Massive profits. Where is the hiring???

Originally posted by sh76
I didn't say there were obvious steps. Obama was elected to fix the economy first and foremost. He plainly has not done that. Some things he should have done I can point to. Others its his job to figure out (or hire people who can). He still has a year to go, but at this point he has not done the job that he was elected to do and every excuse in the book (and o ans nominate an electable candidate, No1 may not be collecting that $50 from Uther after all.

PS: Obama to win re-election is down to 58 on Intrade from a high of 69.9 shortly after the Bin Laden incident.

Plus, a lot of that 58% is based on the chance that the GOP could nominate a wingnut.

Right now if we have an Obama-Romney matchup with unemployment at 9.2% and 18,000 jobs being created in a month, Obama is, at best, a 50-50 shot.

Originally posted by sh76
I didn't say there were obvious steps. Obama was elected to fix the economy first and foremost. He plainly has not done that. Some things he should have done I can point to. Others its his job to figure out (or hire people who can). He still has a year to go, but at this point he has not done the job that he was elected to do and every excuse in the book (and o ...[text shortened]... ans nominate an electable candidate, No1 may not be collecting that $50 from Uther after all.

$$$$$$$😉

Originally posted by sh76
I didn't say there were obvious steps. Obama was elected to fix the economy first and foremost. He plainly has not done that. Some things he should have done I can point to. Others its his job to figure out (or hire people who can). He still has a year to go, but at this point he has not done the job that he was elected to do and every excuse in the book (and o ...[text shortened]... ans nominate an electable candidate, No1 may not be collecting that $50 from Uther after all.

I find either of those ifs unlikely.

Originally posted by sh76
PS: Obama to win re-election is down to 58 on Intrade from a high of 69.9 shortly after the Bin Laden incident.

Plus, a lot of that 58% is based on the chance that the GOP could nominate a wingnut.

Right now if we have an Obama-Romney matchup with unemployment at 9.2% and 18,000 jobs being created in a month, Obama is, at best, a 50-50 shot.

Romney is probably one of the best candidates to take on Obama, but can he survive the primaries, especially if the Tea Party can influence them significantly?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Romney is probably one of the best candidates to take on Obama, but can he survive the primaries, especially if the Tea Party can influence them significantly?

If Intrade is to be believed (and this is real people spending real money which I'll take over any cable news talking heads any day), Romney is better than a 2:1 favorite against any other candidate and it 1:2 against the field.

Originally posted by sh76
If Intrade is to be believed (and this is real people spending real money which I'll take over any cable news talking heads any day), Romney is better than a 2:1 favorite against any other candidate and it 1:2 against the field.

Intrade July 6, 2007:

Last bid on GOP nominee:

36.0 Rudy Giuliani
34.7 Fred Thompson
17.7 Mitt Romney
3.8 John McCain

Fred Thomspon at 34.7 and John McCain at 3.8? Wow, I'm out of touch. My last impression of Fred Thompson was his struggles to deal with terrorists in Die Hard 2. Sure, the good guys won, but I'd give most of the credit to John McClane.

And the last bids on the Democratic Presidential Nominee side:

40.9 Hillary Clinton
37.5 Barack Obama
8.9 Al Gore
5.1 John Edwards

Poor John Edwards is losing to someone who isn't even running.

Intrade also now has shares for the winner of the 2008 Presidential election:

24.5 Hillary
20.9 Barack
18.5 Rudy
18.5 Fred

The Democrats are also predicted to have control of both the Senate and the House.

http://www.eugenewei.com/mtweblog/archives/003158.html


I'm not as impressed as you are.

Real people who have real money are often not in touch with the real world.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Intrade July 6, 2007:

Last bid on GOP nominee:

36.0 Rudy Giuliani
34.7 Fred Thompson
17.7 Mitt Romney
3.8 John McCain

Fred Thomspon at 34.7 and John McCain at 3.8? Wow, I'm out of touch. My last impression of Fred Thompson was his struggles to deal with terrorists in Die Hard 2. Sure, the good guys won, but I'd give most of ...[text shortened]... newei.com/mtweblog/archives/003158.html


I'm not as impressed as you are.

That was the way things looked at the time. Giuliani botched his campaign on a bad early strategy and might have been too moderate on social issues anyway.

Thompson was an upstart who, as it turns out, didn't have the stomach for a tough campaign.

Obviously there's no telling what is going to happen in the future. But Intrade is as good an indication of the current trend as there is.

Obama to win re-election is down to 58 on Intrade from a high of 69.9 shortly after the Bin Laden incident.

When Gaddafi is killed those numbers will go back up.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Obama to win re-election is down to 58 on Intrade from a high of 69.9 shortly after the Bin Laden incident.

When Gaddafi is killed those numbers will go back up.

Are you kidding me?

99+% of Americans wanted Bin Laden captured or killed and most Americans were willing to use military force to do so.

Most Americans probably don't give a damn about Qadaffi and a majority do not support the Libyan intervention.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/poll-public-now-opposes-libya-military-action/1

The public probably opposed action in Pakistan too.

Originally posted by sh76
That was the way things looked at the time. Giuliani botched his campaign on a bad early strategy and might have been too moderate on social issues anyway.

Thompson was an upstart who, as it turns out, didn't have the stomach for a tough campaign.

Obviously there's no telling what is going to happen in the future. But Intrade is as good an indication of the current trend as there is.

My point is that what seems to the people betting on Intrade a year and 4 months before an election doesn't seem to have much predictive value.

I continue to believe that Obama would beat Romney by about what he beat McCain and that he would smash the most likely Tea Party candidates (Bachman, Cain, etc).

Originally posted by Kunsoo
He should have spent billions on building the alternative energy infrastructure, subsidizing R&D, and replacing the federal vehicles with hybrid cars. That would have helped.

And he should have muscled through a restructuring of the bailout to force the banks to expend a large percentage of the money they received on consumer and small business loans. But the Republicans barked, and he wimped out. Again. And again.

can't argue with that. you can't elect a sheep and expect him to behave like a lion. to be honest, he only got elected because the republican lineup was well...lacking. that's probably the same reason he'll win reelection.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My point is that what seems to the people betting on Intrade a year and 4 months before an election doesn't seem to have much predictive value.

I continue to believe that Obama would beat Romney by about what he beat McCain and that he would smash the most likely Tea Party candidates (Bachman, Cain, etc).

Not if unemployment is still over 9%...

Originally posted by sh76
Not if unemployment is still over 9%...

I once thought that too, but now I'm not sure. Obama's rather skillfully lying the groundwork for blaming Republican intransigence if there's no extension of the debt limit. If that has all the negative consequences our banker and economic elite friends tell us it will, he may well be able to deflect criticism for continued economic problems.