Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Will Obama be reelected?

Alexmahone

Active member
Jan 26, 2012
268
Do you think Obama will be reelected? To Americans: Will you vote for him? Why / why not?
 

Moo

New member
Feb 12, 2012
26
Who cares ? :D
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
I think it all depends on who the Republican candidate is. I think he would beat Romney, lose to Paul and not sure about Santorum or Gingrich. There's no way Paul will get the nomination though it looks like from what I've been reading but I've been out of the country for a while. I'm coming back to the US in 3 weeks and will be very curious how this plays out.
 

Prove It

Well-known member
MHB Math Helper
Jan 26, 2012
1,403
He's black. The black population won't let him lose...
 

sbhatnagar

Active member
Jan 27, 2012
95
Yes he will be re-elected easily. Most Americans are starting to see how crazy republicans are and how the Tea Party has actually hurt the country. He will get another term and hopefully bring a lot of new Progressive Democrats along with him and start to clean out the crazy in Washington DC.
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
Yes he will be re-elected easily. Most Americans are starting to see how crazy republicans are and how the Tea Party has actually hurt the country. He will get another term and hopefully bring a lot of new Progressive Democrats along with him and start to clean out the crazy in Washington DC.
You really think it will be that easy? He won by a larger margin than the 2004 and 2008 elections (52% popular vote and big win in electoral votes), but Bush had such a bad image that the Republican image was ruined. That's why I said I think it depends on the Republican candidate. I'm definitely not arguing for/against anyone, I'm just not sure Obama will win by a landslide. I think Romney would be crushed by Obama because he (Romney) has changed his political views drastically over the years. In general I find it difficult to locate reliable resources on approval ratings and predictions.

On a different note, I've been in Moscow now for 2 years and politics are so much simpler here - we already know who the president will be.
 
Last edited:

Sherlock

Member
Jan 28, 2012
59
He's black. The black population won't let him lose...
Assuming they will even vote for him, they make only about 10% of the total population.
On a different note, I've been in Moscow now for 2 years and politics are so much simpler here - we already know who the president will be.
Haha! Pure gold!
 

Ackbach

Indicium Physicus
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,193
On a different note, I've been in Moscow now for 2 years and politics are so much simpler here - we already know who the president will be.
Haha! Pure gold!
You've heard of the golden rule, haven't you? He who has the gold makes the rules? - Jafar from the Disney movie Aladdin.
 

CaptainBlack

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
890
Do you think Obama will be reelected? To Americans: Will you vote for him? Why / why not?
He is the incumbent, in a reviving economy, his main opponent in the election will probably be unelectable, hmmm.... that's a puzzler ...

CB
 

Ackbach

Indicium Physicus
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,193
Do you think Obama will be reelected? To Americans: Will you vote for him? Why / why not?
I'm not voting for him. I didn't vote for him before, either. The reason is that the Obama philosophy of governmental solution of all problems just can't work. The government can't know my life well enough to make good decisions for me. That's true of economic decisions, medical decisions, etc. Obama is about as close to Marxism as you can get without actually being there. If the US system didn't have the checks and balances it does (which it's rapidly losing, by the way), we actually would have Marxism in the US. And the fact is, Carl Menger, Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek (important names in the Austrian school of economics) have quite thoroughly trounced Marx's economics. The labor theory of value just doesn't hold up. Consider a gentleman who wants to sell pins for sewing. So he goes to the mine, mines iron ore, smelts it in a Bessemer converter, and then smiths the result into sewing pins. His labor and the cost of production dictates that he sell his pins at $\$10,000$ per pin. Next door, his competitor, taking advantage of the division of labor, is selling pins for $\$2$ per $100$ pins. Is our bold entrepenuer going to sell any pins? Obviously not. Evidently, the labor theory of value is false. As that is a foundational tenant of Marxism, I would tend not to trust the rest of it.

