Why (among other things) Obama’s reelection won’t be a slam dunk.
[Update a few minutes later]
This seems related somehow — thoughts on “intellectuals” and “anti-intellectualism.”
[Sunday evening update]
After a relaxing weekend in northern California, it’s a little depressing to look at these scary charts du jour.
I don’t think Obama’s re-election is a slam-dunk, but his defeat isn’t either. Furthermore, as time goes on I’m less and less impressed by his failure to “get a bump” from this or that action, and more impressed by the stability of his overall numbers. For a new President, bumps or non-bumps in response to specific events and actions are very relevant, because voters are still making up their minds about him. (In the United States, we often have to elect a President to find out what’s inside him.)
But for an incumbent, this is not true. If his numbers are stable, then it tells you people have made up their minds about him, and new crises and actions, so long as they fit the general pattern of what has happened before, aren’t going to change things. Those who despise Obama will see in every minor downturn confirmation of his basic unworthiness, and will see every minor success as accident or exception. Those who like him will process new data the reverse way. But nothing much will change, because there are very few left whose opinions about Obama are in flux, unsettled.
At this point, I think 80% of the electoral numbers for next year are set, meaning 80% of those who will vote have already, in effect, decided how they’ll vote. The rest will split fairly proportionately, I suspect. This is why I suspect if nothing significant happens, the man will be re-elected by a narrow margin.
Interestingly, the single most significant thing that could happen is the emergence of a good alternative, i.e. an inspiring and comfortable Republican candidate. Nobody yet has an opinion on the Republican candidate, because none has clearly emerged. When one does, people will evaluate him (or her) vis-a-vis Obama, and that may change opinions about Obama, even among those who (thought) they had made up their minds.
It’s difficult but by no means impossible to defeat an incumbent president’s reelection. I’m 54 and it has only happened twice in my lifetime (Carter and Bush 41).
@larry
throw in lbj bowing out and humphrey being defeated
and gerald ford
It’s interesting that it happened all the time in the 19th century. I blame the 22nd Amendment. Knowing that the President can only be re-elected once reduces the urgency among his enemies of defeating him. Additionally, his supporters are more offended and disaffected if he is defeated, since he only gets one shot, irrational as that may be. (It’s sort of like denying his Make A Wish wish.) Re-election elections are more like a grudge match, and less like a true Presidential election, which nowadays happen only every 8 years.
We’d probably be better off either repealing the 22nd Amendment or changing the Presidential term to 6 years, no re-election, so as to make every election a serious Presidential election.
Spot the opponent 2% for every subsequent election.
That alone should make a whole lot of one-term Presidents. But it allows for the possibility of a good one getting a second (or third) shot. It also puts pressure on the incompetent ones to stand down before primary season.
If the US didn’t have the 2 term limit Clinton would still be in power.
It seems there’s an unexpected burden-of-the-ballot in our modern stay-inside-unless-you’re-going-skiing society that makes people especially prone to accepting emperors.
Carl Pham Says:
“I don’t think Obama’s re-election is a slam-dunk, but his defeat isn’t either. Furthermore, as time goes on I’m less and less impressed by his failure to “get a bump” from this or that action, and more impressed by the stability of his overall numbers.”
Ya, Obama’s approval ratings are not that low. People don’t tie any of Obama’s policies to him but they are not really happy with any of his policies.
The election could go either way but it really depends on who the Republicans nominate.
I am confident that the Rs will nominate someone with high negatives with the so-called uncommitted, those folks so clueless that they rely on the MSM to form their perception of the candidate. Guess what ensues then. Combine the difficulty of unseating an incumbent president with the always reliable Republican election ineptitude and add in the predictable reticence to criticize President Obama because he is black (who knew?) and with unions mobilized as never before and I see an uphill battle for even a competent Republican campaigner, if that’s not an oxymoron.
