Obama will lose in a Landslide

[ArlingtonDeac]

You are going to have to start getting used to the fact that 2008 was an anomaly, rj. I know it's hard to accept, but Democrats are not going to get that kind of turnout ever again. NC and VA aren't the swing states of the future. Democrats are not going to be competing for those states going forward.

I don't agree. Demographically, as more people more south, those two states are likely to the bellwethers of the future, in my opinion. They are turning about as purple as states can get. It wasn't just turnout.

One quick note- for those who think the loss of the so-called Obama mystique will factor, I think they completely overlook the importance of the presumption of incumbency. I'd take "incumbent" over "sexy candidate" any day of the week, because incumbents win 70% of the time.

The GOP can't win running against the idea of Obama, because he's already president, and the nation does not commit to votes of no confidence. See 2004. The GOP has to run a viable option, and they don't have one right now. They have to see that Romney is a born concession speech, and the other GOP hopefuls have even less a chance. Like in 2004, without a strong candidate to challenge a shaky incumbent, the incumbent will win, and the opposition will be surprised because they thought the polls showed that people didn't like him.

 

[PhDeac]

I don't agree. Demographically, as more people more south, those two states are likely to the bellwethers of the future, in my opinion. They are turning about as purple as states can get. It wasn't just turnout.

One quick note- for those who think the loss of the so-called Obama mystique will factor, I think they completely overlook the importance of the presumption of incumbency. I'd take "incumbent" over "sexy candidate" any day of the week, because incumbents win 70% of the time.

The GOP can't win running against the idea of Obama, because he's already president, and the nation does not commit to votes of no confidence. See 2004. The GOP has to run a viable option, and they don't have one right now. They have to see that Romney is a born concession speech, and the other GOP hopefuls have even less a chance. Like in 2004, without a strong candidate to challenge a shaky incumbent, the incumbent will win, and the opposition will be surprised because they thought the polls showed that people didn't like him.

Yep. The choice is 4 years of Obama vs. potentially 8 years of the other guy. Without a challenge from his own side to make him vulnerable like Kennedy in '80 or Perot in '92, the incumbent is pretty money, especially since it's not like 4 more years makes Biden the front-runner in '16.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

From heatingoil..com -not exactly a left wing group:

"Kelleher and Frenk contend that the billons of speculative dollars invested in oil contracts are lifting prices far beyond levels justified by fundamental forces, thereby raising consumer prices and harming OECD economies:

[W]hen speculators control more than 50 per cent of the market, as they do in many commodities today, it is the producers and consumers who lose out to the speculators, not the other way around."

good night.

What percent of the stock market is controlled by "speculators"? Bond market? Anyone who buys something at one price hoping to sell it for a financial gain at another could be defined as a speculator, depending on who is doing the classifying.

There are good reasons why oil is at the price it is. Dollar inflation with oil priced in dollars about 99% of the time, increasing demand outside the OECD while demand within the OECD remains relatively flat, the risk premium resulting from instability in oil-producing regions.

I also love how a quote out of context quoting two people without a first name reference constitutes a case closed for you.

What price should oil be then and why?

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Drilling will take a decade to offset our presence in the Middle East, and even then our "oil" is remarkably different than their "oil" from an access and refining standpoint i.e. much more expensive to produce the same product. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but the future of energy isn't fossil fuel and we have a great opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

Not that I think you know more about this than I do, but this is a relatively informed response.

We're dancing on a few cold hard realities here...but I'll let this thread go a bit and see how deep RJ can drill himself.

 

[Ball State Deac]

The likelihood of Obama winning in '12 is quite high at the moment, because at least as of right now, the Republicans don't have anyone that can beat him. Obviously though, a lot can between now and Iowa (February) and New Hampshire (I think a few weeks later).

 

[ONW]

Not that I think you know more about this than I do, but this is a relatively informed response.We're dancing on a few cold hard realities here...but I'll let this thread go a bit and see how deep RJ can drill himself.

