A Third-Party Candidate in 2012?
[Posted by Karl]
Pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen are exactly the sort to claim to “see evidence on the ground that from the discontent coursing through the electorate there may emerge a third or even fourth political party that would be competitive in next year’s presidential election.” Their WSJ op-ed raises a number of questions, not the least of which is who might be paying them to poll and focus group the issue.
For those nascent third and fourth parties, Caddell and Schoen point to the ostensibly “centrist, bipartisan, Americans Elect” and the Tea Party movement. Aside from the fact that Americans Elect currently has ballot access in only four states, the group so far appears to becoming a haven for the left. On one hand, I find myself agreeing with lefty David Sirota that “centrist” third-party groups fizzle because the center-left already has a grip on the establishment. On the other hand, Sirota offers up the Working Families Party as an alternative; I tend to doubt the unholy trinity of Big Labor, ACORN remnants and Naderites can build much of a power base outside the deepest Blue states.
The Tea Party would be a more viable foundation for a third party in the rest of the country. However, the movement took as large a beating as anyone in the wake of the recent debt ceiling deal. Schoen’s own polling showed a tea party presidential candidate could get 15%-25% of the vote, “depending on the precise alignment of the candidates.” Presumably, the maximal alignment would be if Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination and Sarah Palin ran independently. However, as Palin recently stated she could support someone like Romney and “anyone but Obama,” this scenario seems unlikely.
Caddell and Schoen note “rumblings” about a Donald Trump candidacy. However, while third-party candidates tend to arise in times of greater tumult, such candidates tend to represent either an issue going unaddressed by the two established parties or a schism within one of the established parties. Trump’s own toe-dipping in GOP waters helped make him a bad fit for either category. Rather than emulate the H. Ross Perot example of can-do business tycoon crusading against the debt bomb, he chose to be a one-month wonder on the fringe issue of Birtherism. Thus, he is damaged goods on the right and unsuitable to the center or left.
Caddell and Schoen further note the historical examples of Perot and John Anderson. Their claim that both garnered high levels of support is dubious. Anderson topped out at 25% and ended with 7% (the sixth-best showing for a third-party candidate in the 20th century). Perot briefly led the 1992 campaign, but withdrew in a fit of paranoia, only to re-enter and finish with 19%. However, Perot ascended in 1992 by addressing an issue (the deficit/debt) a large segment of the public felt was not being addressed adequately by the establishment parties; it became symbolic of a general failure of government (Carter-era malaise played a similar role in 1980, along with the intra-GOP struggle Reagan won). However, the Perot-esque voter in 2012 will likely have a GOP nominee with plenty to say about the debt bomb. Most of the field would at least seem outsider-ish; even Romney can try to use his private-sector background to his advantage.
Moreover, as someone on the right, the prospect of a third-party candidacy does not particularly bother me. The recent history of such candidacies — e.g., Wallace, Anderson, Perot ’92, Nader — were all indicators of a loss for the party holding the White House. The chief counter-example would be Perot ’96, where Bill Clinton rode an improving economy to a less-than-50% victory. As of yet, there is little sign of an improving economy or a person with the media savvy and money of a Perot with an unaddressed issue to ride.
–Karl
Pollsters hear “rumblings” about Donald Trump.
I’ll give ’em rumblings. Trump is a rich blowhard who should go back to real estate. A candidacy by him should crumple like the last two holes of his recently built golf course on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Another rich, but less noisy, blowhard pursuing a quixotic dream is John Huntsman. He’s “running on his resume” –aargh!
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 8/25/2011 @ 4:16 amWho’s John Huntsman?
TANSTAAFL (bb1ee7) — 8/25/2011 @ 4:55 amWhile I believed, months back, a RINO GOP nominee would lead to a competitive 3rd party TEA run, I think Perry and Bachmann running, Palin pulling a Mario Cuomo, have ended that scenario.
Huntsman only feeds ‘Urkel will not run’ storyboards.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:08 amMost of the tea party saw through that deal, as great a case of ‘winning’ as the deal in March, Karl, now if you are referring to the Times to outright lie, that is something else entirely
ian cormac (0bd903) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:20 amPat Paulsen would be a great third party candidate if he was living.
