Is Obama already planning his re-election ?
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
It also gave a new meaning to the word "Lewinski"
For example...
"Did you get a Lewinski last night?"
For example...
"Did you get a Lewinski last night?"
EagleSmack, I will make one more attempt to explain it to you. I am participating in several other threads, and I really don’t have time for this foolishness. I will make one more attempt and then wash my hands of the whole thing.
It is not the absolute performance that is important. What is important is if you have met expectations (or beat expectations). Generally a thing is considered success, not on its absolute performance, but how the performance compares with expectations.
Thus a company may declare that its profits jumped by 10% last quarter. That sounds good, but if markets expected the profits to rise by 20%, the stock of the company will plunge, the fact that profits rose by 10% is irrelevant.
Similarly, if a company declares that it made a small loss, and if markets were expecting a huge loss, the stock will go up. The fact that company made a loss would be irrelevant.
Or let us say that two students get the same grade ‘B’. Will both of them be equally happy, or equally unhappy? That depends.
If one of them is a straight A student, he will be very unhappy that he got a B. If the other consistently gets Cs and Ds, he will be happy indeed, with a B. Same performance, but it generates totally different reactions.
It is the same thing with election results. Let us continue with the stock market analogy. In 1998, Republicans were expected to make huge gains. Second mid term, out of power party. Thy were expected to gain 5 to 10 seats in the senate, 25 to 30 seats in the House. Instead, they lost seats in both House and Senate. If Republicans had been a company, their stock would have plunged big time, the fact that they kept control of both houses was irrelevant.
In 2006, Democrats were expected to make huge gains, and they did make huge gains. If Democrats have been a company, their stock would have moved sideways, would have been unchanged as a result of 2006 elections (but it would have gone up substantially after 2008 elections)..
In deciding how a party performed in an election, the important criteria is whether they met expectation, exceeded them or performed way below expectations. That is the criteria that is generally used.
I have given extensive references to support what I am saying. You on the other hand have not produced even one reference to support your position. That is because your position is unsustainable, not even a single reference exists in the literature to support your position.
Republicans performed way below expatiations, so their performance in 1998 was disastrous. Democrats perfumed as expected, so their performance in 2006 was average, nothing remarkable.
There, believe it or not as you will. I wash my hands of the whole thing.
It is not the absolute performance that is important. What is important is if you have met expectations (or beat expectations). Generally a thing is considered success, not on its absolute performance, but how the performance compares with expectations.
Thus a company may declare that its profits jumped by 10% last quarter. That sounds good, but if markets expected the profits to rise by 20%, the stock of the company will plunge, the fact that profits rose by 10% is irrelevant.
Similarly, if a company declares that it made a small loss, and if markets were expecting a huge loss, the stock will go up. The fact that company made a loss would be irrelevant.
Or let us say that two students get the same grade ‘B’. Will both of them be equally happy, or equally unhappy? That depends.
If one of them is a straight A student, he will be very unhappy that he got a B. If the other consistently gets Cs and Ds, he will be happy indeed, with a B. Same performance, but it generates totally different reactions.
It is the same thing with election results. Let us continue with the stock market analogy. In 1998, Republicans were expected to make huge gains. Second mid term, out of power party. Thy were expected to gain 5 to 10 seats in the senate, 25 to 30 seats in the House. Instead, they lost seats in both House and Senate. If Republicans had been a company, their stock would have plunged big time, the fact that they kept control of both houses was irrelevant.
In 2006, Democrats were expected to make huge gains, and they did make huge gains. If Democrats have been a company, their stock would have moved sideways, would have been unchanged as a result of 2006 elections (but it would have gone up substantially after 2008 elections)..
In deciding how a party performed in an election, the important criteria is whether they met expectation, exceeded them or performed way below expectations. That is the criteria that is generally used.
I have given extensive references to support what I am saying. You on the other hand have not produced even one reference to support your position. That is because your position is unsustainable, not even a single reference exists in the literature to support your position.
Republicans performed way below expatiations, so their performance in 1998 was disastrous. Democrats perfumed as expected, so their performance in 2006 was average, nothing remarkable.
There, believe it or not as you will. I wash my hands of the whole thing.
Probably a good idea for you to do as you are just being repetitious with very little substance except your own opinions.
Edit: One more thing if you want to do an analogy.
Team A plays a lousy game and wins... they win. They won but they could have done better. (1998 )
Team A plays a lousy game and lose...they lose. (2006)
Have a nice day. :smile:
Actually my recall was the Cuban Cigars were much more of an issue that peeved off the Republicans and was the main reason for them to so directly go after Clinton then any other factor.
Whether it was true or not I have no idea but this story I have heard from many of my American manufacturers of both political stripes as well..
