FREE TAPATALK APP

Skeptic · 7th February 2010, 09:57 PM

I will bet significant amount of money on it. The reason? Reversal to mean. Just like people are inevitably disappointed at him not doing last year (2009) as well politically as he did in the best political year of his life (2008), he will probably do much better this year (2010) compared to the disappointing last year (2009).

People are giving tons of explanations about the "real reasons" for Obama's success and his decline. In reality it's very likely -- if not certain -- that both are mere random fluctuations around the mean. Obama being the first celebrity president, the fluctuations are rather more violent than usual; but still, it's random fluctuations.

I say "very likely" because the problem with Obama is that, with his lack of track record, it's very hard to tell what his mean really is -- whether he is "in reality", stripped from the random fluctuations, actually good or bad. But presuming he isn't in reality a total incompetent, then his next year will probably be better than this.

bpesta22 · 7th February 2010, 10:21 PM

I agree we don't really know what his mean is so it's hard to make predictions about where he might regress.

Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. He might have had a great year last year, compared with what McCain and Palin would have done. Fortunately, we'll never know.

Skeptic · 7th February 2010, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. He might have had a great year last year, compared with what McCain and Palin would have done. Fortunately, we'll never know.

But why did Americans vote for someone with no track record like that?

NoZed Avenger · 8th February 2010, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens.

This. Especially in the economics realm.

McHrozni · 8th February 2010, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I will bet significant amount of money on it. The reason? Reversal to mean. Just like people are inevitably disappointed at him not doing last year (2009) as well politically as he did in the best political year of his life (2008), he will probably do much better this year (2010) compared to the disappointing last year (2009).

People are giving tons of explanations about the "real reasons" for Obama's success and his decline. In reality it's very likely -- if not certain -- that both are mere random fluctuations around the mean. Obama being the first celebrity president, the fluctuations are rather more violent than usual; but still, it's random fluctuations.

I say "very likely" because the problem with Obama is that, with his lack of track record, it's very hard to tell what his mean really is -- whether he is "in reality", stripped from the random fluctuations, actually good or bad. But presuming he isn't in reality a total incompetent, then his next year will probably be better than this.

Human behavior is hardly a random fluctuation, it's rather deliberate.
The main reason Obama did poorly in the polls is that he acted to the exact opposite of his platform on almost all points - wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, deficit, bipartisanship, lobbyists, and more.
That will be hard to reverse. However, it is also highly unlikely he could do any worse.

IF he makes some major reversals, he did the smart thing - use up his political capital to do what had to be done, then get on with it to clean up the mess, like deficit certainly is. If the doesn't, he's just another professional politician. More of the same we can believe in!

McHrozni

willhaven · 8th February 2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Obama being the first celebrity president...

That's debatable. Some would say it was JFK and Nixon having televised debates that kicked off the era of having fashionable presidents.

Howie Felterbush · 8th February 2010, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I agree we don't really know what his mean is so it's hard to make predictions about where he might regress.

Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. He might have had a great year last year, compared with what McCain and Palin would have done. Fortunately, we'll never know.

I think the reason people credit/blame the president when things happen is because during the whole campaign process they keep promising to make things happen.

Skeptic · 8th February 2010, 10:36 AM

Yes, but JFK and Nixon both had a record that could be compared. Obama, apart from his stint in Congress, had -- previous to his POTUS job -- been mostly famous for being famous. Even as a law student, he had "groupies".

Skeptic · 8th February 2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Human behavior is hardly a random fluctuation, it's rather deliberate.
The main reason Obama did poorly in the polls is that he acted to the exact opposite of his platform on almost all points - wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, deficit, bipartisanship, lobbyists, and more.
That will be hard to reverse. However, it is also highly unlikely he could do any worse.

Well, what did you expect? When you elect someone with no significant record for the job on a "hope'n'change" platform that means nothing, you can expect a first-year disaster.

You know, just like the dumb knuckle-draggers predicted a year ago, while the sophisticated and intelligent people didn't want to hear about it, being too busy hero-worshiping The One in a way that make teeny boppers look rational.

The question is, as I said, will he learn? I think he would, and in any case reversal to mean teaches us things tend to get better after such a crash, if only because the lower you go, the less likely it is for you to get even worse.

