Associated Press
He's already made history once.
I've seen several pieces in recent days, some from writers whose work I often enjoy, making the same argument: President Obama has to "defy history" to win re-election because the economy is in such rough shape.
Here, for example, is Jeff Greenfield:
[I]t's with that skepticism in mind that I offer, not a prediction, but a flat pre-election assessment: If President Barack Obama is to win, he is going to have to overcome a set of numbers that no incumbent President, or incumbent party, has ever managed to surmount.
The jobless rate has been stuck at just above 8 per cent for months; you have to go back to 1936 to find a President re-elected with a higher unemployment rate.
Chris Cillizza made a similar point:
Mitt Romney should win the presidential election this November. While that may seem, on its face, like a somewhat controversial idea, consider the following:
The unemployment rate has been over eight percent for 42 straight months, a streak unparalleled in American history. No post-World War II president has ever been reelected with unemployment over 7.2 percent -- meaning that if President Obama wins, he will be making history.
Derek Thompson published several charts from a variety of sources, all of which measure American economic performance under Obama against other presidential administrations dating back to Truman. Not surprisingly, Obama doesn't fare well under the comparisons.
There's nothing factually wrong with any of these analyses, or the others like them that have been published recently. In recent generations, incumbent presidents who run for re-election and won have invariably enjoyed more favorable economic conditions than Obama. Indeed, nearly every recent piece I've seen about Obama needing to "defy history" references the presidents "since Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
The problem with these analyses is appreciating what separates Obama from his modern predecessors, or more to the point, what Obama and FDR have in common.
In 1936, Roosevelt sought re-election despite 17% unemployment. One can imagine Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers running attack ads, reminding Americans that unemployment has been "above 17% for 48 consecutive months" as incontrovertible proof that the New Deal was a "failure."
But on Election Day, FDR won 46 out of 48 states. How could an incumbent president win re-election with an unemployment rate at 17%? Because voters realized the Great Depression wasn't Roosevelt's fault, and the economy was getting better, not worse.
Seventy six years later, President Obama is in a tough fight because unemployment is stuck at 8.25%. Is this high for a modern incumbent president? Obviously it is. But here's the detail I think much of the political establishment fails to appreciate: the Great Recession was a catastrophic economic crisis, unlike anything Americans have seen since the Great Depression.
When pundits compare Obama's economic record against every president since Truman, they're making a fundamental mistake -- no administration was forced to confront a crash of this magnitude since FDR. Comparing Obama to the last 11 presidents is, at its root, deeply misguided.
Indeed, I don't think the political world has fully come to grips with the severity of the crisis in late 2008. This wasn't just another recession. It wasn't just a cyclical downturn. It wasn't a slowdown caused by interest rates or a dot-com bubble. It was an international breakdown of the global financial system -- and it not only takes longer to recover from such a crash, the effects of the catastrophe linger.
The nation is still burdened by high unemployment four years after the disaster? Of course the nation is still burdened by high unemployment four years after the disaster. This recovery isn't as robust as other modern recoveries? Of course this recovery isn't as robust -- other modern recoveries didn't have as far to go to make up ground. (They also didn't have mass public-sector layoffs undermining growth, along with the worst Congress ever.)
As I explained a while back, no president since FDR has won with an unemployment rate this high because no president since FDR has had to govern at a time of a global economic crisis like the Great Depression or the Great Recession.
To draw comparisons without this context is to take an incomplete look at the facts.
Leave a Comment:
Indeed, I don't think the political world has fully come to grips with the severity of the crisis in late 2008. Steven Benen
You are right Steve, the political world hasn't come to grips with the severity of the crisis because they all live in Washington DC, just about the only American city that was spared the ravages of the Great Recession. None of their friends and family lost their jobs. The current crop of American courtiers are about as well connected to the American people as the French court was connected to the French people just before the storming of the Bastille. That disconnect is deeply troubling.
Ron, I don't know where you got the idea that the Great Recession didn't hit DC. Sure, it hit some places worse, but the unemployment rate in Washington DC was a bit over nine percent as of June 2012 (the most recent date for which we have figures).