A guy like Chris Christie would demolish Obama. He wouldn’t take any crap, and he’d say his mind. He’d have a solid record of actual achievement and success and everyone would know he’s a serious man.
But Christie isn’t running which is probably a good thing…it’s probably better to finish a term.
“If the US didn’t have the 2 term limit Clinton would still be in power.”
This is pretty much arrant nonsense, Trent. Can you imagine his reaction to 9/11? It would have been more of the same incoherent nonsense that brought us Kosovo.
The last election mattered, the next one does not.
I strongly believe its un-fixable from this point forward.
Even with the Tea Party anger the best republican proposal for budgets cuts 60B out of a 1.6T defficit.
Depending on how you account for it the Fed printed as much as 83% of the recent federal debt.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how-fed-sourced-834-treasury-cash-needs-start-qe2
The country is evenly split, the democrats polled would prefer Charlie Sheen to leading Republicans, the Republicans polled would prefer Charlie Sheen to Obama. Anyone on either side that is electable cant fix it.
Its going to get bad and its not going to get fixed until it collapses.
Its sort of like watching the Japan Nuke problems, every week when you think it can’t gets worse… it does.
Paul, at least Charlie Sheen could get advice from his dad on how to be a fake President, which is more than one can say for Obama.
(that’s not a dig at Obama’s dad either, though Obama has had to learn how to be a fake President all by himself)
IMHO, Game, Set and Match to Paul Breed.
I think things are going to become such an unholy mess in the next 15 or 16 months that we’ll be lucky to have elections. Or people will be too busy just staying alive, to go vote.
Again, IMHO, the two biggies will be food and fuel. Both are going to be in very short supply. I’m not a prophet, but people who watch such things are saying it’s gonna get MUCH worse before it gets better. Look at fuel alone right now.
We’re hardly drilling at all, we have no refining capacity to speak of, and the socialist idiotarians in D.C. talk about solar, wind and ethanol. The usual suppliers of oil are busy killing each other and establishing ‘new’ governments. I don’t see them considering OUR oil shortage as THEIR problem. WTF, we’ll just use ethanol.
Oh. Wait. Ethanol is FOOD too, huh? How can we EAT the grains if we REFINED them already?
And, something I had NOT heard from the MSM. We just went into a solar storm period that might affect grain crops (screwy weather systems) and power distribution. (maybe I just missed that?) Anyway, short on food and fuel NOW, nobody doing anything about it any of it, that I can tell.
Well, they are screwing with the money so it’s MORE expensive to buy food and fuel. Who’s that supposed to help?
Maybe all this is why Obama is vacating all over the world? He wants his kids to see this fantastic stuff BEFORE it’s gone or before it takes months on a sailing ship to get there to see it?
Paul, do you find that the between Fatalist and Realist is getting shorter?
Der,
Not sure whats cause and effect. In the last three months I’ve been reading Zerohedge. Their news is timely and backuped with things like real court documents, and real data. some of their stuff is a bit sensationalist, but the overall tale told is one of completely mind blowing levels of deceit and corruption.
The zerohedge coverage of the Japan Nuke issues has been days ahead of anyone else.
Every time I’ve tried to independently research stuff I’ve seen there the data checks out. (Most of me research in this space has to do with manipulations in the markets)
I’m finding it harder to be optimistic.
I believe Carl’s got it pegged. Unless some major screw-up that can be directly attributed to a BHO policy or polices occurs, and/or gas/food prices skyrocket and stay at the high levels until near Election Day, we’re at stasis. What’s changed much in the last two plus years? Unemployment is about the same, inflation has been low on most items, we’re still fighting in Afghanistan.