Birdbath (19803d) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:04 amThird parties are always taken over by wealthy cranks. That’s just the way it is.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:08 amYou mean the guy Spurty (Tiffany? DCSCA? Timb?) swears up & down by Jeebus-on-a-pogo-stick will be the GOP nominee in ’12? The one who’s polling the GOP right now around 1 percent?
That Huntsman?
Darth Venomous (c8614a) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:13 amObama knows full well, like Bill Clinton before him in 1992, that his only chance to win in 2012 is if a reasonably strong third party candidate emerges to split the GOP vote.
Without Ross Perot in the race, incumbent George H.W. Bush would have been returned to office for a second term. Even Democrats are capable of putting 2 and 2 together and reaching the obvious conclusion: Obama can’t win in a heads-up election. He needs a spoiler and Donald Trump fits the Perot model to a T.
ropelight (70002f) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:39 amThe Donald if nothing else, is wise to money, and I’m sure when his lawyers explained the cost to him vis-a-vis his TV shows and the FEC, that is when he decided “Enough”.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:53 amHe’ll make a speech of two, or an interview or three on CNBC and FoxBusiness, but as long as he has active projects on broadcast TV – or the chance of same – he will not be a candidate for anything.
Is Kinky Friedman still with us?
Hawkins (1fc204) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:06 amian cormac,
I’m not saying the Tea Party liked the debt ceiling deal. I’m saying the polling on Tea Party support among the general public is down. It’s not just the NYT poll either; it’s Gallup and it’s Rasmussen (unless you compare it to a Congress at record-low approval; even then, indies are tepid in their support).
If the Tea Party had to actually engage in party politics, it’s likely those numbers would decline further, because actual parties pick up the baggage of their candidates and officials in a way the Tea Party has been mostly able to disclaim to date.
Karl (37b303) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:25 amIf there is a third party candidate, and there may well be, it will be an astro-turf candidate that is created and propped up by the Obama campaign to siphon votes away from the Republicans.
nohype (c86dc7) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:25 amHawkins,
Just saw Kinky endorse Perry.
Karl (37b303) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:26 amA conservative third party is wishful thinking by Mr. Caddell. It is a sign he knows Obama is doomed unless some force majeure weakens the Republicans.
Tea party conservatives are smart enough to know third party status would ensure defeat for Republicans. There has been no call for a third party. Tea Partiers are doing just fine within the Republican party, winning primaries and adding 63 seats in the House. The only third party Tea Partiers were Democrat poseurs in Michigan, NY and Utah. They are easy to spot as most are or have been registered as Democrats.
No Pat Caddell knows the only way for liberals to win in 2012 is to run someone other than Obama. Obama won’t back off so liberals must run a third party candidate and hope conservtives make the same mistake.
Corky Boyd (96df15) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:33 amHow did this notion of Trump being a conservative ever gain traction? It is a false construct that equate birther BS with conservatism. His actual public pronouncements, contemporaneously, show him to be a supporter of Barcky’s policies.
JD (6e25b4) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:34 amJD, you of all people know that one must not confront Teh Narrative.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:55 amThe “Working Families Party” is simply another name under which ACORN continues to operate. It’s ACORN’s DBA in direct politics, just as SEIU is its DBA in the labor movement (or more accurately SEIU is the base name, and ACORN was its DBA in the “activism” industry).
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:06 amMore suicide primaries please, pretty soon the party of Reagan will cease to exist and be replaced by the party of the 27%.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:59 amSpartacus, if Ronald Reagan were running right now you would scream about how horrible he is.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:02 amSpartacvs just woke up from yesterday’s bender. It likely blacked out its asshattery.
JD (b98cae) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:04 amDustin – if Ronald Reagan were running right now he’d be fighting Hunstsman for 1% of the vote.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:06 amSpeaking of “suicide primaries,” Fificvs, care to comment on how embarrassingly and thoroughly you were skooled yesterday regarding unemployment statistics?