Obama is going to lose Herbert Hoover sized and for, pretty much, the same reasons.
Per realclearpolitics.com: Obama is leading the popular vote by 3.5% and the electoral vote by 56. Does that seem like a Hoover-sized defeat to you?
The reason the political establishment does not understand the Great Recession is because they were largely unscathed by it so that they never felt the angst or felt the dread on a day to day basis to know that it feels better now even though the numbers are not great. It is that "feeling" that buoys Obama and it is the lack of that "feeling" that renders the chattering class blind to Obama's strength.
ETA. See Ron above.
The two above are so correct ...a town fueled by......dare we speak its name...
GOVERNMENT J.O.B.S.
"Hippocracy central , can I help you "?
There was a lot of government / public sector jobs eliminated as well. The first attacks were teachers, police and fire as well as office workers.
As public sector jobs improved, the states had a big deficit and they had to cut it with something, so they cut policemen, firemen, teachers, etc. Now the middle class is hurting and there is not enough money circulating around to improve things. the rich have the highest percentage of GDP in history, 94%, usually its 55-60%, so there is no money to circulate. And then the uninformed and noncaring in Washington talk about the lazy people that don't want to go out and work, let's drug test them all, and make them pay for it, Raise the minimum wage? Why? There is a big disconnect between our legislators and the citizens. And its not going to get any better until we vote and demand that they listen to us.
Rhonda, protecting the public sector jobs was where the first Stimulus went. Remember??
The fact that it was the wrong medicine to treat our ills is the only reason public sector jobs started disappearing TWO YEARS after the private sector had taken their hit.
Political Payoffs = Middle Class Layoffs
Unemployment in DC is a bit over 9%.
tpaine -
More of the stimulus was spent on tax credits and tax cuts for individuals and small businesses than on saving public sector jobs. (Just a few of the numerous tax cuts President Obama has signed into law.)
I've got a small business and all Obama has done for me was RAISE my taxes and cut off all my sources to capital - he and the Democrats had already spent it on faux "green energy" jobs to pay off campaign contributors.
Political Payoffs = Middle Class Layoffs
Something they also seem to forget about - Pres. Obama has already defied history - first, by becoming the first African-American president, secondly by passing the healthcare reform so many of his predecessors sought to provide, yet could not.
Another completely overlooked fact is that the black hole of unemployment bequeathed to Obama by Bush was much larger and deeper than the outgoing Bush administration admitted. As I understand it, unemployment was actually closer to 10% when Barack Obama took office.
But the most important overlooked fact is that GOP governors and the congressional GOP have done everything in their power to keep the economic recovery from gaining steam. GOP governors have slashed public-sector jobs in their states and turned down federal funding for projects which would have created jobs and bolstered their state's economies in other ways. Republicans in the Senate and House have voted time and again to keep people out of jobs -- by filibustering and voting against job creation legislation. Piled on top of that, congressional Republicans have made sure to keep the economy on uncertain ground by threatening to ruin the full faith and credit of the U.S., and issuing repeated threats to shut down the government. Anyone writing about "defying history" by not acknowledging the role the GOP has played in tamping down the economy is operating from a clown car, bro.
All true, and I'm wondering what Mr. Benen has found to "enjoy" in the scribblings of Jeff Greenfield, who has always struck me as a David Broder wannabe.
That is one thing I don't get about Americans that support the GOP. I have associates at work that are Republicans and personally have benefited from the stimulus package and healthcare reform, but still hate the President and think he doing a horrible job. I've never seen it before where the government purposely hurts the American economy and its citizens to get a President out of office that is working to help them...The only thing I can come up with is that the GOP and their supporters would rather see a black President fail then the US overcome the Great Recession.
Well said! The depth of the recession has gotten deeper because of the do-nothing GOP congress. Mitch McConnell made it his highest priority to obstruct the President from day one. Mr. Obama will indeed make history when he is re-elected in November!