My worry is that he will not learn, and join the long line of "sophisticated" and "brilliant" politicians the "right-thinking progressives" all worship as the next big thing -- only to lose the election in an embarrassing way or, if elected, to be mediocre-to-horrible presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry, etc.

The one exception I can think of is Clinton -- and he learned quickly, becoming a far more right-wing president than his supporters wanted him to be. If Obama learns the same way, he might well be a second Clinton. If not, he will end up like Carter.

Upchurch · 8th February 2010, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Obama being the first celebrity president

You sure about that?
As someone else quoted recently:

Quote:

Dr. Emmett Brown: Then tell me, "Future Boy", who's President in the United States in 1985?
Marty McFly: Ronald Reagan.
Dr. Emmett Brown: Ronald Reagan? The actor?

Just sayin'.

Look, no one comes into this job as an experienced President*. Obama's predecessor actually had even less experience in politics than Obama did.

You may be surprised to learn that Obama's campaign had quite a bit more to it than just "hope'n'change". He apparently just didn't do enough to publicize it, like putting it on his campaign website ...and in his campaign speeches ...and in press releases ...and in downloadable PDFs ...and talking about it during debates. As I said during the campaign, if you don't know what Obama's campaign is about, you've been deliberately avoiding finding out.

Obama's problems today are roughly equal parts crap he was handed and stuff he's failed to follow through on. The former isn't his fault and the latter is.

In general, though, I think you are being disingenuous and basically just parroting conservative talking points.

* except Grover Cleveland. ...freak

Dumb All Over · 8th February 2010, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I will bet significant amount of money on it.

Given how awful his first year was, this is easy money. I mean, how much worse can it get?

Ziggurat · 8th February 2010, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

People are giving tons of explanations about the "real reasons" for Obama's success and his decline. In reality it's very likely -- if not certain -- that both are mere random fluctuations around the mean.

No. His failures aren't random, and they are not acausal. They are systematic, and they have root causes. For the most part, the reasons for those failures remain. So then will the failures. Will 2010 be better than 2009? Quite possibly. But that's setting a pretty low bar, isn't it? Hell, given ANY level of random fluctuations, even if it only accounts for 1% of the results, there's still a 50% chance that 2010 will be better for him than 2009, assuming no other changes. Add in a bit of learning on the job, and yeah, 2010 will likely be better. But that would still be no indication that his poor performance to date is a random result.

TriskettheKid · 8th February 2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Given how awful his first year was, this is easy money. I mean, how much worse can it get?

Much worse, if more and more people resort to obstruction instead of good-faith debate and compromise.

For **** sake, an appointment was held up in the Senate for months because a certain Senator wanted an earmark for a federal building in his state.

McHrozni · 8th February 2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Well, what did you expect? When you elect someone with no significant record for the job on a "hope'n'change" platform that means nothing, you can expect a first-year disaster.

It's pretty much what I expected, really, only somewhat more brutal. I honestly expected some change from him.

Quote:

The one exception I can think of is Clinton -- and he learned quickly, becoming a far more right-wing president than his supporters wanted him to be. If Obama learns the same way, he might well be a second Clinton. If not, he will end up like Carter.

Interesting prediction. I guess we'll see within two years or so.

McHrozni

Dumb All Over · 8th February 2010, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Much worse, if more and more people resort to obstruction instead of good-faith debate and compromise.

Forgive me for not being clear. I was talking about the President, not other people. How much worse can this president get?

TriskettheKid · 8th February 2010, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Forgive me for not being clear. I was talking about the President, not other people. How much worse can this president get?

Considering the 200+ years of presidential history we have to go on, he could do much, much, much worse.

Off the top of my head, he could let the Union fall apart (Buchanan), oversee criminal acts (Nixon), sit still and allow a recession to turn into a major depression (Hoover), fund the Contras (Reagan), or have his administration get caught up in a major bribery scandal (Harding).

In short, it could be much worse.

Dumb All Over · 8th February 2010, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

In short, it could be much worse.

Well, I guess you're right. It could be much worse. His first year was so bad; if the next one is worse then we're going to be in deep doo doo.

Sporanox · 8th February 2010, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You sure about that?
As someone else quoted recently:

Just sayin'.