Instead, the best theory of value that I've ever seen is that people assign value to goods and services. Something is valuable because people think it is. That's why a trade is not a zero-sum game. Joe and Mark are contemplating a trade: Joe will paint Mark's house for $\$500$. They consider the deal, and eventually they strike said deal. Who's poorer? Well, neither, actually, because if Joe didn't think that $\$500$ was worth more than the amount of time it would take him to paint the house, he wouldn't paint the house! And if Mark thought that having his house painted wasn't worth $\$500$, he wouldn't give that money to Joe in exchange for painting the house. So what happens in a (free!) trade, where everybody knows exactly what they're getting (and that's important - there need to be laws about that), both parties gain. And that's because people assign value to goods and services.

There are other issues, even more controversial than economics, in which I disagree with Obama (I basically disagree with the way the man breathes.) But I figured economics was controversial enough to post here.
 

CaptainBlack

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
890
I'm not voting for him. I didn't vote for him before, either. The reason is that the Obama philosophy of governmental solution of all problems just can't work. The government can't know my life well enough to make good decisions for me. That's true of economic decisions, medical decisions, etc. Obama is about as close to Marxism as you can get without actually being there.
You really are trying to make every non-USAian in MHB laugh aren't you. If you think Obama is even in the same room as a Marxist you have never seen a real social democrat let alone a Marxist.

The view from this side of the Atlatic you have two political parties, a centre right party and a far right party.

CB
 
Last edited:

Ackbach

Indicium Physicus
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,193
You really are trying to make every non-USAian in MHB laugh aren't you. If you think Obama is even in the same room as a Marxist you have never seen a real social democrat let alone a Marxist.

The view from this side of the Atlatic you have two political parties, a right wing party and a far right party.

CB
Fair enough. Call him a Marxist wanna-be if you like. That's certainly the direction he wants to go. And it's very much not the direction I think the USA should go. Hence, he won't have my vote.
 

chisigma

Well-known member
Feb 13, 2012
1,704
As Jameson correctly said, the result will depend only from the republican candidate. In my opinion only Ron Paul can represent an effective strong turning point in the american politics and just for that he is so strongly opposed by the most 'conservative' republican fringes. The result will be that between Obama and the republican candidate will be chosen... the less bad...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 

Moo

New member
Feb 12, 2012
26
I'm not voting for him. I didn't vote for him before, either. The reason is that the Obama philosophy of governmental solution of all problems just can't work. The government can't know my life well enough to make good decisions for me. That's true of economic decisions, medical decisions, etc. Obama is about as close to Marxism as you can get without actually being there. If the US system didn't have the checks and balances it does (which it's rapidly losing, by the way), we actually would have Marxism in the US. And the fact is, Carl Menger, Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek (important names in the Austrian school of economics) have quite thoroughly trounced Marx's economics. The labor theory of value just doesn't hold up. Consider a gentleman who wants to sell pins for sewing. So he goes to the mine, mines iron ore, smelts it in a Bessemer converter, and then smiths the result into sewing pins. His labor and the cost of production dictates that he sell his pins at $\$10,000$ per pin. Next door, his competitor, taking advantage of the division of labor, is selling pins for $\$2$ per $100$ pins. Is our bold entrepenuer going to sell any pins? Obviously not. Evidently, the labor theory of value is false. As that is a foundational tenant of Marxism, I would tend not to trust the rest of it.

Instead, the best theory of value that I've ever seen is that people assign value to goods and services. Something is valuable because people think it is. That's why a trade is not a zero-sum game. Joe and Mark are contemplating a trade: Joe will paint Mark's house for $\$500$. They consider the deal, and eventually they strike said deal. Who's poorer? Well, neither, actually, because if Joe didn't think that $\$500$ was worth more than the amount of time it would take him to paint the house, he wouldn't paint the house! And if Mark thought that having his house painted wasn't worth $\$500$, he wouldn't give that money to Joe in exchange for painting the house. So what happens in a (free!) trade, where everybody knows exactly what they're getting (and that's important - there need to be laws about that), both parties gain. And that's because people assign value to goods and services.