I'll take backhanded compliments.

 

[RJKarl]

What percent of the stock market is controlled by "speculators"? Bond market? Anyone who buys something at one price hoping to sell it for a financial gain at another could be defined as a speculator, depending on who is doing the classifying.

There are good reasons why oil is at the price it is. Dollar inflation with oil priced in dollars about 99% of the time, increasing demand outside the OECD while demand within the OECD remains relatively flat, the risk premium resulting from instability in oil-producing regions.

I also love how a quote out of context quoting two people without a first name reference constitutes a case closed for you.

What price should oil be then and why?

Acording to most sources, 12-18% of the price of oil is due to speculators. They add NOTHING to the market and harm economies around the world.

Let them pay to play.

 

[ncsportsnut1]

The likelihood of Obama winning in '12 is quite high at the moment, because at least as of right now, the Republicans don't have anyone that can beat him. Obviously though, a lot can between now and Iowa (February) and New Hampshire (I think a few weeks later).

I'm not taking issue with Ball State's comments but his comments seemed to mirror a large number of posters with similar thoughts. Honestly, if anything, Obama cannot be considered favored to win AT THIS POINT OF THE ELECTION CYCLE simply because of the economy. Without BIG improvements in the economy he simply cannot win. People vote their pocketbooks or simply stay home unmotivated to vote. The assumption on most posts seems to be that the black vote will turn out in record numbers like before, but that simply will not happen this year without a tremendous amount of "race baiting". The black population is being hit harder than most groups by the current economy, and they are disillusioned about the gap between Obama's rhetoric and his accomplishments. Further, to assume that the Dems will have the same percentage of Hispanic voters as in 2008 is to miss the fact that Hispanic voters do not vote in block like the black population, and Hispanic voters do care about the economy not just immigration issues. A strong Republican candidate who has a clear message will do fine with Hispanic voters. Thirdly, RJ's electoral analysis is simply wrong. If you have Ohio and Florida going to the Republican candidate, I can name ten other states that were blue in 2008 that will absolutely 100% go red as well. The electoral college and presidential elections are much more of a domino effect. Sure there is Texas (always red) and New York and California (always blue). But there are many states that play "follow the leader" and roughly 4-6% of the independents simply want to vote for whoever looks like they are winning the election. In other words, in the last few days before Election Day you can see a shift in independents towards who appears to be winning at the time. Some people just want to be on the winning side. Some of you really need to be more objective about Obama's issues. Regarding incumbency, quite frankly it's the worst thing that could have happened to Obama because now there is a ton of actions he has taken as President that will come back to haunt him in the election. He can't just have rhetoric any more because the actions will speak louder than his words. Obama is in big trouble and if you listen closely to Democrat operatives and pick up on the signals from the Senate and House Dems you will realize that they know he's in trouble as well. They will start distancing themselves by spring 2012.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

I'll take backhanded compliments.

I'm just usually surprised when people show any amount of real understanding of the business, especially folks that seem to be more left-leaning.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Acording to most sources, 12-18% of the price of oil is due to speculators. They add NOTHING to the market and harm economies around the world.

Let them pay to play.

I'll ask again...if you were establishing price controls, what would you set for the price of oil?

 

[RJKarl]

I'll ask again...if you were establishing price controls, what would you set for the price of oil?

I have NEVER said I was for setting prive cotnrols and am not. Just because I want the rules for speculators in the commodities markets doesn't mean I am for price controls.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

I have NEVER said I was for setting prive cotnrols and am not. Just because I want the rules for speculators in the commodities markets doesn't mean I am for price controls.

Ok dammit let me make this simple so you can understand.

You say speculators are driving up the price.

OK, fair enough. Well no not really, but I'll go along with it for now.

