TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- CNN "Confirms" John Edwards will leave race Wed morning (3/3/04)
CNN "Confirms" John Edwards will leave race Wed morning (3/3/04)
Wolf "the Wolfman" Blitzer just said that tomorrow morning John Edwards will drop out of the democratic race tomorrow morning.
So it looks like Kerry vs Bush.
MrS
guess he's gonna be vice eh?
I don't think Kerry has what it takes, do you guys wanna set some odds?
.. these elections are all 'bout who has the most money .. not who's best fit to run ..
Bush's greatest ally is Nader...Now that he's in the race, he'll again steal votes from the Dems.
Thanks Ralph...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by [r]-refuge.01^ .. these elections are all 'bout who has the most money .. not who's best fit to run .. |
So is it set that Edwards will be vice? Anyone have an answer?
I just saw Edwards speak, and I can honestly say he's one of the best speakers since Kennedy and Reagan.
I don't understand why the voters voted for Kerry except for the fact that he's more experienced than Edwards.
Well I hope he's VP, but I think Edwards will be president someday.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ I just saw Edwards speak, and I can honestly say he's one of the best speakers since Kennedy and Reagan. I don't understand why the voters voted for Kerry except for the fact that he's more experienced than Edwards. Well I hope he's VP, but I think Edwards will be president someday. |
Oh wait, I won't have to worry about it! YAY TO ME FOR MOVING!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by anuneventrade *crushed* Dave, whatever shall we do? Oh wait, I won't have to worry about it! YAY TO ME FOR MOVING! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew USA affects us all, even in poland |
But it's just good to know I won't be living in the country. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah seriously, something needs to be done about it! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Yeah! I vote we band up together, and go steal the money from the evil rich people and force them to be fair to us. It's really our money too. |
seriously, even a right wing man as you must think that it is wrong, or?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by anuneventrade Yes I know this. But it's just good to know I won't be living in the country. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah that's right, then you can join the european side and help bash on america instead |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew lol, i'm in for that idea seriously, even a right wing man as you must think that it is wrong, or? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew yeah that's right, then you can join the european side and help bash on america instead |
I like to tell people that are here that bash their "own" country, or come hear for whatever purpose/goal, "The door swings both ways and you are always free to leave, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PhloTron Always a good point that! I like to tell people that are here that bash their "own" country, or come hear for whatever purpose/goal, "The door swings both ways and you are always free to leave, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."Anyway, when was the last competitor brought on as a running mate...I'm quite sure it's happended, but I haven't followed presidential races before I was 12-14. I just know that the last couple prez hopefuls chose their running mate from outside of the competitor pool. Bush w/ Cheaney, Clinton w/ Gore, Bush Sr. and Diomond Dan, Reagan/Bush..etc. I could be wrong of couse and not known that they ran against each other in primaries, I just don't recall. I'd be quite surprised if Kerry did pick Edwards based on this trend if it's true...who's got some insight? |
roger that...thanks for the enpho...
maybe then it would be logical for Kerry to go with Edwards.
Then the way for Bush to strengthen his platform is to dump Cheney (who we never see anyway), and put in Ahhhnold, and Get Jesse the Mind in as Sec. of State.
He'd be a shoe in then, because it's obvious people vote for the strangest people in elections.
