the Board of Directors blocks virtually eveything the CEO proposes to help the situation, to the further detriment of the failing company, would the CEO really be a failure? or just ineffective? Also considering that the same Board or Directors caused and contributed to the companies failing.(How's that for a bunch of C's?) Failure or ineffective at leadership?

You know my analogy. Failure seems to imply that Obama made no effort to do better. I believe that he did try. Even though by our countries very design, he needs partners in Congress to rule effectively.

Ineffective is what I think he has been. Blocked and obstructed by any means available. By the very same people that caused the dilema he is and has been trying to address.

Definitley ineffective. Would be interesting to see if, with Repub help, the entire country could be more succesfull.

 

[Some Guy]

I don't disagree with this. I think Obama has terrible leadership skills. Arguably the worst of any of the modern Presidents I've seen in my lifetime. He can't keep his own party in line, he can barely keep the military in line, and he can't seem to figure out how to negotiate with his opponents.

I agree but for different reasons. I think he's too much of an activist and not enough of a leader and problem solver. What you had noted earlier (i think, or maybe it was Mac), the whole "back of the car" BS from the democrats on '09 told me all i needed to know about Obama and the ruling forces within the senate and house (Reid and Pelosi); they favor big government and will stump for it wherever possible. His signature legislation was an example of it being too aggressive to the left which is why it needed to be changed and altered to appeal to individual members of his own party in order to get the votes. You know there was no interest in bi-partisanship there whatsoever when even the moderate republicans wanted nothing to do with it. Obama just grabbed a lot of power in '09 and he was going to use every little bit of it he possibly could.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.

Nate Silver nails it, pointing out how frustrating it can be to analyze politics:

Nate Silver: Between pundits and partisans, 'a lot of very delusional people' in politics - POLITICO.com

From the interview:

“Between the pundits and the partisans, you're dealing with a lot of very delusional people. And sports provides for much more frequent reality checks,” he wrote. “If you were touting how awesome Notre Dame was, for example, you got very much slapped back into reality last night. In politics, you can go on being delusional for years at a time.”

Partisan ideology makes people talk themselves into some crazy stuff.

.

Nate is just repeating what many people have been saying since man first dropped out of the trees and started and organized march to America.

 

[konradv]

Hey boxer dog. Fuk you.

What about the year we are in and the country we are in.

Are you so fuking stupid that you don't know the year and the country? You got any evidence that todays unions are communist. If not, shut the fuk up.

What a fuking asshole you are. No ifs ands or buts about it.

So we should ignore the history of the communist organization and still ignore the socialist organizations that still support it cause you say it doesn't mater? I am sorry but some of us like using our brain.

So do I. It's basic logic. If all A are B, it does not necessarily follow that all B are A. Study up, so you won't look like such a fool next time.

 

[konradv]

No, if you're a union member, you're a union member. That's just the truth. The rest is embellishments you're making up to try to sell your point.

I see you are a union member which happens to be a communist organization but that means you are not a communist?????? You eat paint chips when you were young?

Holy crap.

I have to ask: Is it possible this person is actually a liberal trying to make the Right look as goofy as possible?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but come ON.

Previously I asked "does having the same basic structure as a chimp, make you a chimp?" Obviously the answer is "no", but he may be the exception to the rule!