I’m surprised you are here. You really and truly looked pathetic.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:06 amBut, as usual, you just move on to something else. Except your truly lazy and silly record is right along with you.
What a joke you are.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:07 amBS.
Perry’s not that different from Reagan on record.
You aren’t here to persuade or even really argue. You just want to be miserable about conservatives. It comes across as a sore loser crying about an election that hasn’t even occurred yet.
Anyway, I think you’re right in your implicit view that the democrats are screwed in 2012.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:11 amSpvrty – Isn’t Slappy Cindy McKinney and her Iranian supported Green Party running again?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:14 amJester – what was the immediate cause of the financial crisis of 2008? was it public debt problem or private debt problem? is the subsequent collapse in demand a function of over-regulation or high taxation? is federal spending acting as a brake on worsening economic conditions or an accelerator?
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:19 am“what was the immediate cause of the financial crisis of 2008?”
Mortgage defaults.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:25 am“what was the immediate cause of the financial crisis of 2008?”
Spvrty – What do you think it was?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:27 amWhat a joke you are.
Laugh, I thought I’d never start!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:28 amBTW, spvrty, how many Green Jobs has Michelle’s $10MM in vacation spending created or saved?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:30 am…and another thing:
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:31 amNow we know why Teh Won was incapable of holding down the spending of Pelosi & Reid,
He can’t even control his wife’s spending!
daley – Mortgage defaults, correct.
Now would you classify such as public debt or private debt?
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:34 amHuntsman is Lowell Weicker or John Anderson, if he was very lucky. How do you spend two years in China, and think climate change, is possibly a viable issue.
ian cormac (0bd903) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:35 amHow do you spend two years
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:37 amin Chinaanywhere on the planet, and Not think climate change, is possibly a viable issue.“Now would you classify such as public debt or private debt?”
Spvrty – Home mortgages start out as private debt, but as they travel through our financial system they can directly impact public debt. See Fannie, Freddie, FHA, FHLB system, etc.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:45 amSpartacvs,
The Tea Party exists only in the figment of the fox news anchors who defend it and the liberal media and polls who excoriate it, these so called Tea Parties have no structure or depth and anyone can be identified as one or not as one.
What you should be concerned is that the Republicans are the Tea Party and the Tea Party is Republican – neither is vanishing just having open division of right and further right a subject who’s time has come
I agree with you on the one percent for Reagan, but again that is not good development for liberals either
Reagan was a liberal, I never supported him, nor ever thought he was conservative nor a real republican and his accomplishments won’t withstand the scrutiny of history, however Reagan stood tall in the old fashioned sense of – Country first, Family first at a time when his old party and liberal allies were going rapidly over a cliff and haven’t stopped since. Reagan was a shinning example of these core values that made America great even though he didnt aspire to them personally or in his political actions, he was at best a moderate who cut taxes and then was forced to raise them to astonishing heights that we can all thank him for the 16% flat tax on income that is called social security, and for leaving the door wide open for a national health plan and for allowing junk bonds to fester corporate america causing hundreds of thousands of job losses and made many large banks rapidly unstable which was the precuser of the financial breakdown – but he was FORCED TO DO THIS BY DEMOCRATS – REAGAN’S war on communism was held hostage by an ever intrusive democrat party hellbent on its class warfare and its segmenting of American culture, not by republicans,
Lets not forget Reagans actions were initiated by his desire to preserve the way of life and the country which ironically Reagan had to sell out to defeat communism so what was he really saving in the end?
Those both on the left and the right who hold themselves up to Reagan are cherry picking the best and worst of him to justify their actions in a superficial sense, everyone is their own politician and those who really understand the legacy of Reagan dont really use him as a litmus test for candidates.
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:47 amOohhh, too many letters, my brain hurts.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:48 amsparticvs
EPWJ’s distorted-history lesson.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:50 amNotice how Fificvs still posts, even after that wonderful drubbing he received over his lazy and inaccurate arguments yesterday.
Shameless. And he should be ashamed.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:53 am#26: you know ol’ Fificvs is tempery when he goes all last name.