So then I ask, what, in USD, do you think is the "real" price of oil? 50? 60? 70? 80? Even a range would be preferred. Obviously you think 90 is too much. You cited 12-18% as the amount speculators are responsible for. I'm sure you think the companies themselves are fraudulent in their boosting of prices by various means (holding oil offshore, etc.)...

So, simple question. What's the real USD price of oil, in your mind?

 

[pinochadeac]

I don't see the far right getting excited to vote for a mormon. Romney is the backup plan and none of the stars are stepping forward.

I agree that this is like 2004 with Kerry. He was a dullard, but the best they had to offer. Thus the incumbant won, though not being a stellar president.

I think Obama wins again, but the Senate swings red. I am OK with that.

Obama the president is much more beatable than Obama the candidate. You aren't running against "Hope and Change" anymore, just a typical politician. His record makes him beatable, but the Pubs don't have anyone to beat him. Thus we get four more years of O.

 

[Shooshmoo]

I'm just usually surprised when people show any amount of real understanding of the business, especially folks that seem to be more left-leaning.

You're seriously an asshole.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Incumbency is better. The power of lining up incredible amounts of money -- early -- to feed your campaign is light-years more valuable that having a good brand. Corporate cash behind a sitting president is almost unbeatable. Bush winning reelection in 2004 is the perfect example. Campaign messages pale in importance to war-chests, and Obama will likely have the largest campaign war-chest of all time in 2012. Elections are typically bought by special interests, and special interests prefer to back the sitting president, or, alternatively, they are sure not to forget to also back him, just in case.

I'm also okay with Obama and a red Congress. In fact, it's what I want.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

You're seriously an asshole.

Sorry, just going on past history. Usually liberals are quick to talk down the business but they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

More often than not, these kinds of discussions don't yield a single valid point with regard to economic reality and/or price point realities. ONW didn't really either, but got close and that's better than most. I think I'll probably actually have the opposite conclusion, but I'm waiting for RJ to give a straight answer.

 

[Shooshmoo]

I'm going to go ahead and guess their are some left-leaning individuals in the business who have a better understanding of the business than you.

 

[TR1982]

Sorry, but I don't think incumbency compares with the advantage of having the first black nominee with a real chance at making it to the White House. That alone turned out millions.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

I'm going to go ahead and guess their are some left-leaning individuals in the business who have a better understanding of the business than you.

There are damn few left-leaning individuals in the oil and gas business.

Are any of those on this message board?

You can keep your indignation at this point, because I don't care. I'm much more interested in other aspects of this thread. Even the poster at whom my comment was directed had less reaction than you, so I suspect you're just handwaving and you're threatening to derail a useful thread, which was in itself unlikely, given its completely crazy subject line.

 

[RJKarl]

Ok dammit let me make this simple so you can understand.

Go fuck yourself. I haven't insulted you. 000

You say speculators are driving up the price.

The Christian Science Monitor shows how the trends of sdpecualtion has grown fframatically:

"Only some traders are speculators. Speculators are those who do not produce or use oil, but buy oil futures solely to make a profit on price changes. Data released in March 2011 by Bart Chilton, commissioner of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, suggest that speculators have increased their positions in energy markets by 64 percent since June 2008. That’s the highest level on record.

MY BAD USING REAL SOURCES rather than soundbite "logic" is too "simple" for you.

OK, fair enough. Well no not really, but I'll go along with it for now.

So then I ask, what, in USD, do you think is the "real" price of oil? 50? 60? 70? 80? Even a range would be preferred. Obviously you think 90 is too much. You cited 12-18% as the amount speculators are responsible for. I'm sure you think the companies themselves are fraudulent in their boosting of prices by various means (holding oil offshore, etc.)...

So, simple question. What's the real USD price of oil, in your mind?

What is "sikmple" here is the fact that you can't READ or UNDERSTAND that I have not said a thing about price ocntrols or what prices "should be".

ALL 've said is the rules for speculators need to be fixed.

But YOU can't understand this and want to change things.

BTW what was your old screenname?