There are other issues, even more controversial than economics, in which I disagree with Obama (I basically disagree with the way the man breathes.) But I figured economics was controversial enough to post here.
Haha your talking (and especially its length) reminds me so much of TPH :D
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
Maybe it's a bad idea to bump this thread but I can't help myself. With Romney being chosen as the Republican candidate and him picking Paul Ryan as VP candidate there is a lot more info than we had in February to go on. I think Romney made a good decision in picking Ryan as he's young and a good speaker but still think Obama will win.
 

CaptainBlack

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
890
I'm not voting for him. I didn't vote for him before, either. The reason is that the Obama philosophy of governmental solution of all problems just can't work. The government can't know my life well enough to make good decisions for me. ...
Government is not there to make good decisions for you but to make good decisions for the common good. What is good for you is not identical with what is good for the health and prosperity of the country.

CB
 

pickslides

Member
Feb 1, 2012
57
Something is valuable because people think it is
So i'm hearing that if Obama can make people believe he's valuable, he'll be re-elected?

I'm not sure how it works in the states but in Australia we don't vote a new candidate in, we vote the old one out once we have grown tired of them.
 

CaptainBlack

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
890
Instead, the best theory of value that I've ever seen is that people assign value to goods and services. Something is valuable because people think it is. That's why a trade is not a zero-sum game. Joe and Mark are contemplating a trade: Joe will paint Mark's house for $\$500$. They consider the deal, and eventually they strike said deal. Who's poorer? Well, neither, actually, because if Joe didn't think that $\$500$ was worth more than the amount of time it would take him to paint the house, he wouldn't paint the house! And if Mark thought that having his house painted wasn't worth $\$500$, he wouldn't give that money to Joe in exchange for painting the house. So what happens in a (free!) trade, where everybody knows exactly what they're getting (and that's important - there need to be laws about that), both parties gain. And that's because people assign value to goods and services.
But we don't live in a world with just two people, what we actually have is a small number of Marks and a large number of Joes. In a completely unregulated market the Joes are in competition with one another for a limited supply of house painting jobs. Well we know the theoretical result for such a toy problem, the Joe that bids the lowest gets the job at a price as close to zero as makes no difference. The only people satisfied are the Marks.

You might like a world in which the advantaged get everything they want for next to nothing and the disadvantaged get that next to nothing in exchange, but that is not a world in which I would like to live. It is also why workers form unions, to equalise the negotiating power between employers and the employed, it is also why governments feel the need for a minimum wage. It is also why in a functioning democracy the government intervenes to provide means of guaranteeing that nobody starves, and nobody goes without essential health care (democracy gives the disadvantaged a voice in how wealth is distributed, and the influence of the disadvantaged is a reason why the government has an interest in an educated electorate ... ).

CB
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
I don't think Ackbach was arguing for all of that to be fair. His example doesn't exist in a vacuum and I believe the the idea is that all goods and services will hit some kind of equilibrium between supply and demand. I'm smart enough to know I don't get economics but still his example doesn't have the extreme implications about two polar opposite classes forming as a result as I see it. If Joe's compete with each other then things seem to work out ok but there are many cases where one or two Joe's run a niche or Joe's just don't truly compete.

The lowest price doesn't always win out. Quality for your money should win out. For example, which researching new hosts for MHB I went on a site with loads of offers and skimmed through various reviews. The ones that are the absolute cheapest don't have the same quality of tech support that I wanted so I skipped over them.

From all observation of politics in the US I believe that people vote as to what best serves them. If someone is educated, has a high-paying job and a stable lifestyle then they will most likely vote for less taxes, monetary obligation and entitlement programs he or she doesn't qualify for, and someone born into less fortunate circumstances naturally would desire the opposite. It's understandable that people vote in their best interest, or perceived best interest.
 

SuperSonic4

Well-known member
MHB Math Helper
Mar 1, 2012
249
I can see Obama getting re-elected because Romney is such a twonk and together with the UK still persist in the most unrepresentative form of democracy.
There are six or so swing states IIRC, the rest don't matter to politicians because they're either going to be elected or they won't be. You could probably put a monkey wearing a red rosette up for election in Alabama and he'd win.
 

