It's official: With President Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Charlotte Thursday night, both the Republicans and Democrats have formally chosen their nominees for the 2012 presidential election. Let the real race begin.
A lot can change between now and Nov. 6: Gaffes, scandals or even major international news events could shift the dynamics of the campaign.
The latest Gallup Polls show registered voters preferring Obama to Mitt Romney by just one percentage point, 47 percent to 46 percent. A USA Today/Gallup poll taken just before the party conventions found American voters think Obama is more likeable, but trust Romney more to handle the economy.
Pundits have been busy for months handicapping the major-party candidates on various factors: incumbent advantage, fundraising clout, even religion.
Patch wants to know: Regardless of who you support for President, who do you think will actually claim victory in November?
Vote in our poll below, and let us know your thoughts in our comments section.
September 7, 2012, 9:10 pm76 Comments Sept. 7: Polls Find Hints of Obama Convention Bounce By NATE SILVER The three national tracking polls that were published on Friday all moved toward President Obama, probably reflecting momentum from the Democratic convention. In the Gallup national tracking poll, Mr. Obama moved into a three-point lead over Mitt Romney, up from one point on Thursday. What’s a bit more worrisome for Mr. Romney is that Gallup’s reporting of the head-to-head results in its poll occurs over a lengthy seven-day window, meaning that only a minority of the interviews in the poll were conducted after the major speeches at the Democratic convention. In fact, most of the interviews in the poll were conducted just after the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., a period in which Mr. Romney should have been enjoying a convention bounce of his own. Gallup’s approval ratings, however, are published over a three-day window, meaning that they will be quicker to respond to shifts in opinion. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings shot up to 52 percent in the version of poll published on Friday, while his disapproval ratings declined to 43 percent. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model does not use approval ratings directly, but this is a sign that there could be more good news for Mr. Obama in the head-to-head portion of the poll in the days ahead.
Jan 2009 NOW Unemployment 7.8% Unemployment over 8% (for 43 straight months) Median Family income Median Family Income ~$55,000.00 ~$51,000.00 Price of Gas $1.84 Price of Gas $3.79 National Debt 10.8 Trillion National Debt 16.0 Trillion
1980, 23% of U.S. lower-income households lived in majority low-income neighborhoods; in 2010, that had risen to 28%. At the other end of the economic scale, the share of upper-income households living in majority upper-income neighborhoods doubled, to 18% in 2010 from 9% in 1980, according to a new Pew Research Center income segregation report based on census data. Income segregation also rose over the same time period in 27 of the nation’s 30 largest (in terms of households) metropolitan areas, according to the report, “The Rise of Residential Segregation by Income,” written by Paul Taylor and Richard Fry. It includes data on income segregation comparing those 30 metropolitan areas, as well as interactive maps. The increase in income segregation is a contrast to the long decline in black-white racial segregation in neighborhoods. Why would income segregation be rising? The major reason is that the share of neighborhoods that are predominantly middle income or mixed income has declined, from 85% in 1980 to 76% in 2010. In turn, the shares that are majority lower income or upper income have grown. The larger picture here is that the share of middle-income households has gone down over time. .
The news drew swift criticism from environmental groups that claim such drilling can't be done safely in the Arctic. The government's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said Thursday that Shell (RDSA) has been authorized to perform "certain limited preparatory activities" in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast. The activities include the installation of a safety feature below the sea floor related to blowout prevention. The company's applications to drill into potential oil reservoirs "remain under review," the bureau said.
But for all of their protests of "class warfare", "socialism" and worse, Obama was being kind to the Republican ideologues. After all, as the historical record shows, from economic growth and job creation to stock market performance and just about every other indicator of the health of American capitalism, the modern U.S. economy has almost always done better under Democratic presidents. Despite GOP mythology to the contrary, America generally gained more jobs and grew faster when taxes were higher (even much higher) and income inequality lower. And while the U.S. recovery from the Bush recession remains painfully slow, most economists - including the nonpartisan CBO and some of John McCain's own 2008 advisers - believe President Obama saved it from the abyss.
On the one hand, you could argue that Democrats, who controlled the White House and Congress, bear some of the blame for the economic decline in 2009 and 2010. On the other hand, you can argue that Obama doesn’t deserve the economic blame for 2009 and 2010 since the decline was shaped by the policies of his predecessor. But if you do, then it’s not equitable to hold his predecessor, President George W. Bush, to a different standard. If you argue that the economic outcomes in 2009 and 2010 result from Republican policies, then being consistent requires attributing a share of the blame for what happened in 2000 and 2001 to the policies of Bush’s predecessor, President Bill Clinton.
You presume that higher tax rates on the higher-paids will help the economy. Then why do you think Obama/Pelosi/Reid in the 2nd half of 2009, did NOT raise rates for those higher paids ? I know why......because 1) they didn't think it would help the economy, and 2) more importantly for Dem-votes......they figured they'd keep/save the issue for future elections......class-warfare continued in the future. So they decided NOT TO. But Comment-Maker.......why do YOU think they didn't raise rates? And 2) second question......this is 2 parts if you can pay attention....why aren't you angry that they didn't ? Two questions C-M4, why didn't they and why are you not angry that they didn't ? Is that too complicated for you, or are you just going to ignore the Q's and say I am "name-calling" ? Let's hear it, and maybe even the Patch-Writers are curious to hear your answers.
Of these, $4.6 trillion is the size of the mystery meat in the budget. Ryan proposes tax cuts that would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade relative to current policy — that is, relative even to making the Bush tax cuts permanent — but claims that his plan is revenue neutral, because he would make up the revenue loss by closing loopholes. For example, he would … well, actually, he refuses to name a single example of a loophole he wants to close. So the budget is a fraud. No, it’s not “imperfect”, it’s not a bit shaky on the numbers; it’s completely based on almost $5 trillion dollars of alleged revenue that are pure fabrication. On the other side, 14 million is the minimum number of people who would lose health insurance due to Medicaid cuts — the Urban Institute, working off the very similar plan Ryan unveiled last year, puts it at between 14 and 27 million people losing Medicaid. That’s a lot of people — and a lot of suffering. And again, bear in mind that none of this would be done to reduce the deficit — it would be done to make room for those $4.6 trillion in tax cuts, and in particular a tax cut of $240,000 a year to the average member of the one percent.. But Obama is very rude for pointing any of this out.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.. So jay your arguments are irrelevant-and you don't read carefully -so don't bother to comment- I won't be interested in any of your angry diatribes..