Look, no one comes into this job as an experienced President*. Obama's predecessor actually had even less experience in politics than Obama did.

You may be surprised to learn that Obama's campaign had quite a bit more to it than just "hope'n'change". He apparently just didn't do enough to publicize it, like putting it on his campaign website ...and in his campaign speeches ...and in press releases ...and in downloadable PDFs ...and talking about it during debates. As I said during the campaign, if you don't know what Obama's campaign is about, you've been deliberately avoiding finding out.

I disagree. Reagan had a quantifiable leg up on Obama's resume when he took the job. And comparing him to Bush just highlights one of the most important lessons we can take away from the past year...executive types are better for the executive branch than academics.

Originally Posted by UpChurch

Obama's problems today are roughly equal parts crap he was handed and stuff he's failed to follow through on. The former isn't his fault and the latter is.

Oh yes, he definitely inherited one heck of an economic fallout, but his flawed Keynesian applications and the enormous resulting deficit are his to own.

TriskettheKid · 8th February 2010, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Well, I guess you're right. It could be much worse. His first year was so bad; if the next one is worse then we're going to be in deep doo doo.

So bad?

Not comparatively at all.

No major scandals, no major events, no monumental failures of the office.

Fairly middle of the road, I'd say.

KoihimeNakamura · 8th February 2010, 01:08 PM

1) Bush didn't do that well in office. I wouldn't say he did bad either. (Well, I think he did a few things wrong, but!)

2) Uhm. The deficit is an excellent thing to blame him for, but if you haven't noticed, we ARE in a recession.

Sporanox · 8th February 2010, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Rika

1) Bush didn't do that well in office. I wouldn't say he did bad either. (Well, I think he did a few things wrong, but!)

2) Uhm. The deficit is an excellent thing to blame him for, but if you haven't noticed, we ARE in a recession.

A recession is not a ticket to spend willy-nilly according to the mistaken belief that anything under the "stimulus" column is justified. Therein lies one of Obama's biggest problems.

GreyICE · 8th February 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

So bad?

Not comparatively at all.

No major scandals, no major events, no monumental failures of the office.

Fairly middle of the road, I'd say.

Well, yeah. He did nothing. This has been the most do-nothing year for congress and the president in a long, long time, and the Democrats are directly responsible.

So, to answer the OP, he better.

MikeMangum · 8th February 2010, 01:37 PM

"Obama's going to do much better this year. "

Better than what? For some reason, I'm hearing the theme song to Mad TV's "Lowered Expectations".

Peephole · 8th February 2010, 01:38 PM

If Democrats did nothing, why are Republicans and Teabaggers whining so much?

applecorped · 8th February 2010, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

If Democrats did nothing, that's why ~~are~~ Republicans and Teabaggers are whinning so much?

Ziggurat · 8th February 2010, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

If Democrats did nothing, why are Republicans and Teabaggers whining so much?

Who said they did nothing? They accomplished very little, but that's not the same thing. In particular they spent lots and lots of taxpayer money. But I suppose you've got a point: it's irrational for taxpayers to get upset about so much of their money being spent to so little effect.

Peephole · 8th February 2010, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who said they did nothing?

GreyICE, a couple of posts before you.

Pay better attention.

GreyICE · 8th February 2010, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

If Democrats did nothing, why are Republicans and Teabaggers whining so much?

I have no goddamn idea. My theory is that they're insane, and that theory appears to be borne out by certain pieces of evidence they've submitted.

But really, when all is said and done, they should be on their knees thanking whatever mystical sky critter they believe in, since with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, the Democrats did squat.

Ziggurat · 8th February 2010, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

GreyICE, a couple of posts before you.

And is GreyICE's opinion representative of how Republicans or Tea Party activists feel about the Democrats? Or are you assigning the rationale for one set of complaints (GreyICE's) to a completely different set of complaints (Republicans and Tea Partiers)?

Quote:

Pay better attention.

My question was not simply rhetorical. Your answer reveals that your previous post was not, in fact, well thought out. Pay better attention indeed.

Sporanox · 8th February 2010, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

I have no goddamn idea. My theory is that they're insane, and that theory appears to be borne out by certain pieces of evidence they've submitted.