First, you owe several people apologies. Don’t change the subject. You are on record that people who misstate or misrepresent issues need to “apologize.”
So do so. I recommend that no one interact with you (silly jackass that you are) until you live up to your own so-called standards.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:55 amBesides, numbers make his head hurt. Such a dimbulb.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:56 amAnother Drew
Nope thats actually the facts – Reagan’s military buildup was subjected to his signing historic tax increases – see the social security website – or any business school – its all there – Reagans compromise on social Security fueled the massive investment 100 time greater than LBJ ever envisioned
Surely Reagan had to know that at the time – Any historical budget table shows the massive tax collections of Reagans 80’s increases
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:56 amI agree with EPWJ about Reagan era deficits. He opposed such spending levels, but the democrats forced that, much as Obama and Pelosi did with Iraqi freedom.
When they scream ‘terrorism’ regarding Tea Partiers refusing to compromise, they are projecting.
And all along, the democrats at the top are well aware they will just blame their deficits on the people who resisted them. It’s really quite something to see Spartacus blame Bush for the Pelosi budget, for example. I’m sure Obama will blame his deficits on the GOP as well.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:57 am“Reagan was a liberal, I never supported him, nor ever thought he was conservative nor a real republican and his accomplishments won’t withstand the scrutiny of history”
EricPW – Thank you for sharing this. Reagan should not have allowed junk bonds to be issued between willing sellers and willing buyers? No free market?
S&L’s getting disintermediated by high interest rates, followed by hot money deposits, followed by fake regulatory goodwill all led to our current crisis.
Reagan certainly had a fiendish long-term plan of which most people were unaware and I want to thank you for exposing it. He was truly the devil.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:01 amHow do you spend two years
in Chinaanywhere on the planet, and Not think climate change, is possibly a viable issue.Comment by Spartacvs — 8/25/2011 @ 9:37 am
— “For I has worshipped at the temple of AGW,
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:01 amAnd I has personally been blessed by AlGrope,
And I’s noticed myself that it’s been a tad warmer recently,
‘specially around my aging, evah-expanding waistline”
Now, remember, Icy: it’s not “global warming” anymore. It’s “climate change.” And change can mean many things.
Just like hope!
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:02 amdaley – you correctly identified the collapse of the home mortgage sector as the proximate cause of the 2008 financial crises which dragged the larger economy down into by far the deepest recession on record since the great depression of the 30’s. I merely want to know whether you understand the home mortgage sector constitutes public or private debt here in the US? Because understanding the difference has significant implications for coming up with policies to solve the problem of how to get the economy going again.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:04 amSo you’re saying the democrats like Obama and Barney Frank are to blame, and Bush tried to stop them?
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:05 amFunny, I don’t remember it quite that way, and I was there.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:10 amI do remember Tip and others famously saying that Budgets were DOA, every year.
And, I do remember them offering the WH $3 in spending reductions for every Dollar in tax increase – but deliverying $1.80 in spending increases for every Dollar in tax increase.
And, I remember what were considered ruinous deficits that don’t – today – amount to a pimple on an elephant’s ass.
Also, I remember mortgages at over 10% (I luckily got one in ’78 in the run-up at 8-7/8 IIRC – and that was below market as it does pay to know someone), inflation at about the same number, and unemployment at today’s levels.
I also remember a moribund stock-market that hadn’t moved 1-2% in either direction for months/years once Stagflation set in, but that started a long steady climb out of the abyss in the Summer of ’82 (777 on August 12, 1982 – 777!, that’s the DJIA that day, not how much it gained) once the Kemp-Roth tax-cuts were codified and in place.
What I do remember is that the Left then, just as today, is composed of a bunch of lying, scheming, a$$hole$, who would sell their own Mothers for a piece of power.
Right.
And they knew at the time they would be able to bash Reagan in the future for what the democrats were actually responsible for.
It’s profoundly unpatriotic and exhibit A in why the democrat party is not democratic.