Quite an interesting point of view if true..
I don't always agree with Sir Joe, but he made perfect sense in the last post- the analogies were such that even a moron could understand them. I think you would do well to listen more closely to Sir Joe - of course you'd do better to listen even more closely to me. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Oh Please Joey... don't be so pompous. You have that rep already and don't have many friends here.
And are you counting you as my friend? Are you saying that I may lose you as a friend. Oh, you break my heart.
S.J. pompous?- maybe, but one who thinks he knows who anyone else's friends are could be tagged with that distinction himself.....:lol::lol::lol:
So as I agree with you that SJP is pompous does that require me to remove him from my friend list ? It still does not mean he is wrong..
Speaking of pompous, I never hear you reply to my fact based links about the US pulling out of Iraq ? hummmmmmmmmm
Of course, Obama is in Election Mode. And he is WAYYYYY ahead!
He's already locked up the redneck vote, without a doubt, with the help of the First Lady.
How come, you ask!
Michelle endeared herself with the rednecks forever, by getting her fashion inspiration (you know, sleeveless) from Larry the Cable Guy.
He's already locked up the redneck vote, without a doubt, with the help of the First Lady.
How come, you ask!
Michelle endeared herself with the rednecks forever, by getting her fashion inspiration (you know, sleeveless) from Larry the Cable Guy.
Of course some may say this is strictly right wing Obama haters propaganda, but that couldn't be further from the truth. No United States citizen in their right mind hates Obama, he may not be liked but we all want him to succeed, failure will only hurt us all. This article by Thomas Sowell pretty much says it all.
Hoover Institution - Stamford University Ideas defining a free society
A Rookie President
We can lose some very big games with this rookie.
By Thomas Sowell
Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.
We now have a rookie president of the United States, and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.
Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been president before. He has never had any position in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.
Other first-term presidents have been governors, generals, Cabinet members, or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and not having spent half their few years in the Senate running for president.
What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every president has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil, and certainly speak no evil.
They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder — and they would make excuses for that. Even Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama, and even crusty Bill O’Reilly has been impressed by Obama’s demeanor.
There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians, or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes — and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.
What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.
Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives — and theirs — in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?
In the name of “change,” Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them — certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by “social studies” or other politically correct courses.
Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? The French did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.
This year, President Obama’s attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians — a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.
Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime — which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international-terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.
However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as president of the United States was to Hamas, to which he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.
Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama’s visibly unimpressive reception of British prime minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous presidents over the past two generations have received British prime ministers. President Obama’s sending the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.
We can lose some very big games with this rookie.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Hoover Institution - Stamford University Ideas defining a free society
A Rookie President
We can lose some very big games with this rookie.
By Thomas Sowell
Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.
We now have a rookie president of the United States, and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.
Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been president before. He has never had any position in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.
Other first-term presidents have been governors, generals, Cabinet members, or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and not having spent half their few years in the Senate running for president.
What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every president has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil, and certainly speak no evil.
They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder — and they would make excuses for that. Even Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama, and even crusty Bill O’Reilly has been impressed by Obama’s demeanor.
There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians, or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes — and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.
What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.
Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives — and theirs — in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?
In the name of “change,” Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them — certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by “social studies” or other politically correct courses.
Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? The French did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.
This year, President Obama’s attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians — a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.
Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime — which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international-terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.
However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as president of the United States was to Hamas, to which he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.
Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama’s visibly unimpressive reception of British prime minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous presidents over the past two generations have received British prime ministers. President Obama’s sending the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.
We can lose some very big games with this rookie.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Of course some may say this is strictly right wing Obama haters propaganda, but that couldn't be further from the truth. No United States citizen in their right mind hates Obama, he may not be liked but we all want him to succeed, failure will only hurt us all. This article by Thomas Sowell pretty much says it all.
Ironsides, Thomas Sewell is a well known conservative, he belongs to extreme right. He has opposed Obama from day one, ever since Obama became the nominee. He is that rare breed, a black columnist who belongs to far right.
His articles appear regularly in the far right publications such as townhall and worldnetdailty. So he hardly has any credibility when it comes to Obama.
Ironsides, Thomas Sewell is a well known conservative, he belongs to extreme right. He has opposed Obama from day one, ever since Obama became the nominee. He is that rare breed, a black columnist who belongs to far right.
His articles appear regularly in the far right publications such as townhall and worldnetdailty. So he hardly has any credibility when it comes to Obama.
" No United States citizen in their right mind hates Obama, he may not be liked but we all want him to succeed, failure will only hurt us all. This article by Thomas Sowell pretty much says it all." WELL YEAH, what do these idiots want for an alternative?
MSNBC has a live poll to grade Obama's performance as President
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/