I think all returning legislators should be resworn in to their office, and reminded of what it entails to be our legislators. They were all bordering on treasonous when they obstructed and filibustered, merely to get a President out of office. And now the moderate GOP is whining and crying that they had to vote with the Tea Partiers, but they really didn't like them and don't want to help them out. Yet every bad vote was voted on en masse by every one of those GOPers. they knew that vote could have helped this country, yet they voted with the Tea Party. I have no sympathy for those moderate GOPers. Kick them all out of their offices, they don't deserve it.
Awesome Post June! You nailed it!
"Slash Public sector spending,turned down federal funding for projects which would have created jobs,Republicans in the Senate and House have voted time and again to keep people out of jobs -- by filibustering and voting against job creation legislation".
Do you listen to yourself? All these efforts are funded by tax dollars. Yours and mine. This does not create jobs it just wastes money. I am not sure anyone told you but job creation comes from the private sector. Increasing the amount of public employees, creating unneeded programs and hiring more teachers creates debt. Remember teachers are hired by local government and thankfully they have a budget. They just can't print money like the Federal government.
I suggest you read some books on economics. Start with Milton Friedman. Then learn a bit about socialism and its inevitable destruction of the economy.
None of your ideas or any socialist ideas ever worked and will not now.
One condition precedent for job creating is a robust middel class that creates a demand or goods & services, so that the so-called job creators (sic) start or ramp up businesses, instead of sitting on (or "offshoring") piles of cash as they're doing at present.
Democrats won control of Congress and the nation's purse strings following the '06 elections. They had a "bullet proof" majority for two years with the GOP capturing the House just last year.
Here's a short list of all the wonderful things they've done since: First Energy Crisis (and $4/gal gas) in '07, Financial & Mortgage Crisis in '08, Great Recession in '09, Second Energy Crisis in '11 and Third Energy Crisis today.
Time to put the adults back in charge.
This economic crisis would be over had Obama not had to deal with Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress. Why he and other Democrats can't say this out loud is beyond me.
I agree. I'd love to see bumper stickers saying "If not for Republicans, you'd have a job by now."
I agree that should be the commercial that running on a loop.
Right! I keep forgetting. The Republicans got us in this mess! The Republicans then kept Obama from saving us! Oh please. It's like listening to my children argue. Democrats won overwhelmingly in 2008 and controlled the WH and BOTH branches of congress for two years (not to mention control of the congress for 2 years before that) only to throw 800 billion out the window (Solyndra, public sector unions) and cram (and bribe) a ridiculous healthcare reform bill that will destroy a system that 80% of Americans loved. Along comes 2010 and a landslide for Republicans to STOP the damage from getting worse! Get it?! Thats what the Republicans are doing. What they were ELECTED to do. One last thing...it seems that Liberals are the only ones concerned about the color of the presidents skin! For me, I judge a man by his character (think MLK). And frankly I've seen quite enough of the president's character to last me a lifetime! Can't wait till November!
Thankfully the conservatives we did not waste more trillions on fake jobs, fake energy technology and bolstering the auto industry and unions. Those who think the government creates jobs should go live in South Korea or Cuba.
How about Republican Congressmen and Senators who are complaining about lost jobs in the defense industry? Where should we send them? They seem to think the government creates jobs.
I could talk about the stupidity of someone who confuses South Korea with North Korea, but I assume that was just a glitch.
I don't think it's all the Republicans fault that this mess happened or that it isn't over yet. But saying that the government is throwing money away with stuff like Solyndra is just idiotic. The best thing the government can do to create jobs is encourage innovation. Sure, Solyndra failed - but are really that sheltered that you think every well-backed small business succeeds? It takes at least 10 Solyndras to fail to create a success but it's still worth it. Do yourself a favor and google "venture capital business model" before you start talking about Solyndra.
Simply, factually incorrect. Harry Reid has 40 "jobs bills" passed with bi-partisan votes by the House.
This is the same Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget in three years. Anyone care to explain that?
Anyone care to tell how raising taxes on ANYONE creates jobs?
