The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[CaneBrain 97]

500,000 is a lot of tickets. Maybe next time.

Let the inflation of how many people were there begin!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

lmao. Those comparison pictures BG posted were ****ing hilarious.

[SweetDee 0]

Nothing. This is my point. People one both sides are making some sort of big deal about this, and yet nothing of interest was said other than Glen Beck trying to turn himself into a figurehead. This has been my point the whole time. It would have at least been interesting if anything of value was said one way or another. Had Beck gone on one of his usual tirades, it would have at least entertained me a bit.I'm not sure why real conservatives aren't more concerned about the fact that Beck is quickly becoming the head of the right wing in this country. I'd be afraid if my issues were taken over by a wacko like Beck.

Because he's not becoming the head of the right wing?That's the picture that will be painted, though.

[SweetDee 0]

Let the inflation of how many people were there begin!

Let the underestimating of said number begin!!

[hblask 1]

I'm not sure why real conservatives aren't more concerned about the fact that Beck is quickly becoming the head of the right wing in this country. I'd be afraid if my issues were taken over by a wacko like Beck.

I think real conservatives are more worried about Palin than Beck. Palin is actually polling well.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I think real conservatives are more worried about Palin than Beck. Palin is actually polling well.

Well, Beck isn't actually running for anything, but to many people, when they think of Tea Party, they'll think of his chubby face. Which is too bad, because I can get behind a lot of ideas from the theoretical tea party. But the actual "Tea Party" that consists of Beck followers is just embarrassing.

[CaneBrain 97]

Let the underestimating of said number begin!!

CBS hired a respected scientific company to get an estimate and they came up with 96,000---105,000.Of course, those scientists are probably agents of the devil here to test our faith in Glenn Beck.

[CaneBrain 97]

I think real conservatives are more worried about Palin than Beck. Palin is actually polling well.

not in any general election scenario. Or with fascinating first amendment theories like it's ok to say ni--er if you are Dr. Laura but not ok to say retard unless you are Rush Limbaugh. Also, a million other things.Her speaking contracts are full of sick perks though. She knows what she is doing. A token presidential campaign will just lead to more commercial opportunities.

[SweetDee 0]

CBS hired a respected scientific company to get an estimate and they came up with 96,000---105,000.Of course, those scientists are probably agents of the devil here to test our faith in Glenn Beck.

Fairly certain that Beck has probably already thought of this and has plenty of shots from the air to back up his numbers instead of random scientists. Just a matter of releasing them- this is pretty much par for the course, this is what happens anytime tea party conservatives are involved. It's fear- shit, they can't even get people to think Obama is not a Muslim for ****s sake. They are losing the fight and it scares the piss out of them. So, discredit, call him fat, say he is full of hot air, say he is a wacko, say Rush is fat and a wacko, say Hannity is full of hot air and buzzwords, say Palin is retarded and just out for the money, say anything, just don't talk about the fact that each week the numbers get worse and Obama looks more and more like an absolute failure.

[SweetDee 0]

I think real conservatives are more worried about Palin than Beck. Palin is actually polling well.

I don't know any real conservatives that lose any sleep over this. Not going to be hard for her to run for Pres, point at Obamas record and say "Shit, I could have done that." Does she have to run on her own merits or can she just run as not Obama? Keep it more real and can she find a way to run as not a black man and tap into all that supposed racist sentiment? It will be interesting to see.

[CaneBrain 97]

Fairly certain that Beck has probably already thought of this and has plenty of shots from the air to back up his numbers instead of random scientists. Just a matter of releasing them- this is pretty much par for the course, this is what happens anytime tea party conservatives are involved. It's fear- shit, they can't even get people to think Obama is not a Muslim for ****s sake. They are losing the fight and it scares the piss out of them. So, discredit, call him fat, say he is full of hot air, say he is a wacko, say Rush is fat and a wacko, say Hannity is full of hot air and buzzwords, say Palin is retarded and just out for the money, say anything, just don't talk about the fact that each week the numbers get worse and Obama looks more and more like an absolute failure.

The "random" scientists used shots from the air to calculate their numbers. Fairly certain, a company that specializes in this stuff will have thought of more than Glenn Beck.Thank you for beautifully illustrating the marriage of distrusting sciencey-liberals and a wild, persecution complex that is the tea party.It's easy to deflect criticism when you have convinced yourselves any detractors are out to get you for X,Y and Z reasons.Nobody is worried about anything; the 2nd conservatives get back in any sort of power they won't get to rely on negativity anymore and the pendulum will swing.Oh, and the reason they can't get anyone to believe he is not a Muslim is because stupid people will believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. It's this same lack of critical thinking that has lead to a conclusion that Palin being out for the money and Hannity being full of hot air, and glenn Beck being a wacko AND Obama's numbers are getting worse can't all be true. They are not mutually exclusive and in my opinion they are all true.