I can never figure it out.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PhloTron roger that...thanks for the enpho... maybe then it would be logical for Kerry to go with Edwards. Then the way for Bush to strengthen his platform is to dump Cheney (who we never see anyway), and put in Ahhhnold, and Get Jesse the Mind in as Sec. of State. He'd be a shoe in then, because it's obvious people vote for the strangest people in elections. I can never figure it out. |
| quote: |
Sustained Budget Deficits: Longer-Run U.S. Economic Performance and the Risk of Financial and Fiscal Disarray Paper presented at the AEA-NAEFA Joint Session, Allied Social Science Associations Annual Meetings, The Andrew Brimmer Policy Forum, "National Economic and Financial Policies for Growth and Stability", January 5, 2004 Peter R. Orszag, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Robert E. Rubin, Office of the Chairman, Citigroup Allen Sinai, Chief Global Economist, Decision Economics, Inc. Introduction The U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In the absence of significant policy changes, federal government deficits are expected to total around $5 trillion over the next decade. Such deficits will cause U.S. government debt, relative to GDP, to rise significantly. Thereafter, as the baby boomers increasingly reach retirement age and claim Social Security and Medicare benefits, government deficits and debt are likely to grow even more sharply. The scale of the nation's projected budgetary imbalances is now so large that the risk of severe adverse consequences must be taken very seriously, although it is impossible to predict when such consequences may occur. Conventional analyses of sustained budget deficits demonstrate the negative effects of deficits on long-term economic growth. Under the conventional view, ongoing budget deficits decrease national saving, which reduces domestic investment and increases borrowing from abroad.1 Interest rates play a key role in how the economy adjusts. The reduction in national saving raises domestic interest rates, which dampens investment and attracts capital from abroad.2 The external borrowing that helps to finance the budget deficit is reflected in a larger current account deficit, creating a linkage between the budget deficit and the current account deficit. The reduction in domestic investment (which lowers productivity growth) and the increase in the current account deficit (which requires that more of the returns from the domestic capital stock accrue to foreigners) both reduce future national income, with the loss in income steadily growing over time. Under the conventional view, the costs imposed by sustained deficits tend to build gradually over time, rather than occurring suddenly. The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more suddenly than traditional analysis suggests, however. Substantial deficits projected far into the future can cause a fundamental shift in market expectations and a related loss of confidence both at home and abroad. The unfavorable dynamic effects that could ensue are largely if not entirely excluded from the conventional analysis of budget deficits. This omission is understandable and appropriate in the context of deficits that are small and temporary; it is increasingly untenable, however, in an environment with deficits that are large and permanent. Substantial ongoing deficits may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing negative cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy: As traders, investors, and creditors become increasingly concerned that the government would resort to high inflation to reduce the real value of government debt or that a fiscal deadlock with unpredictable consequences would arise, investor confidence may be severely undermined; The fiscal and current account imbalances may also cause a loss of confidence among participants in foreign exchange markets and in international credit markets, as participants in those markets become alarmed not only by the ongoing budget deficits but also by related large current account deficits; The loss of investor and creditor confidence, both at home and abroad, may cause investors and creditors to reallocate funds away from dollar-based investments, causing a depreciation of the exchange rate, and to demand sharply higher interest rates on U.S. government debt; The increase of interest rates, depreciation of the exchange rate, and decline in confidence can reduce stock prices and household wealth, raise the costs of financing to business, and reduce private-sector domestic spending; The disruptions to financial markets may impede the intermediation between lenders and borrowers that is vital to modern economies, as long-maturity credit markets witness potentially substantial increases in interest rates and become relatively illiquid, and the reduction in asset prices adversely affects the balance sheets of banks and other financial intermediaries; The inability of the federal government to restore fiscal balance may directly reduce business and consumer confidence, as the view of the ongoing deficits as a symbol of the nation's inability to address its economic problems permeates society, and the reduction in confidence can discourage investment and real economic activity; These various effects can feed on each other to create a mutually reinforcing cycle; for example, increased interest rates and diminished economic activity may further worsen the fiscal imbalance, which can then cause a further loss of confidence and potentially spark another round of negative feedback effects. Although it is impossible to know at what point market expectations about the nation's large projected fiscal imbalance could trigger these types of dynamics, the harmful impacts on the economy, once these effects were in motion, would substantially magnify the costs associated with any given underlying budget deficit and depress economic activity much more than the conventional analysis would suggest. Indeed, the potential costs and fallout from such fiscal and financial disarray provide perhaps the strongest motivation for avoiding substantial, ongoing budget deficits. 