So why should most of the folks who voted for him in 2008 vote different in 2012? BHO can play the fear and class warfare cards and hit the right notes with a large percentage of the population: The Republicans will raise the little guy’s taxes (over 40 percent of the folks pay no Income Taxes, so that’s a fear card that works far and wide), but they will give tax cuts to those wealthy fat cats and that’s what’s busting the budget, they’ll repeal ObamaCare and 10 or 20 or 400 million or whatever citizens again won’t have health care insurance and if you have pre-existing conditions you’re also screwed, the Republican will let states like CA and NY go bankrupt and everyone in those states will lose their pensions and be eating dog food as soon as they retire, the evil Repubs are refusing to extend unemployment benefits for millions of you for another 99 weeks, and on and on, basically the same playbook as in 2008 but with much less emphasis on the hopeandchange BS this time. What it will come down to is: How smart and analytical are the voters? If they’re as smart as most of us on this board hope they are, BHO doesn’t have a chance. If they’re not that smart… Not to mention the fact that BHO has a head-start with approximately 10 percent of the voters locked-in for him no matter what happens.
Close win for BHO seems a credible scenario.
OK, if you really want to get depressed, see Victor Davis Hanson’s latest, Kingdom of Lies.
Sorry I couldn’t be more upbeat.
—–
Paul, I haven’t read Zerohedge, but I do read Market Ticker. They have a massive and ongoing thread about Fukushima Daiichi.(My link goes to page 280 of the comments.) Zerohedge has come in for some criticism as being anti-nuke. I suppose you could read them both and draw your own conclusions.
—–
On the other hand, there’s the EagleCam. (You get a commercial at the beginning, then about a half-hour of popup ads. But if you stick with it, after that it’s all eagles all the time. I’ve been watching since Friday evening, keeping it running in a separate window. I find it rather addictive.)
“If the US didn’t have the 2 term limit Clinton would still be in power.” Only if there were a third-party candidate swiping votes, and/or a deceased Republican running against him. Though a surprising number of people liked Clinton, he was for the most part considered our first gag President. He was an embarrassment to the Republic.
Thanks for the EagleCam. That is awesome.
I grew up in Southeast Alaska with lots and lots of Bald Eagle everywhere. A truly awesome bird.
Well at least AG Holder finally figured out the mistake of trying Khalid in civilian court. If this awakening continues, Obama may have a very good chance at another 4 years.
I expect, Leland, that AG Holder has been instructed in the differing importance of the votes next year of, on the one hand, the white 19-year-old male looking to score SNAG points with the hot girl in his Social Ecology 101 class, and, on the other, the white 48-year-old married white woman with a decent-paying job as a social worker and a daughter who wants to spend a year abroad — traveling by airplane across oceans — Helping People and Acquiring Culture.
The eagle cam is cool, from time to time you get to see various dead animals stacked up for consumption. The other day there was a rabbit. Then they piled a fish on top and topped it off with a dead crow.
The chat was a bit much but if you re-size your window you don’t have to read them.
re the latest update, another scary chart would be the one of government debt.
So what’s the solution to the latest increases in international oil prices?
Drill here, Drill now.
“So what’s the solution to the latest increases in international oil prices?”
The same as all the rest. Play more golf.
Drilling’s only justified if you have a good chance of finding enough oil to pay for the holes. There are probably places in the US that should be explored more, but I doubt the amount and rate of oil recovered would be a solution.
Does anyone remember asking Andrew for advice on energy and oil?
Me neither.
Andrew gets to comment here just like anyone else – whether or not he’s asked.
We always seem to have 10 to 20 years of oil reserves left.
This is because it costs $$$ to find reserves and once you have found reserves for the next 20 years its just wasting $$ to find more.
In 5 years we will have better technology for looking so why spend $$$ now.
There are probably places in the US that should be explored more, but I doubt the amount and rate of oil recovered would be a solution.
Then why are the oil companies asking to drill? Are your geologists smarter than theirs about the potential outcome? Why don’t they hire them?
Rand is correct. Kibitzing is superfluous and dishonest. Drilling is fabulously expensive, and the answer to the question of where/when/if/what should be drilled is answered by real-time economic activity.
Gregg – he’s welcome to comment. It’s his analysis I find poor. Let’s walk through his comments:
Andrew: So what’s the solution to the latest increases in international oil prices?