But really, when all is said and done, they should be on their knees thanking whatever mystical sky critter they believe in, since with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, the Democrats did squat.

We've had to revise our self-set debt limit upwards, and the 10-year projected deficit is over 9 trillion (all in a year). This "nothing" they did was very expensive.

Upchurch · 8th February 2010, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

I disagree. Reagan had a quantifiable leg up on Obama's resume when he took the job. And comparing him to Bush just highlights one of the most important lessons we can take away from the past year...executive types are better for the executive branch than academics.

Those were two separate thoughts. Reagan was in response to Obama being our first celebrity President. The comparison to Bush was in response to the idea that Obama was particularly inexperienced.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

Oh yes, he definitely inherited one heck of an economic fallout, but his flawed Keynesian applications and the enormous resulting deficit are his to own.

That isn't even what I was referring to. We'll have to see how that stuff turns out.

ZARDOZ · 8th February 2010, 02:02 PM

A good read...

Quote:

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

"PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Enjoy!

Sporanox · 8th February 2010, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Those were two separate thoughts. Reagan was in response to Obama being our first celebrity President. The comparison to Bush was in response to the idea that Obama was particularly inexperienced.

You're right. Your conclusion was implied. EDIT: Although "celebrity President" can be meant in more than one sense...

Originally Posted by UpChurch

That isn't even what I was referring to. We'll have to see how that stuff turns out.

Okay, but can you blame me for assuming?

GreyICE · 8th February 2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

We've had to revise our self-set debt limit upwards, and the 10-year projected deficit is over 9 trillion (all in a year). This "nothing" they did was very expensive.

Watch the economy collapse? That was expensive. Other than that, please identify this major change that he implemented. Lets not forget Bush's habit of punting spending from the budget to appropriations either - lets go off what it's actually spending versus instead of a 'budget.'

The CBO actually says it would have been (slightly) more expensive to just continue Bush's policies.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2901

Which isn't too much of a surprise to me, the biggest 'change' Obama has accomplished is to not be Bush, which is an improvement... I just didn't vote on the basis of 'oh, a cardboard cutout is better than Bush' (that was 2004).

I did an analysis of every law the Democrats passed. Lets just say that their biggest accomplishment this year was getting some good credit card reform passed, their second biggest was to identify that smoking is bad, and their third biggest was to warm chairs.

Thunder · 8th February 2010, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by ZARDOZ

A good read...
Enjoy!

what did Bush accomplish in his first year?

not a hell of a a lot.

oh...wait...he took a month long vacation. i forgot.

GreyICE · 8th February 2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

what did Bush accomplish in his first year?

not a hell of a a lot.

oh...wait...he took a month long vacation. i forgot.

The PATRIOT ACT called, it says that those who forget history are doomed to look ridiculous in forum discussions.

Sporanox · 8th February 2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Watch the economy collapse? That was expensive. Other than that, please identify this major change that he implemented. Lets not forget Bush's habit of punting spending from the budget to appropriations either - lets go off what it's actually spending versus instead of a 'budget.'

The CBO actually says it would have been (slightly) more expensive to just continue Bush's policies.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2901

No, the CBO does not say that (the think tank cited in the link does).

In any case, bringing up what a profligate spender Bush was does not exactly make up for 44's similar habits for many reasons - one being that after TARP, who's to say what would have happened in regards to the expiring policies?

The buck stops with Obama.

Upchurch · 8th February 2010, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

You're right. Your conclusion was implied.

Obviously not, or else I wouldn't have needed to clarify.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

EDIT: Although "celebrity President" can be meant in more than one sense...

The most obvious sense is a celebrity (like Reagan) who becomes President. I was never quite sure how "celebrity" applied to Obama, unless as a euphemism for "popular".

Sporanox · 8th February 2010, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The most obvious sense is a celebrity (like Reagan) who becomes President. I was never quite sure how "celebrity" applied to Obama, unless as a euphemism for "popular".

Young voters, the Fairey poster, his appearance in Berlin...all of these things add up.

GreyICE · 8th February 2010, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

No, the CBO does not say that (the think tank cited in the link does).