I also think it's ridiculous on its face to insist that the idea that Obama would OMG have to make HISTORY to be re-elected is so far-fetched.
Hello? First African-American president? It would be more accurate to say he would have to make history again, and if he did it once, why is it so hard to believe he could repeat that success?
The first time he didn't have enough experience for the office, but we overlooked it and said he'll learn he's is smart. Could he repeat it? Yes. Does he deserve it? No, he didn't learn anything, and he has shown repeatedly he doesn't give a damn about what the voters want.
Right on, Steve! I keep reading this blog because it's so refreshing hearing smart, sane people discuss reality in the midst of all the hoodwinking.
So by "smart, sane people discussing reality" you really mean people that think like you do, right?
I am always amazed by left winger on left wing sites or right wingers on right wing sites that are so happy that most people agree with them in their little echo chamber.
What else do you expect?
Anyway, I should probably just stick to sites where people think like I do so I can also find "smart" and "sane" people who 'get' "reality".... LOL
there you have it. obama is toast. why go to the expense of an election?
The polls say he is going to win the popular vote by a narrow margin and the electoral college by comfortable margin. So does the Intrade betting site. Sure, things can change between now and November. But random events are just as l likely to favor Obama as to favor Romney. Obama will probably be two term. Better start getting used to it.
@jim: obama has the 'x' factor so he'll win.
Rachel 1981-1991, another example of your point. In that decade we had the collapse of the family farm (we stopped grain sales to Soviet Union over the invasion of Afganistan), the failure of the Savings and Loans $114 billion and closure of over 500 loan institutions, the Stock Market crash of 1989. So if it took ten years to swallow $114 billion WHY would we recover in four years with an $11 trillion loss?
The rub is you have to do the math correctly and have an all republican congress and senate to vote on such measures. If we taxed the rich as in the Clinton years and got rid of all the tax exemptions you could easily reach that magic 11 trillion mark.
This president should also do what Bush did and take out all money in the deficit that is used for war and war upkeep and nation building and act like that money is money for nothing, just like Bush did. That magic 11 trillion would become a magic six trillion overnight.
Lupe, why not just look to the future. What do we do now. Continue to spend on meaningless programs designed to court Democrat votes. Continue this ridiculous hate for those who are successful and already pay most of the taxes. Or do you just want to keep taxing high earners out of the country on the heels of the highly taxed corporations. All this so you can give more handouts to what is now approaching more than half of the people in the country.
I wish Derek Thompson had prepared a chart comparing the number of cloture votes and filibusters to changes in the unemployment rate. That's what is also so different about this election. And hopefully enough people representing enough electoral college votes (50.1%) will get it.
I lol at the electorial college. It doesn't work. Just ask Al Gore.
I would like a website on the government, both federal and state, listing who voted which way for the votes in front of them. Allow the legislator to write a paragraph about why they voted that way. But have them all listed with their yeas and nays.
I would also like to see a website where we can blog or get answers from our legislators in public forums. Have them sign in once or twice a week and answer why they did what they did. and have us allowed to respond to the *usually lies) comments they put in there. We have moderators for everything else, we could ensure it was moderated so the bad insulters don't get in there. Have us sign under our own names, so we are not anonymous.
Lupe - you have it all wrong. It does work BECAUSE it rejected Al Gore - that was the biggest favor the Electoral College ever did for this country! What troubles me is that how close he came to stealing the election with his antics in FL.
"I don't think the political world has fully come to grips with the severity of the crisis in late 2008."
Of course the political world (& their 1%) hasn't been decimated by the very policies that enabled the crash of the economy! And as much of the media is corporate owned of course these "journalists" (part of the Washington establishment) aren't going to mention the pesky little detail - an obstructionist Congress! By calling this the "Great Recession", it's down-played both the severity of the crisis and the impact that it's having on working American people!