SuperSonic4

Well-known member
MHB Math Helper
Mar 1, 2012
249
Maybe it's a bad idea to bump this thread but I can't help myself. With Romney being chosen as the Republican candidate and him picking Paul Ryan as VP candidate there is a lot more info than we had in February to go on. I think Romney made a good decision in picking Ryan as he's young and a good speaker but still think Obama will win.
I find him to be very out of touch with reality from what I've read - he wants to give tax cuts to the rich when more of the electorate seem to be demanding they pay more. I'm not saying either is right or wrong but I get the feeling Ryan was picked to take the blame in case of defeat and to appease the religious right especially after Romney's gaffes abroad.

Speaking of the religious right the Republican Party have been very clever to hijack religious themes to further their campaign and typical fear-inducing campaigns (immigration being one). It's amazing how they manage to get the poor to vote against welfare, medical care and other initiatives designed to reduce the financial burden on them.
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
I find him to be very out of touch with reality from what I've read - he wants to give tax cuts to the rich when more of the electorate seem to be demanding they pay more. I'm not saying either is right or wrong but I get the feeling Ryan was picked to take the blame in case of defeat and to appease the religious right especially after Romney's gaffes abroad.

Speaking of the religious right the Republican Party have been very clever to hijack religious themes to further their campaign and typical fear-inducing campaigns (immigration being one). It's amazing how they manage to get the poor to vote against welfare, medical care and other initiatives designed to reduce the financial burden on them.
I don't think parties really "stand" for anything here. It's a numbers game. Certain voters want an outspoken Christian talking about the moral degradation of the country, certain ones want to have gay marriage legalized, drugs legalized, abortion made illegal, etc. The candidates go for their niche issues and the issues that sway the election seem so ridiculous to me. So you're completely right it's a very smart strategy to get a certain demographic to vote against policies that would potentially help them.

For what it's worth I don't like Romney and I certainly don't like Obama. They both talk a big game and act differently but when it comes to what the president can actually do and what they will really do in office I don't see much difference.

EDIT: Of course it's not ridiculous to say a person believes in x,y and z and looks for a candidate that closest aligns with those beliefs. What I meant is it appears as one hot issue can sway a person's vote more than 10 other issues, which is strange in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Chris L T521

Well-known member
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
995
For what it's worth I don't like Romney and I certainly don't like Obama. They both talk a big game and act differently but when it comes to what the president can actually do and what they will really do in office I don't see much difference.

EDIT: Of course it's not ridiculous to say a person believes in x,y and z and looks for a candidate that closest aligns with those beliefs. What I meant is it appears as one hot issue can sway a person's vote more than 10 other issues, which is strange in my opinion.
Indeed. I voted for Obama in 2008; at that time, there was no way in hell that I wanted to have McCain as president since it would be like Bush 2.0 (another reason was because he made the worst mistake ever and selected Palin to be his VP) and I was ready for something new. However, that something new turned out to be completely different from what I was expecting and he disappointed me a lot. Sure, Romney may not be Bush 2.0 and he might have some good things about him, but I don't like him at all - he gives me that elitist vibe and I don't want that type of person as a president. Since I don't like either candidate, I wasn't originally sure what I was going to do this November. I did find out something interesting: In California, we can have Ron Paul as a write in and if at least 55 people pledge to vote for him, the votes will count (read this for more info). I mean...I really want to vote but I don't want to vote for either candidate...so I'm going to go along with this plan for now; at least this way, I'll feel good about voting for someone that should be president of this country but wasn't given his "fair" chance.
 

kanderson

Member
Jul 7, 2012
13
I dont really pay attention to politics, it just seems childish lol.
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
I dont really pay attention to politics, it just seems childish lol.
You're in 10th grade ;) You are still a child. The game that politics has become in the US is certainly ridiculous but the idea of politics is not childish at all. Unfortunately as the election is around the corner TV ads are going to be everywhere and be very nasty until November.