In any case, bringing up what a profligate spender Bush was does not exactly make up for 44's similar habits for many reasons - one being that after TARP, who's to say what would have happened in regards to the expiring policies?

The buck stops with Obama.

Obama hasn't done that much though. He's talked a lot about policies, but which particular one has cost so much? The bailouts were expensive, but the bailouts were loans, and they're not part of the budget.

If he's responsible for so much spending, certainly it's on something. Otherwise it's just more ineffective business as usual.

And the government seriously passed just 125 bills last year, the vast majority of which were utterly useless.

7th February 2010, 09:57 PM	#1
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Obama's going to do much better this year. I will bet significant amount of money on it. The reason? Reversal to mean. Just like people are inevitably disappointed at him not doing last year (2009) as well politically as he did in the best political year of his life (2008), he will probably do much better this year (2010) compared to the disappointing last year (2009). People are giving tons of explanations about the "real reasons" for Obama's success and his decline. In reality it's very likely -- if not certain -- that both are mere random fluctuations around the mean. Obama being the first celebrity president, the fluctuations are rather more violent than usual; but still, it's random fluctuations. I say "very likely" because the problem with Obama is that, with his lack of track record, it's very hard to tell what his mean really is -- whether he is "in reality", stripped from the random fluctuations, actually good or bad. But presuming he isn't in reality a total incompetent, then his next year will probably be better than this.

7th February 2010, 10:21 PM	#2
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,651	I agree we don't really know what his mean is so it's hard to make predictions about where he might regress. Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. He might have had a great year last year, compared with what McCain and Palin would have done. Fortunately, we'll never know.
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,651	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

8th February 2010, 07:35 AM	#4
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. This. Especially in the economics realm.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

8th February 2010, 09:34 AM	#5
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,666	Originally Posted by Skeptic I will bet significant amount of money on it. The reason? Reversal to mean. Just like people are inevitably disappointed at him not doing last year (2009) as well politically as he did in the best political year of his life (2008), he will probably do much better this year (2010) compared to the disappointing last year (2009). People are giving tons of explanations about the "real reasons" for Obama's success and his decline. In reality it's very likely -- if not certain -- that both are mere random fluctuations around the mean. Obama being the first celebrity president, the fluctuations are rather more violent than usual; but still, it's random fluctuations. I say "very likely" because the problem with Obama is that, with his lack of track record, it's very hard to tell what his mean really is -- whether he is "in reality", stripped from the random fluctuations, actually good or bad. But presuming he isn't in reality a total incompetent, then his next year will probably be better than this. Human behavior is hardly a random fluctuation, it's rather deliberate. The main reason Obama did poorly in the polls is that he acted to the exact opposite of his platform on almost all points - wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, deficit, bipartisanship, lobbyists, and more. That will be hard to reverse. However, it is also highly unlikely he could do any worse. IF he makes some major reversals, he did the smart thing - use up his political capital to do what had to be done, then get on with it to clean up the mess, like deficit certainly is. If the doesn't, he's just another professional politician. More of the same we can believe in! McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,666

8th February 2010, 10:36 AM	#7
Howie Felterbush Bow Tie Daddy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: In the twilight, singing all the old lullabies Posts: 5,333	Originally Posted by bpesta22 I agree we don't really know what his mean is so it's hard to make predictions about where he might regress. Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. He might have had a great year last year, compared with what McCain and Palin would have done. Fortunately, we'll never know. I think the reason people credit/blame the president when things happen is because during the whole campaign process they keep promising to make things happen.
	__________________ "Don't be too offended by the likes of him - I hear he doesn't even own ascots." -JoeyDonuts "I must be more tired than I thought. Howie, you are starting to make sense." -MG1962 "You're a mean old evil cynic. And mean." Halfcentaur

7th February 2010, 10:35 PM	#3
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Also, I think people give far too much credit and blame to the president whenever something happens. He might have had a great year last year, compared with what McCain and Palin would have done. Fortunately, we'll never know. But why did Americans vote for someone with no track record like that?

8th February 2010, 10:33 AM	#6
willhaven Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,004	Originally Posted by Skeptic Obama being the first celebrity president... That's debatable. Some would say it was JFK and Nixon having televised debates that kicked off the era of having fashionable presidents.