Just look around the banksters that caused this crash - still working, when they should have been perp walked off to jail! GOTP led Congress - obstructionist til the end with their own warped and misguided agenda of "shrinking gov'rnmint til it can be drowned in a bathtub"! The American people dumbed down and divided not just between the haves and the have nots, but along ethnic/religuluous/gender/LGBT/pure economic disenfranchisement - and yet the sheeple see it NOT!
Funny Mittens whines how when as governor of Massachusetts he inherited an economic fiasco and left a surplus (only in his mind), and yet this President inherited a nation going over the ledge, and despite a recalcitrant truculent Congress over the last 2 years - somehow courtesy of "fairy dust" he was supposed to single handedly make it all better, yea I'll bite.
FIRE THE GOTP IN NOVEMBER!!
Zora, it was not the banksters as you prefer to call them that caused the 2008 meltdown. It was inevitable. Bush knew it was coming and tried to control it. he was not allowed because the left wanted to continue allowing unqualified buyers to purchase homes. so blame Barney Frank and Bill Clinton. The banks are at fault for taking them seriously.
@d7238, How was the failure to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets inevitable? Unless you can provide me with specifics of what Bush tried to do (he certainly left the Glass-Steagall act repealed), I'm going to go ahead and say he did nothing until we were already bleeding.
Until 2008 no black man had ever been elected president.
Until 2012 no man had ever won more then 17 gold Olympic medals. Until Title IX most women were assumed to be too fragile to compete in competitive sports in schools. Until Peggy came up with that lipstick campaign on "Madmen," men assumed women were only working outside the home to get laid.
The list goes on and on.
The fact remains that this Bush Great Depression started because of faulty conservative Republican economic policies. The vast majority of the US population lived through and remember the events leading up to the September, 2008 Bush economic meltdown....like outsourcing and mortgage loan bundling fraud.
Even more have paid close attention to the Congressional Republican obstruction that would have stimulated our economy, so much so that they have an approval rating of 12% versus the President's of about 43%.
Guess who might be poised to make history again? I'm betting on the guy who helps coach girls basketball for his daughters' teams and hired a woman as his chief of staff. He embraces progress; so has the American people throughout our history.
Voters are sick of Republicans telling us that the economy must stand still for four entire years waiting for Mitt Romney to come along to rescue us. If corporate profits were being reinvested inside our country again instead of being banked in foreign tax shelters maybe things could start moving again?
It's time for the Top 1% to end their lockout of the American worker. This would be A First and they just don't happen?
What world do you live in. Democrats captured the Congress and the nation's purse strings following the '06 election!! The first Energy Crisis (and $4/gal gas) hit in '07 followed by the Financial and Mortgage Crisis of '08 and then the Democrat's Great Recession of '09.
You might choose to remember one way, but Obama is losing 11% of the vote he got in '08 to Romney and you won't believe the number of others that will join the chorus.
Obama is going to lose Herbert Hoover sized and for pretty much the same reasons.
Good post.
sample size is a bit on the small side, no?
Agree - BUT, President Obama is NO FDR. He didnt have or use the depth of Congress FDR did to effect change and he has not communicated his successes while his opponents have blanketed the airways with the BIG LIEs that somehow being halfway out of a hole is worse than being all the way at the bottom. Im concerned.
Arthur - What's so frustrating is how Congress hasn't allowed Obama to do his job because so many of the members are a bunch of selfish racists.
Sunshine, putting aside their motives, I agree, he's been hamstrung by a non fillibuster proof Senate and a wacko House, but again, the President seems unwilling to make his case to the American public on the substance and to take it to the GOP on their intransigence. Why wont he discuss the near collapse of the US auto industry and how he brought it back? Why wont he make tax proposals that we all know need to be implemented beyond just the Buffett Rule and the non-repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%? He seems complacent to sit back and let his accomplishments speak for themselves. They dont. He must. While it's fun to joust about Mitt's tax returns, at some point at the end of this campaign, we're going to have to discuss investing in our future and neither side has done that - other than one commercial by the President. He should be advocating FOR something - every day.
President Obama does not talk about his accomplishment and the GOP is taking advantage of his silence. I can't wait for the debate. Go Obama 2012.