They consistently do all they can to avoid accountability at the ballot box.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:23 amSpurty is too damn stupid to understand what happened with the mortgages once Countrywide, etal secured them. Must ignore everything involved with the extension of credit beyond peoples means, and the role of Fannie and Freddie purchasing those mortgages once written.
JD (d48c3b) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:24 amComment by Spartacvs — 8/25/2011 @ 10:04 am
I answered above. Now prove you understand it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:25 amFificvs is funny. I love it when he tries to sound oh so intellectual. Keep in mind, lazy and slow troll, that you have been shown, over and over again, to make things up, not read links, never, ever apologize, and simply move on when caught.
So why should anyone take you seriously? You are a silly little joke, just like Barney Fife.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:26 amDaley, don’t hold your breath. Numbers are hard for Fificvs. So is honesty.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:26 amThey were playing with house money, and they knew it. They screwed our country, and they knew it. They laughed all the way to the bank, as many of these guys were paid handsomely… with house money.
I’m not a Palinista, but someone like that, in the right position, could put a lot of these people in prison. We need to root out corruption that is deep, and we need to root out all who have covered it up.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:28 amand worse, once Fannie and Freddie bought those mortgages, they “securitized” them by creating MBS’ (rated AAA like any GSE debt) and sold them into the world-wide credit market, putting investment banks around the world on the hook for all of those sub-prime loans demanded of the ACORNs of the inner-city (Gee, who was that lawyer that represented ACORN in lawsuits against banks in Chicago? I just can’t remember his name).
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:30 amAnother Drew – I’ve been involved in the financial services industry for 30 years and EricPW’s comment at 9:49 is just about the nuttiest piece of revisionist conspiracy theory sh*t I’ve ever read.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:30 amI don’t know jack about the financial services aspect going so far back. I’m sure Daleyrocks is correct.
I do know that the deficits of the Reagan era were largely committed by democrats.
Anyway, revisionism is just a way of life now. I remember how Bush was bashed day in and day out for 5% unemployment levels and the horrible recession that turned out to be a period of stable expansion.
News is created artificially.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:34 amWell, he does seem to have some strange mood swings that would seem to be chemically induced.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:35 amdaley – if indeed you have been involved in the financial services industry for 30 years then you should know the answer to the question.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:36 amHold on. Fificvs, are you seriously harassing people for not answering questions? I mean, given your pathetic “post and run” record?
No wonder people here think you are silly. My guess is that most people do.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:38 amAs I said, spartacvs is too stupid AND too dishonest to get its tiny little pea brain around this topic.
JD (29e1cd) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:38 amNo, SJ, I do not think spvrty is silly, he doesn’t rise that high on the disgust scale.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:39 amPersonally, when spurtacvs denied the existence of $4,000,000,000,000+ in debt increase since Obambi took office, that was the comment-of-the-day. Sheer unadulterated asshattery.
JD (b98cae) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:40 amfm Instapundit….
HMM: Obama Administration Pressuring New York Attorney General To Drop Mortgage Fraud Investigations.
You have to wonder who they are attempting to protect?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:42 amLook, how many comment threads does spartacvs have to ruin before something is done?
Ignore him.
I denounce myself. (To coin a phrase.)
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:42 amSpeaking of cherry-picking Reagan ultimately signed on to $132.7 billion in tax increases. But the Reagan tax cuts totalled $275.3 billion. Over time, there seems to be a rise in single-entry accounting of Reagan’s tax record, led by people like Bruce Bartlett, whom I could demostrate knows better.
Karl (f07e38) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:45 amJD gave us a peek at the new CBO (who spvrty loves) report on projected growth/deficits/unemployment, but if you go here
http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?h=ebb3c1725bcd13dfc773be3ac68f2ef4&CID=9670628376&ch=187D69172273ED880837B33DEB771DFB
Heritage will give their take, and has quotes from the WH spokeshole on how these numbers “vindicate” what the admin is doing.