8th February 2010, 10:47 AM	#9
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by McHrozni Human behavior is hardly a random fluctuation, it's rather deliberate. The main reason Obama did poorly in the polls is that he acted to the exact opposite of his platform on almost all points - wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, deficit, bipartisanship, lobbyists, and more. That will be hard to reverse. However, it is also highly unlikely he could do any worse. Well, what did you expect? When you elect someone with no significant record for the job on a "hope'n'change" platform that means nothing, you can expect a first-year disaster. You know, just like the dumb knuckle-draggers predicted a year ago, while the sophisticated and intelligent people didn't want to hear about it, being too busy hero-worshiping The One in a way that make teeny boppers look rational. The question is, as I said, will he learn? I think he would, and in any case reversal to mean teaches us things tend to get better after such a crash, if only because the lower you go, the less likely it is for you to get even worse. My worry is that he will not learn, and join the long line of "sophisticated" and "brilliant" politicians the "right-thinking progressives" all worship as the next big thing -- only to lose the election in an embarrassing way or, if elected, to be mediocre-to-horrible presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. The one exception I can think of is Clinton -- and he learned quickly, becoming a far more right-wing president than his supporters wanted him to be. If Obama learns the same way, he might well be a second Clinton. If not, he will end up like Carter.

8th February 2010, 11:20 AM	#10
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Originally Posted by Skeptic Obama being the first celebrity president You sure about that? As someone else quoted recently: Quote: Dr. Emmett Brown: Then tell me, "Future Boy", who's President in the United States in 1985? Marty McFly: Ronald Reagan. Dr. Emmett Brown: Ronald Reagan? The actor? Just sayin'. Look, no one comes into this job as an experienced President. Obama's predecessor actually had even less* experience in politics than Obama did. You may be surprised to learn that Obama's campaign had quite a bit more to it than just "hope'n'change". He apparently just didn't do enough to publicize it, like putting it on his campaign website ...and in his campaign speeches ...and in press releases ...and in downloadable PDFs ...and talking about it during debates. As I said during the campaign, if you don't know what Obama's campaign is about, you've been deliberately avoiding finding out. Obama's problems today are roughly equal parts crap he was handed and stuff he's failed to follow through on. The former isn't his fault and the latter is. In general, though, I think you are being disingenuous and basically just parroting conservative talking points. * except Grover Cleveland. ...freak

8th February 2010, 11:30 AM	#11
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,716	Originally Posted by Skeptic I will bet significant amount of money on it. Given how awful his first year was, this is easy money. I mean, how much worse can it get?
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

8th February 2010, 11:31 AM	#12
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Skeptic People are giving tons of explanations about the "real reasons" for Obama's success and his decline. In reality it's very likely -- if not certain -- that both are mere random fluctuations around the mean. No. His failures aren't random, and they are not acausal. They are systematic, and they have root causes. For the most part, the reasons for those failures remain. So then will the failures. Will 2010 be better than 2009? Quite possibly. But that's setting a pretty low bar, isn't it? Hell, given ANY level of random fluctuations, even if it only accounts for 1% of the results, there's still a 50% chance that 2010 will be better for him than 2009, assuming no other changes. Add in a bit of learning on the job, and yeah, 2010 will likely be better. But that would still be no indication that his poor performance to date is a random result.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th February 2010, 11:35 AM	#13
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,432	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Given how awful his first year was, this is easy money. I mean, how much worse can it get? Much worse, if more and more people resort to obstruction instead of good-faith debate and compromise. For **** sake, an appointment was held up in the Senate for months because a certain Senator wanted an earmark for a federal building in his state.

8th February 2010, 11:36 AM	#14
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,666	Originally Posted by Skeptic Well, what did you expect? When you elect someone with no significant record for the job on a "hope'n'change" platform that means nothing, you can expect a first-year disaster. It's pretty much what I expected, really, only somewhat more brutal. I honestly expected some change from him. Quote: The one exception I can think of is Clinton -- and he learned quickly, becoming a far more right-wing president than his supporters wanted him to be. If Obama learns the same way, he might well be a second Clinton. If not, he will end up like Carter. Interesting prediction. I guess we'll see within two years or so. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,666