He had two years of a "bullet proof" Congress and got everything he wanted including the ObamaCare Tax.
what you have is the emperor's new clothes syndrome. There is a narrative being drawn by the media darlings that the economy is bad and that things aren't improving. They will ignore all evidence to the contrary. What is more worrisome is that there are certain media darlings who now feel it is their job to take up for Romney "in attempt to be fair." Nonsense. We had the sad spectacle of Anderson Cooper getting all huffy and outraged over Harry Reid's assertion -- funny I don't remember that sort of huffy outrage being exhibited by him during the birther nonsense. And when this media darling gets called out for his obvious bias, he throws a hissy fit. I'm not saying Cooper doesn't have the right to vote for Romney -- it has always been clear to me that this rich trust fund baby was always a one percenter -- it is just the sad fan dance that he performs every night with the pretence that he's being neutral. Don't expect the other members of the media to pick up on this story though. It doesn't fit with their narrative for this election. They get locked in early with a narrative and unless something spectacular goes wrong to erase that narrative, they will stick to it up until the eleciton day.... the narrative being this economy is bad and it's not getting better anytime soon.
You'll have to ask Obama why it took him 3 years to produce another birth certificate which, apparently, has still been doctored. There's a lawsuit even as we speak.
I am strongly of the opinion that Romney is incorrect in stating he knows how to create jobs. He knows how to make money and there is a difference. I would like to see more in the media about the jobs Romney claims to have made in comparison to the money he made. A chart could be made with that info.
I am also anxiously awaiting the debates.
Romney has actually created a great number of jobs. You just have to travel to China to find them.
Just ask the people from
Massachusset especially those who lost there jobs when Romney outsourced their job to China. He is a job creator in China and other country not in United States and Obama is trying to bring back those jobs. Obama 2012If you don't make money you can't create jobs. Do you have some magic formula limiting the amuont of money you can make per person you can hire. What about people who get rich investing in the stock market. Should that be illegal if they don't hire anyone. Through out written history money has always flowed from the top down. Czars, Pharohs, Kings, Capitalists, Emperors, even in Communism money flows downward, and jobs follow. How else could it work?
How about a quick comparison. Obama gave GM $100 billion of our hardearned tax dollars ("other people's money') so the UAW could buy the lion's share of it at no cost to them and the ENTIRE company is now worth $34 billion.
Romney took a single office supply store and it now has 2,000 locations AND over 90,000 employees. HE had a 78% success rate in turning around failing companies while at Bain.
Obama, in the meantime, has the "success" of "the most Americans EVER in poverty and on food stamps."
Fire Obama, hire Romney. Political Payoffs = Middle Class Layoffs
"'Gotta read your history,' Harry (Truman) was known to say, for a viewpoint of whatever the present issue happened to be within the context of the bigger picture. ..."
"From his reading of history, Truman concluded that what were most striking were its elements of continuity, including, above all, human nature, which had changed little if any through time. ..."
"'It was the same with those old birds in Greece and Rome as it is now. I told you. The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. '"
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/02/only-thing-new-in-world.html
I believe in the American people, that come November - they will re-elect him over this buffoon. Call it lesser of two evils if you must, but do it. At the same time - send every obstructionist House and Senate jagoff HOME. Until Congress gets out of reverse, this will never be over over......
I believed in the American people once. I thought that after W, the Republicans would be marginalized for over a generation. Then came 2010.
Man, I am tired of folks sugar-coating things by calling the situation we're in the "Great Recession." Let's call it what it is: the Bush Depression.
Hmmm ... an obstuctionist Congress has nothing to do with unemployment, right? A Congress with an approval rating lower than, to borrow from baseball, the Mendoza Line. A Republican Party overwhelmed by the extremist Right Wing agenda of the Tea Baggers, an inherant deep seated bigotry, the desire to return to the depression causing deregulation policies of Bush/Cheney trickledown economics and the openly stated obsession to make Obama a one term President.