Me: Drill here, Drill now. Made a bit tongue and cheek since that is a slogan rather than a policy, but it is simple. We can drill oil in the US, which we aren’t doing; and we can do it right now. Drilling now increases supply and lowers cost. We don’t have a flow problem with refineries. We are lacking raw product. We had pretty good flow prior to the BP oil spill, but instead of just sanctioning BP (who has a long history of safety problems); the entire Gulf Coast oil industry has been sanctioned (illegally according to court rulings) for what BP did. So we aren’t drilling in known reserves that were being productive just a year ago.
Andrew: Drilling’s only justified if you have a good chance of finding enough oil to pay for the holes. There are probably places in the US that should be explored more, but I doubt the amount and rate of oil recovered would be a solution. Gregg, please explain how Andrew’s second comment answers his first? I can’t see an answer. What I see is an opinion that drilling may not be justified on cost (which may be true in abstract, but that’s not the current problem in the oil field). And then he makes an assumption that there may not be enough oil, and I know of nothing that supports this assumption. Example, Brazil used to import most of its oil. Now we are importing oil from Brazil. What did Brazil do that we aren’t doing? They explored for oil. What we’ve done over several administration is block off known oil reserves from drilling. But if we took all the advice Andrew provides with his answer; how, Gregg, would any of that affect international oil prices? The only answer I can come up with is Andrew is trying to lead us to talking about oil, and then later he’ll argue that we don’t see the big picture of energy uses, such as solar, wind, nuclear substitution, all of which have nothing to do with his original question other than in the abstract.
So again, Andrew’s welcome to comment, but his advice is rather useless. I don’t find him intellectually stimulating. It seems all he wants to do is be disagreeable. Indeed, this thread had nothing to do with oil until Andrew brought up the subject. But rather than actually provide his own answers; he requests others to provide answers, so he can throw rocks. It’s this tendency of his (and his friend Bob) that results in rational people like M Puckett to not take his comments seriously. It’s the same reason I’m not taking Bob seriously in another thread. In yet another thread, Carl Pham tried to take Andrew seriously, and Carl ended up getting called names. Andrew can comment, but we don’t have to take him seriously when he’s not being serious.
Then again, people can learn, so can Andrew. If he’s smart; he’ll learn from this response to you, Gregg. He will then respond seriously to Paul, Rand, and Titus, who all make excellent points. Let’s see if he does that…
The legend on the historic gas price chart is confusing. I want to read “72 month average” as “the average of values over 72 months”. Looking at the chart the only place 72 months shows up is the interval of the graph.
Leland Says:
April 5th, 2011 at 7:48 am
“Gregg – he’s welcome to comment. It’s his analysis I find poor. ”
Hi Leland,
Yes well all you wrote was:
“Leland Says:
April 5th, 2011 at 4:56 am
Does anyone remember asking Andrew for advice on energy and oil?
Me neither.”
And that’s all I was responding to. If you want justification for his positions you’ll have to ask him.
Fair enough. I was just explaining why I responded that way. Cheers!
but instead of just sanctioning BP (who has a long history of safety problems); the entire Gulf Coast oil industry has been sanctioned … for what BP did.
Guess which oil company is the big donor to Team Obama.
I don’t have to guess. One of my former coworkers got a job with BP. He is a Safety/Quality expert and was asked to help assess the validity of claims. He eventually discovered that “validity” meant “politically connected”. He complained and is no longer with BP. But it’s pretty much all incumbents, not just Team Obama. The moratorium simply allows BP time to recover and get back in the game when everyone else is allowed back in.
The moratorium simply allows BP time to recover and get back in the game when everyone else is allowed back in.