[85suited 0]

CBS hired a respected scientific company to get an estimate and they came up with 96,000---105,000.Of course, those scientists are probably agents of the devil here to test our faith in Glenn Beck.

according to the NY TIMES - NBC News estimated the turnout at 300,000http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/politics/29beck.htmlPlease keep underestimating the conservative movement that obama has awoken

[CaneBrain 97]

according to the NY TIMES - NBC News estimated the turnout at 300,000http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/politics/29beck.html

I have seen everywhere from 100,000 to 1 million (Michelle Bachman lol). It's a useless endeavor as I am sure people were drifting in and out all day. I know a handful of liberals who just went to see the show. It doesn't really matter; the Times made the salient point-----a lot of people went whatever the number was. Beck is very popular, yahweh help us all.I don't underestimate the size of the conservative movement just their intelligence. As far as I can tell, Beck and Palin are selling the idea that the left and the media are out to either get you or confuse you while Obama destroys America and the only way to navigate through the morass is to listen to THEM. How convenient.The tea party is slowly turning into the conspiracy theory souffle. Obama was not born in Hawaii; he's a secret Muslim, the media is out to get you and Palin. Paging Mel Gibson!

[strategy 4]

I don't know any real conservatives that lose any sleep over this. Not going to be hard for her to run for Pres, point at Obamas record and say "Shit, I could have done that." Does she have to run on her own merits or can she just run as not Obama? Keep it more real and can she find a way to run as not a black man and tap into all that supposed racist sentiment? It will be interesting to see.

man, what did I just read?

[SuitedAces21 2,741]

man, what did I just read?

incoherent ramblings of a racist?

[FCP Bob 1,323]

man, what did I just read?

incoherent ramblings of a racist?

I don't see what he said as racist.Whoever runs against Obama has the built in vote of those Americans who'll never vote for a Black Man, it's not a small percentage and pointing that out isn't racist. Just like there's a percentage of Black Americans who will always vote for a Black candidate over a White one.

[CaneBrain 97]

I don't see what he said as racist.Whoever runs against Obama has the built in vote of those Americans who'll never vote for a Black Man, it's not a small percentage and pointing that out isn't racist. Just like there's a percentage of Black Americans who will always vote for a Black candidate over a White one.

Yeah but there may have been some leveling as I think that SweetDee thinks that the racism elements of the Tea Party are overblown (HBlask would agree). I think it is probably overblown too and, if anything, the name Hussein dogs Obama much more than his skin color. Hating black people is so retro; hating Muslims is way more en vogue.

[strategy 4]

I think the economy is basically obama's biggest problem. if we haven't recovered a few million jobs by mid-2012, it doesn't really matter what kind of campaign he runs or who the republicans nominate, he'll lose in a landslide. it's sad, because I'd have liked to see his politicking during "normal" times.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I think the economy is basically obama's biggest problem. if we haven't recovered a few million jobs by mid-2012, it doesn't really matter what kind of campaign he runs or who the republicans nominate, he'll lose in a landslide. it's sad, because I'd have liked to see his politicking during "normal" times.

Agreed. As usual, people will vote based on the economy. If it's doing well, sitting presidents get reelected. If it's doing poorly, they're voted out. He's going to have to hope that the economy is at least looking promising to have a chance in 2012. If the economy were as it is today, he would lost. I'd say the key time is one year from now, when election fever starts to kick in. If by the end of 2011, before the campaign year, the economy isn't clearly heading in the right direction and joblessness is going down steadily (if only slowly), then he'll have a huge mountain to climb. It's funny that the thing he has very little control over, the economy, is the thing that most drives his chances for reelection. The thing he has most control over (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) won't be nearly as big of an issue in 2012. People are just sick of talking or hearing about them. The things that he has some control over (legislation, like health care, stimulus, financial bill, and the non-existant energy bill) will play a role, but won't be nearly as important as the state of the economy.Democrats will lose in the fall because of the economy (I mean, they'll lose seats, they'll still have the Senate and probably the house). Congress has only helped the economy with the stimulus and the financial bill (if you say these hurt today's economy, you're wrong), but they'll still receive the blame.

[brvheart 1,768]

CBS hired a respected scientific company to get an estimate and they came up with 96,000---105,000.Of course, those scientists are probably agents of the devil here to test our faith in Glenn Beck.

Incorrect. CBS hired someone to give an estimate based on looking at crowd photos, and as you can see below, they might not want to quit their day jobs, with that 80,000 estimate.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/polit...t=cse&scp=4The New York Times put the number at 300,000+I don't think crowd estimates at a talking-head rally matter at all. The only thing that matters is the ouster of liberals in November...and it's inevitable.