8th February 2010, 11:57 AM	#15
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,716	Originally Posted by TriskettheKid Much worse, if more and more people resort to obstruction instead of good-faith debate and compromise. Forgive me for not being clear. I was talking about the President, not other people. How much worse can this president get?
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

8th February 2010, 12:07 PM	#16
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,432	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Forgive me for not being clear. I was talking about the President, not other people. How much worse can this president get? Considering the 200+ years of presidential history we have to go on, he could do much, much, much worse. Off the top of my head, he could let the Union fall apart (Buchanan), oversee criminal acts (Nixon), sit still and allow a recession to turn into a major depression (Hoover), fund the Contras (Reagan), or have his administration get caught up in a major bribery scandal (Harding). In short, it could be much worse.

8th February 2010, 12:26 PM	#17
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,716	Originally Posted by TriskettheKid In short, it could be much worse. Well, I guess you're right. It could be much worse. His first year was so bad; if the next one is worse then we're going to be in deep doo doo.
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

8th February 2010, 12:33 PM	#18
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Upchurch You sure about that? As someone else quoted recently: Just sayin'. Look, no one comes into this job as an experienced President. Obama's predecessor actually had even less* experience in politics than Obama did. You may be surprised to learn that Obama's campaign had quite a bit more to it than just "hope'n'change". He apparently just didn't do enough to publicize it, like putting it on his campaign website ...and in his campaign speeches ...and in press releases ...and in downloadable PDFs ...and talking about it during debates. As I said during the campaign, if you don't know what Obama's campaign is about, you've been deliberately avoiding finding out. I disagree. Reagan had a quantifiable leg up on Obama's resume when he took the job. And comparing him to Bush just highlights one of the most important lessons we can take away from the past year...executive types are better for the executive branch than academics. Originally Posted by UpChurch Obama's problems today are roughly equal parts crap he was handed and stuff he's failed to follow through on. The former isn't his fault and the latter is. Oh yes, he definitely inherited one heck of an economic fallout, but his flawed Keynesian applications and the enormous resulting deficit are his to own.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

8th February 2010, 12:35 PM	#19
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,432	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Well, I guess you're right. It could be much worse. His first year was so bad; if the next one is worse then we're going to be in deep doo doo. So bad? Not comparatively at all. No major scandals, no major events, no monumental failures of the office. Fairly middle of the road, I'd say.

8th February 2010, 01:08 PM	#20
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,928	1) Bush didn't do that well in office. I wouldn't say he did bad either. (Well, I think he did a few things wrong, but!) 2) Uhm. The deficit is an excellent thing to blame him for, but if you haven't noticed, we ARE in a recession.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

8th February 2010, 01:09 PM	#21
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Rika 1) Bush didn't do that well in office. I wouldn't say he did bad either. (Well, I think he did a few things wrong, but!) 2) Uhm. The deficit is an excellent thing to blame him for, but if you haven't noticed, we ARE in a recession. A recession is not a ticket to spend willy-nilly according to the mistaken belief that anything under the "stimulus" column is justified. Therein lies one of Obama's biggest problems.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

8th February 2010, 01:30 PM	#22
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by TriskettheKid So bad? Not comparatively at all. No major scandals, no major events, no monumental failures of the office. Fairly middle of the road, I'd say. Well, yeah. He did nothing. This has been the most do-nothing year for congress and the president in a long, long time, and the Democrats are directly responsible. So, to answer the OP, he better.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

8th February 2010, 01:37 PM	#23
MikeMangum Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,725	"Obama's going to do much better this year. " Better than what? For some reason, I'm hearing the theme song to Mad TV's "Lowered Expectations".

8th February 2010, 01:38 PM	#24
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,246	If Democrats did nothing, why are Republicans and Teabaggers whining so much?
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,246	__________________ 911science

8th February 2010, 01:42 PM	#25
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,844	Originally Posted by Peephole If Democrats did nothing, that's why ~~are~~ Republicans and Teabaggers are whinning so much?
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

8th February 2010, 01:50 PM	#26
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Peephole If Democrats did nothing, why are Republicans and Teabaggers whining so much? Who said they did nothing? They accomplished very little, but that's not the same thing. In particular they spent lots and lots of taxpayer money. But I suppose you've got a point: it's irrational for taxpayers to get upset about so much of their money being spent to so little effect.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th February 2010, 01:51 PM	#27
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,246	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Who said they did nothing? GreyICE, a couple of posts before you. Pay better attention.
Peephole Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,246	__________________ 911science