How much water is in denial?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:49 amOops, another inconvenient, unexpected, stat:
(see my link to Heritage above)
Illinois Loses Most Jobs in Nation Following Massive Tax Increase
I refuse to believe that The Combine “lost” those jobs, they are probably just “saving” them someplace for future use.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 10:58 am==The “Working Families Party” is simply another name ..==
A manufactured name obviously made up by the same dude that created the title “Affordable Care Act”. He should go back to naming new subdivisions. Oh, wait.
elissa (c01b9b) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:10 amKarl
Reagans Tax increases are about 14 TRILLION dollars
True he lowered taxes and I believe he had to make the choice of sacrificing our economy rather than our freedom to the Soviets – the very real possibility that Central and South America could become a massive Vietnam was worth the sacrifice
But it was Democrats who forced Reagan to raise those taxes in order to get what he wanted in the military buildup
Reagan had a chance to end the funding essentially of the largest entitlements but reagan made the classic strategic error of thinking that military might triumphed economic might
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:12 amFrom The American Spectator:
“…This boringly ineffective would-be demagogue in the Oval Office keeps trotting out the same tired, petty, counterfactual lines in every one of his pompous, detached-from-reality speeches…”
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:12 amIf Only Obama Would Abdicate By Quin Hillyer
“I refuse to believe that The Combine “lost” those jobs, they are probably just “saving” them someplace for future use.”
AD – The word you are looking for is patronage.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:12 amEPWJ: Horse$hit!
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:16 amRR knew that without economic might, there was no military might; which is why his first acts were to liberate the economy, one of which was the complete de-control of petroleum pricing and allocation (signed upon his return to the WH from the Inauguration, the afternoon of 20 Jan 81).
Daley
I’m not blaming Reagan – it was democrats who FORCED REAGAN to sign historic tax increases to fund the war on terror
Reagan had to stop the march of communism tht was in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Columbia, and many other Central American States and starting to re-emerge in Mexico.
Image if the Soviet Union had control of the Massive oil fields in these areas….
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:17 am“daley – if indeed you have been involved in the financial services industry for 30 years then you should know the answer to the question.”
Spvrty – Answered at #35 at 9:45 a.m. above as previously mentioned in #52. Eagerly awaiting your answer or flouncing from thread.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:18 am“Reagans Tax increases are about 14 TRILLION dollars”
EricPW – His tax increase were 5x 1980 GDP!!!!!!!!!
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:23 amA serious case of Reality Challenged.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:28 amThat was a non answer daley, come on I’m sure anyone who has been involved in the financial services industry for 30 years should know the answer to such a simple question.
Alternatively you could expand on your theory that government subsidized loans to poor people and minorities led to massive over leveraging and securitization on Wall St. and at just about every financial institution on the planet, resulting in the worlwide financial collapse of 2008 when the bubble burst.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:35 amSpurtacvs – did you apologize for lying let, and have you listed all of the names you commented under yet? Kthxby
JD (85b089) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:40 am“That was a non answer daley”
Spvrty – It was a direct answer to your question. Please explain how it was a non-answer. Show your work with evidence.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:41 amActually, JD, this is the line from Fificvs that says it all:
Um. Fificvs? There are all kinds of things you haven’t answered. So hop to it, since you feel it is important.
Little hypocrite of a troll.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:41 amDaley, do you think he is really this stupid, or is an avant-garde performance artist?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:42 am“That was a non answer daley”
Spvrty – What part of the answer did you not understand? It was a simple answer to a simple question, as you point out.
Have you ever taken out a mortgage loan Spvrty?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:44 amSimon – I think he is really that stupid.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:46 amSpvrty – I you have ever had a mortgage loan, has it been sold from the entity which originated it to a third party?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:47 amRe: #79
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:49 amI think the Clown Party Candidate just assured his nomination.
Spvrty – If you have ever had a mortgage loan, has the mortgage servicer ever been changed on your mortgage loan?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:50 amSimon – Spvrty does not want to continue down the line of questioning he opened up because he knows he will just beclown himself again.