[strategy 4]

It's funny that the thing he has very little control over, the economy, is the thing that most drives his chances for reelection.

the fact that we so blindly vote with the economy bodes terribly for us. the incumbent is motivated to use the short-term tools (like stimulus or tax cuts without spending reduction) to juice economic performance going into an election year. this can be catastrophically damaging if overused.my views on this are close to tyler cowen's from this podcast. he also uses the word "politicking" so he won even more points there.the great stimulus experimentI swear I'm not getting a referral bonus or anything from these guys, I just love how fair, honest, and accurate it is.EDIT: partial transcript! he goes deeper into what types of stimulus he finds acceptable in the podcast.Dr. TYLER COWEN (Economics, George Mason University): If we spend $700 billion and the economy recovers within a year, a year and a half, I would take that as serious evidence that my view is wrong. I don't think it will happen, but I would take it seriously.KESTENBAUM: That is rare for someone to say: Maybe I'm wrong. Call me back in a year and a half.BLUMBERG: It's been a year and a half, so we called him back, and...KESTENBAUM: Tyler Cowen does not think he was wrong.Dr. COWEN: If you just look at the actual outcome, I would say what we did didn't work.KESTENBAUM: The economy has been growing for about a year, but unemployment is still high and Cowen thinks the economy might be turning down again, a double dip recession.Dr. COWEN: Stimulus, for sure, it works in the short run. The thing is, what happens when you pull the stimulus away? If you simply slide back to where you were, all you've done is postpone that process of adjustment. And I think that's what we're seeing. So I view it as a kind of short-term fix that gave us some stabilizing properties but didn't really turn the economy around.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Dr. COWEN: Stimulus, for sure, it works in the short run. The thing is, what happens when you pull the stimulus away? If you simply slide back to where you were, all you've done is postpone that process of adjustment. And I think that's what we're seeing. So I view it as a kind of short-term fix that gave us some stabilizing properties but didn't really turn the economy around.

The Stimulus served to raise the troth of the financial crisis. The "bottom" would have been much farther down than it was with the stimulus.I disagree with his theory about an "adjustment" period. I mean, it's not as if there weren't enough people unemployed throughout the crisis for such an adjustment to take place. If the stimulus served to temporarily gives jobs to EVERYBODY who was unemployed, or at least a large fraction of them, then I would understand his point. But, stimulus or not, lots of people are out of work; if we didn't adjust over the last year, having or not having the stimulus wouldn't make a difference. Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure, energy, medical and physical research, and things like that which came directly from the stimulus. Not to mention the teachers jobs that were saved, which count more than normal jobs (because losing education years has a multiplier effect). But the discussion sounds interesting; I'll listen or read it if I have any time today (which I won't).

[brvheart 1,768]

The Stimulus served to raise the troth of the financial crisis. The "bottom" would have been much farther down than it was with the stimulus.I disagree with his theory about an "adjustment" period. I mean, it's not as if there weren't enough people unemployed throughout the crisis for such an adjustment to take place. If the stimulus served to temporarily gives jobs to EVERYBODY who was unemployed, or at least a large fraction of them, then I would understand his point. But, stimulus or not, lots of people are out of work; if we didn't adjust over the last year, having or not having the stimulus wouldn't make a difference. Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure, energy, medical and physical research, and things like that which came directly from the stimulus. Not to mention the teachers jobs that were saved, which count more than normal jobs (because losing education years has a multiplier effect). But the discussion sounds interesting; I'll listen or read it if I have any time today (which I won't).

Why should we believe you over a professor of Economics?

[strategy 4]

The Stimulus served to raise the troth of the financial crisis. The "bottom" would have been much farther down than it was with the stimulus.I disagree with his theory about an "adjustment" period. I mean, it's not as if there weren't enough people unemployed throughout the crisis for such an adjustment to take place. If the stimulus served to temporarily gives jobs to EVERYBODY who was unemployed, or at least a large fraction of them, then I would understand his point. But, stimulus or not, lots of people are out of work; if we didn't adjust over the last year, having or not having the stimulus wouldn't make a difference. Also, one should not discount the actual benefits of the stimulus (not just in terms of jobs, but what those jobs did). There were actual advances in infrastructure, energy, medical and physical research, and things like that which came directly from the stimulus. Not to mention the teachers jobs that were saved, which count more than normal jobs (because losing education years has a multiplier effect). But the discussion sounds interesting; I'll listen or read it if I have any time today (which I won't).

he is not necessarily disagreeing with the idea that the "bottom" would have been deeper without the stimulus.when he says: "So I view it as a kind of short-term fix that gave us some stabilizing properties but didn't really turn the economy around."your "bottom" comment is what he is getting at. and I think pretty much everyone with any sense of economics can agree with that statement. also, he agrees with you on the teachers! really, listen to the whole thing.to me, stimulus is an attempt to trade some productivity in good times for less pain in bad times. a good comparison I saw in a lecture some time ago: long-term unemployment charts, UK vs. france. france has really tough laws regarding how an employee can be fired and what benefits must be paid upon termination, so their long-term unemployment rate is higher. the trade-off is that unemployment swings there are much more mild.

Why should we believe you over a professor of Economics?

rude.

[akoff 0]

Incorrect. CBS hired someone to give an estimate based on looking at crowd photos, and as you can see below, they might not want to quit their day jobs, with that 80,000 estimate.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/polit...t=cse&scp=4The New York Times put the number at 300,000+I don't think crowd estimates at a talking-head rally matter at all. The only thing that matters is the ouster of liberals in November...and it's inevitable.

I hope so, the poor and working people including many on here really need it badly, they just don't know it.