It's always blame the GOP. Nobody can state anything good or positive BHO has done. Obamacare doesn't count because we don't know if that's good or bad yet, and we know the majority of Americans didn't and still don't want it. The only thing we know for sure about it now is it will cost everybody a whole bunch of taxes. Seriously I am waiting for any DEM to tick off six good reasons why I should vote for Obama. And why do the DEMs think fiscal responsibility is a bad thing; do they want us to become the next France or Greece?
What "thisspaceforsale" said ....
Any "pundit" who opines that 50-some-odd presidential elections in history — across a vast myriad of different economic, demographic, territorial, and technological landscapes that have shifted almost in the blink of an eye — can offer useful, applicable historical data on how this election will turn out is simply a lazy column-filler and not a source for reliable insights into the 2012 election.
Every election is determined by its own unique circumstances.
Let's grab just one databyte from the pile: The fact that Romney is disliked by so much of the electorate is at least as relevant to this election as the state of the economy is. A few idiot pundits (I'm not talking about you, Steve) will no doubt seize upon this fact and write a different column about Romney's historical obstacles. How come no one ever tries to connect the discrete, disparate dots and then does the right thing, i.e., throws up his/her hands and says, "I don't know who'll win"? (Oh, right, sorry: That's not what they're paid to do.)
At least Nate Silver uses mathematical data and puts a percentage on his speculation. The next time Greenfield, Cillizza, or any other lazy column-filler puts out a column like they just did, they should be forced to go to a roulette table and lay their entire week's salary on red or black. Maybe they'll get lucky ....
I think a large part of the MSM's job is to ensure we have a dramatic and suspenseful election season. Because every day those polls come out and the MSM makes a big deal out of it if Mittens is up a point, or losing points, and what Obama's popularity is in a state he just left. They have to keep everyone requesting information about everything. So the public thinks they are finding out something new. its just the nature of the job, I am sure. I wouldn't be a good journalist, because I would tell it like it is, then I'm done. No more information until next week. lol.
I agree totally, Entropy. Greenfield is a major disappointment, a smart liberal from the '60s who worked on RFK's campaign, who has become a bland spouter of CW and false equivalence. He rose because he was perceived as (and mostly is) intelligent, but it's really depressing to read or see him now, when he's just a slightly more intellectual version of Mark Halperin.
@Amber: I agree with you with what you said. There are many people (mostly Republicans) who claim not to be biased, but, it is evident in their conversations (indirectly) and their actions/inter-actions. It is evident in politics, obviously, as you said the GOP stalled, vetoed, filibustered, or voted down practically everything Obama as attempted - even on issues that they agree on. I feel that it's that they don't want to see a black man be successful. I willing to bet, that should Romney get elected (heaven forbid) he will do many things that Obama has tried (and got voted down in his (Obama's) term, and turn around and take credit for it. Romney sure hasn't put forth any indication of anything specific he would do, so, it's a thought.
Grover Norquist said a few weeks ago, "All we need is someone in the White House with a pen that can sign our bills. " IOW they are believing that the office of the President is worthless.
Personally I would wish that the American people would get together and make sure the legislators, every one of them, know precisely what we want them to do. When the public wishes something to be happening and the popularity of it is 80%, Why in h*ll do our legislators that are supposed to work for us, ignore it all and do what they want?
Because they are betting that "we the people" have short memories and are not that smart.
This congress and the GOP from state to the federal level would rather see Mr. Obama fail than do what it good for the country.
Maybe insuring BHO doesn't get reelected is the best thing they can do for the country. Do we really want to continue to devolve toward socialism/communism for the next four years?
Ok, so Romney is a felon, tax cheat, murderer and a racist!! That about got it?
You realize how ridiculous you sound? How about Obama is just incompetent. THAT have a ring of truth to it?
Greenfield and Cilliza are insufferable mediocrities.
As opposed to sufferable mediocrities? There seems to be a strong regression of pundits towards the mean of mediocrity.
It's possible to be a mediocrity and still tolerable. Most people are.