Exactly. Otherwise BP would be at a serious disadvantage, right? Other companies, with less enlightened patterns of political donation, might be able to take advantage of a no doubt accidentally superior record of safety and fill the void while BP is prostrate. Can’t have that. The
DNCenvironment wouldn’t be the same.I tell you, I’m deeply cynical about politicians, but those criminals in the White House now continue to impress even me. They really have no shame. I guess that’s because they adhere to Higher Standards of truth and goodwill, stuff I wouldn’t understand.
International oil prices are currently determined by international supply and demand, while I’ve no doubt opening up more territories in the US for exploration will increase US future production over what it would otherwise have been, the real cause of strengthening prices is on the demand side with the growth of countries like China and India, combined with global oil production having reached a plateau about 6 years ago, global production was rising strongly up until then, now it isn’t.
As I said, it’s an international market, an increase of US production of 5% increases global production by about 0.5%, so unless US domestic prices are decoupled from international price through some form of political intervention, everyones stuck with international prices.
The only prospects I see for long term price relief are unconventional oil (primarily the oil sands), shifting transport systems to electric, or reduced demand due to a deepening recession.
Leland said: “this thread had nothing to do with oil until Andrew brought up the subject.”
Well, the update does show a scary graph of gas prices, so I thought it reasonable to ask what people thought the solution to those scary prices were, now if that’s not seen as being on topic, I guess I’m in error.
the real cause of strengthening prices is on the demand side with the growth of countries like China and India
You do realize, short of war; there is nothing that can be done about demand in China and India. So why do you bring it up? Acting like we can’t do anything in the US oil prices because of what is happening in China and India doesn’t make sense. Besides, did demand in China and India some how go crazy in the past few months? Or could it be that unrest in the Middle East is driving the cost of oil from $80 to $108 and climbing?
The only prospects I see for long term price relief are unconventional oil (primarily the oil sands), shifting transport systems to electric, or reduced demand due to a deepening recession.
The first one is also being regulated against. As I said, “drill here, drill now” is a slogan, but it also refers to reducing carbon control regulation blocking development of oil sands fields.
“Shift transport systems to electric” sounds like a fascist plan ready to hatch. How do you plan to “shift”? By regulation?
As for reduced demand due to a deepening recession; well that’s basic economics. When prices rise above a supportable level, demand will decrease. Do you want to push the price of oil higher artificially? Obama does, and said so during his 2008 campaign, but then he also said he would put more money in people’s pockets.
Andrew: Well, the update does show a scary graph of gas prices, so I thought it reasonable to ask
Graph title: the six year average of American gas prices
Andrew: So what’s the solution to the latest increases in international oil prices?
Again, why are you worrying about international oil prices? Weren’t you the one whining that we shouldn’t worry about other cultures? Why do you want to talk about demand in China and India? If the answer is the price oil is international; then you should look at the markets which have different prices for oil from different sources. You should also know that oil pulled from the Gulf of Mexico isn’t affected by unrest in the Middle East (other than it could be sold for a higher price to international markets, which would be better for the US economy).
“there is nothing that can be done about demand in China and India. So why do you bring it up?”
Even if it can’t be affected from here, it’s still a factor that’s changing and so needs to be taken into consideration. How you think anything meaningful can be determined with current and future oil prices while ignoring the rapidly changing consumption of two such massive oil consumers is mind boggling.
“did demand in China and India some how go crazy in the past few months? Or could it be that unrest in the Middle East is driving the cost of oil from $80 to $108 and climbing?”
Oil prices have been rising for the last two years, as has domestic gas prices.
““Shift transport systems to electric” sounds like a fascist plan ready to hatch. How do you plan to “shift”? By regulation?”
I think we’re locked into the system we have now (gas powered vehicles on asphalt roads) because the roads are state owned, I think an electric reticulation system feeding vehicles directly would be more than competitive, but as the present roading system is government owned, you’re right, it’s unlikely we’ll see anything that innovative being developed in the foreseeable future.
“Again, why are you worrying about international oil prices? Weren’t you the one whining that we shouldn’t worry about other cultures?”
What the hell has one to do with the other?