He is a financial illiterate.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:53 am==Eagerly awaiting your answer or flouncing from thread.==
daleyrocks–if we’re taking a vote here, my vote’s in favor of him flouncing.
elissa (c01b9b) — 8/25/2011 @ 12:03 pmReagan wasn’t forced to trade military spending for entitlement spending, unless you believe that Reagan could have made a veto of entitlement spending (and the taxes ultimately implied thereby) stick against a Democrat Congress. Wasn’t going to happen then, won’t happen now. There are few things in public opinion more consistent than resistance to raising middle-class taxes and cutting entitlement spending. That’s why the cutting likely won’t happen until people are forced to confront those implied taxes.
Karl (f07e38) — 8/25/2011 @ 12:15 pmoh noez spying on muslims………….too bad babies don’t condone terror attacks through your silence then.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:16 pmKarl,
It was quite clear that reagan to get his military initiatives had to trade off huge increases in entitlement spending – the congressional and historical record is pretty clear
Reagan could have vetoed it but didnt and sure – cutting entitlement spending is going to happen and its going to happen quite easily after all when AFDC was cut no it wasnt cut – IT WAS eliminated – the sky was going to fall in and a tidal wave was going to sweep republicans out to sea and no state would even look at a republican for any position….
didnt happen
an across the board cut is palatable for all departments, cutting social security recipients to those who dont deserve the and decreasing those who are elible for these benefits is quite popular
Democrats will demogague the issue, when they dont have all three branches it will be just noise
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:23 pmDaley
reagans massive overreaching 1/6th flat tax on dollar one is still with us today – its the gift that keeps on giving – its more than 14 trillion some economist just emailed me –
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/25/2011 @ 3:26 pm14 TRILLION in undocumented tax increases.
JD (d48c3b) — 8/25/2011 @ 4:04 pmRoss Perot and 1992. Easterbook argues that George H.W. Bush lost because the Texas billionaire “siphoned off conservative votes.” False.
The endurance of this particular myth, regular readers will recognize, is particularly bothersome to me, and I’ve written about it several times. Easterbrook is hardly the only one who’s still pushing it. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone matter-of-factly make this claim in the past few years. Generally, it’s from conservatives who like to pretend that Bill Clinton’s ’92 victory was a fluke, but there are liberals who still fall for it too.
Instead of recounting all of the details of the ’92 race here, I’ll simply refer you to one of my previous posts on the subject. If you want the Cliff’s Notes version it goes like this: (1) Economic anxiety was high, causing Bush’s poll numbers to drop to poisonous levels — by the fall of ’92 he was not an incumbent who, on paper, should have won reelection; (2) Not a single public opinion poll from the middle of July (when Perot dropped out the race) through the end of September (when Perot returned) gave Bush a lead over Clinton — not even in the immediate wake of the August ’92 GOP convention. In fact, Clinton’s average lead in this period was double-digits — and the race was not tightening at the time Perot jumped back in; (3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally). Here’s how the Washington Post summarized the exit poll:
Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.
And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.
In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.
Repeat after me: Ross Perot did not “cost” George H.W. Bush the 1992 election. If you see or hear a commentator using this claim as supporting evidence, immediately discount whatever argument that commentator is advancing. The poor economy doomed George H.W. Bush in 1992 — not a short billionaire from Texas.
savetheusa (8b51a7) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:19 pmEricPW – If it is not a secret, can you specify which legislation Ronald Reagan approved which you believe resulted in a new $14 trillion tax increase. Thanks.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:24 pmsavetheusa spins a nice ball of yarn.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:38 pmThe secret EPWJ is keeping is all about how Sarah Palin — on a student tour of the White House, no doubt — snuck into the Oval Office, bent Reagan’s ear and convinced him to enact a $14 trillion tax increase.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:43 pm“How do you spend two years in China anywhere on the planet, and Not think climate change, is possibly a viable issue,” said sporty.
Because I’ve lived more than 14 years.
Ag80 (9a213d) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:44 pm“And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.”
savetheusa – Is that analysis based on the same exit polling that worked so well in 2004? Thanks, but no thanks. Did you vote in 1992?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:47 pmEricPW – What was the $14 trillion tax increase legislation?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:57 pm