8th February 2010, 01:52 PM	#28
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by Peephole If Democrats did nothing, why are Republicans and Teabaggers whining so much? I have no goddamn idea. My theory is that they're insane, and that theory appears to be borne out by certain pieces of evidence they've submitted. But really, when all is said and done, they should be on their knees thanking whatever mystical sky critter they believe in, since with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, the Democrats did squat.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

8th February 2010, 01:58 PM	#29
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Peephole GreyICE, a couple of posts before you. And is GreyICE's opinion representative of how Republicans or Tea Party activists feel about the Democrats? Or are you assigning the rationale for one set of complaints (GreyICE's) to a completely different set of complaints (Republicans and Tea Partiers)? Quote: Pay better attention. My question was not simply rhetorical. Your answer reveals that your previous post was not, in fact, well thought out. Pay better attention indeed.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th February 2010, 01:58 PM	#30
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by GreyICE I have no goddamn idea. My theory is that they're insane, and that theory appears to be borne out by certain pieces of evidence they've submitted. But really, when all is said and done, they should be on their knees thanking whatever mystical sky critter they believe in, since with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, the Democrats did squat. We've had to revise our self-set debt limit upwards, and the 10-year projected deficit is over 9 trillion (all in a year). This "nothing" they did was very expensive.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

8th February 2010, 01:59 PM	#31
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Originally Posted by Sporanox I disagree. Reagan had a quantifiable leg up on Obama's resume when he took the job. And comparing him to Bush just highlights one of the most important lessons we can take away from the past year...executive types are better for the executive branch than academics. Those were two separate thoughts. Reagan was in response to Obama being our first celebrity President. The comparison to Bush was in response to the idea that Obama was particularly inexperienced. Originally Posted by Sporanox Oh yes, he definitely inherited one heck of an economic fallout, but his flawed Keynesian applications and the enormous resulting deficit are his to own. That isn't even what I was referring to. We'll have to see how that stuff turns out.

8th February 2010, 02:02 PM	#32
ZARDOZ Scholar Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 117	A good read... Quote: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises "PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ Enjoy!
ZARDOZ Scholar Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 117

8th February 2010, 02:12 PM	#33
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Upchurch Those were two separate thoughts. Reagan was in response to Obama being our first celebrity President. The comparison to Bush was in response to the idea that Obama was particularly inexperienced. You're right. Your conclusion was implied. EDIT: Although "celebrity President" can be meant in more than one sense... Originally Posted by UpChurch That isn't even what I was referring to. We'll have to see how that stuff turns out. Okay, but can you blame me for assuming?
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

8th February 2010, 02:18 PM	#34
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by Sporanox We've had to revise our self-set debt limit upwards, and the 10-year projected deficit is over 9 trillion (all in a year). This "nothing" they did was very expensive. Watch the economy collapse? That was expensive. Other than that, please identify this major change that he implemented. Lets not forget Bush's habit of punting spending from the budget to appropriations either - lets go off what it's actually spending versus instead of a 'budget.' The CBO actually says it would have been (slightly) more expensive to just continue Bush's policies. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2901 Which isn't too much of a surprise to me, the biggest 'change' Obama has accomplished is to not be Bush, which is an improvement... I just didn't vote on the basis of 'oh, a cardboard cutout is better than Bush' (that was 2004). I did an analysis of every law the Democrats passed. Lets just say that their biggest accomplishment this year was getting some good credit card reform passed, their second biggest was to identify that smoking is bad, and their third biggest was to warm chairs.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

8th February 2010, 02:20 PM	#35
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by ZARDOZ A good read... Enjoy! what did Bush accomplish in his first year? not a hell of a a lot. oh...wait...he took a month long vacation. i forgot.

8th February 2010, 02:35 PM	#36
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by parky76 what did Bush accomplish in his first year? not a hell of a a lot. oh...wait...he took a month long vacation. i forgot. The PATRIOT ACT called, it says that those who forget history are doomed to look ridiculous in forum discussions.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173