“If the answer is the price oil is international; then you should look at the markets which have different prices for oil from different sources.”
?? What are you talking about? Because it’s an international price (with variations due to transport costs) the producers will sell it at that price. Are you talking about the cost of production? well in a free market that’s got nothing to do with what any one producer will sell his oil for.
Besides, did demand in China and India some how go crazy in the past few months? Or could it be that unrest in the Middle East is driving the cost of oil from $80 to $108 and climbing?
Unrest my ass. Try this, Leland. First, go here and click on the “1 Year” link to get a graph of gas prices over the past year. Then go here and click the “1 yr” button next to “Observation Quick Range” and then “Redraw Graph,” to see the money supply over the past year.
Notice the fascinating similarity in the curves, particularly the steep recent rise? You’re absolutely right, the demand from China and India hasn’t gone crazy in the last few months. But it’s also not unrest in the Middle East, because there isn’t any unrest where nearly all the oil is pumped, and where there is unrest rather little is pumped. (Libya ranks #18 on the list of top oil states, behind Angola and Norway, and Egypt is #29.)
But what else has gone crazy in the last five months? Why, the supply of US dollars. More specifically, the Fed has been buying $600 billion of US Treasuries from the likes of Goldman-Sachs. What do you suppose Goldman-Sachs did with all that cash? If you thought: gee, maybe invested a good chunk of it in commodities, e.g. oil futures, bidding up the price of oil, well you win the prize: a nice stiff round of inflation, which shows up first, as it always does, in the price of gas and food.
And keep in mind this is deliberate. QE2 was supposed to spark a little bit o’ inflation, and so it has. It’s just pure luck that Libya came along in time to be blamed, but fortunately the Middle East can usually be counted on to do something to be blamed for the price of oil. And if necessary, the President can help that along by suddenly discovering an urgent humanitarian need to intervene militarily. No doubt this was all thought through last November. They really are that cynical and corrupt.
it’s still a factor that’s changing and so needs to be taken into consideration. How you think anything meaningful can be determined with current and future oil prices while ignoring the rapidly changing consumption of two such massive oil consumers is mind boggling.
Ok, what factor does India and China play in the recent $1 jump in the price of gasoline at the pump? Did their economies dramatically expand in the last 2 months? Can you point the news stories showing that dramatic expansion over the last two months? Or are you more focused on finding something that differentiates your thinking from others that you won’t even recognize the more obvious instability of OPEC nations?
Oil prices have been rising for the last two years, as has domestic gas prices.
Gas prices jumped a $1 in the past 2 months. Go back and read that chart. From a stable price in May 2009, gas prices rose $.30 over 15 months, or about 10% over that time. In the last 2 months, gas prices rose 33%. Besides reading the title of the chart, carefully review it.
What the hell has one to do with the other?
If you don’t want us worrying about the murdering of children in Bangladesh, then perhaps you should quit insisting we worry about the economies of India and China. Or put it another way; remember when liberals told us we should cut our dependence on foreign oil such that we had less incentive to get involved in Middle East politics? Do you think Brazil cares about Libya, other than the opportunity for Brazil to make money exporting oil?
What are you talking about? Because it’s an international price (with variations due to transport costs) the producers will sell it at that price.
Perhaps you should consider your paranthetical a bit more closely rather than dismissively. What do you think the transportation costs are for moving oil from the Gulf of Mexico to the refineries in Louisiana and Texas? Do you think any of those transportation methods are concerned about piracy around the horn of Africa or the Malacca Straits? Do you think US citizens would be concerned about local issues near the horn of Africa and the Malacca Straits if we didn’t have to transport oil near those areas?
My point again is that if the US worried about domestic capabilities for producing oil; then it wouldn’t care as much about the international price of oil; other than the opportunity costs to export it.
Note, there is also differences in how much the oil has to be refined depending on the source. Some oil needs far less refinement then other; but that’s a topic I think beyond the scope of this discussion.