3 Conventional analyses of budget deficits also do not put enough emphasis on three other related factors: uncertainty; the asymmetries in the political difficulty of revenue increases and spending reductions relative to tax cuts and spending increases; and the loss of flexibility in the future from enacting tax cuts or spending increases today. Budget projections are inherently uncertain, but such uncertainty does not provide a rationale for fiscal profligacy. The uncertainty surrounding budget projections means that the outcome in the future can be either better or worse than expected today. Such uncertainty can actually increase the incentive for more saving ahead of time�in other words, for more fiscal discipline. In addition, it is much harder for the political system to reduce deficits than to expand them. As a result of this asymmetry, enacting a large tax cut or spending increase today is costly because it reduces the flexibility to adjust fiscal policy to future events. Therefore, large tax cuts or spending increases today carry a cost typically excluded from traditional analysis: They constrain policy-makers' flexibility to respond to unforeseen events in the future. Thus, in our view, to ensure healthy long-run U.S. economic performance, substantial changes in fiscal policy are needed to deal preemptively with the risks stemming from sustained large budget deficits and the economic imbalances they entail. The political system, however, seems unwilling to address the threat posed by future deficits and to make the necessary choices to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course.4 Failing to act sooner rather than later, though, only makes the problem more difficult to address without considerable instability, raises the probability of fiscal and financial disarray at some point in the future, and runs the risks of further constraining policy flexibility in the future. We emphasize that our focus is on the effects of ongoing, sustained budget deficits. It is important to underscore that temporary budget deficits can be beneficial by providing short-term macroeconomic stimulus when the economy is weak and has considerable unused resources of capital and labor. When necessary to spur a weak economy, policy-makers could employ various fiscal policy programs, each with relative advantages and disadvantages in different contexts. Whatever decisions are made about short-run fiscal policy when the economy is weak, the objective should be budget balance over the business cycle. The next section of this paper presents projections of federal government budget deficits over the next 10 years and thereafter, including baseline projections and sensitivity analysis. Section III presents the conventional view of the effects of federal budget deficits. Section IV discusses the potentially more important financial and economic effects not included in the conventional view. A final section provides some perspectives on approaches for restoring fiscal discipline. |
.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ I'm still waiting for Occrider to give us his prediction based on the economic factors, but I also think that with all of Bush's money he also may be able to buy the election. |
. Tomorrow, I'm going to try to get to my post on what I think the dems WERE doing wrong with the economy (primarily with edwards though that is now a moot point) and why I still think that bush will ultimately fail. I will say however, that I think that Kerry has been playing a VERY smart game between labor and business heh.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I will say however, that I think that Kerry has been playing a VERY smart game between labor and business heh. |
Also his support for the assault weapons ban is another worry, and I understand it's because the police officers want it renewed... Police and firemen are Kerry�s constituency, but �gun grabbing� is still a losing issue. On the other hand, 10 Republicans also voted to extend the AWB, but then everyone voted the gun liability bill down in the end. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ If I knew how the state of the economy would look on November 1st, particularly in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Missouri, I could tell you who would probably win the election. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Verona^My God there are so many states that are key it isn't even funny. In a close race Ohio will probably lean to Bush, anyways, I'd call that one for Bush. If I were Kerry I'd focus on Wisconsin, Minnesota, ****Florida****, WEST VIRGINIA (there was no excuse for a republican win here in this democratic stronghold last election.) Also of note is Oregon, Iowa, Washington state. Social Security will be a key issue with the federal reserve announcement this week, that's Florida & Arizona for you. If Kerry gets favorable ratings on Social Security, he could pick off Arizona & Florida, and win. Missouri is possible for the dems to win, but it's similar to Ohio, I'd run ads here, but I wouldn't get my hopes up here for the electoral victory. Pennsylvannia is crucial for the dems, if they lose here, they lose, period. Same with Michagan & Wisconsin. The best bets for the dems in the south is Louisiana, and maybe Georgia. Elsewhere the only states I can think of are Montana & New Hampshire, Bill Clinton won Montana in 92. I wouldn't strategize around it though. New Hampshire went for Bush last time, but the margin was razor thin. The Democratic base states are New York California Maryland Massachussets??? (forgive the spelling Connecticut Rhode Island New Jersey Vermont Maine Hawaii West Virginia (this should have been a no brainer last election) D.C. Illinois If the dems lose any of these, besides West Virginia this time around, they are toast. The rest are swing states or Repulican Base states (mostly mountain west, midwest, and south.) The first two states that close the polls are Kentucky and Indiana. These are Bush strongholds, if the votes aren't as strong for Bush here as they were last time, Bush will probably be in for a bad night. Bush has to win these two states if he is to win at all IMO. If Kerry picks Edwards, he might have a shot at Kentucky, but Indiana is a pipe dream. With Edwards, Georgia and Louisiana might be stronger possibilities, as far as the south goes. Yes, I'm a pres. election junkie, so I know this stuff, hehe. |
| quote: |
Florida voters leaning toward Kerry A poll shows that a plurality of Florida voters disapprove of President Bush's performance on the economy and the war in Iraq, while his Democratic opponent is stronger with crucial swing voters. BY PETER WALLSTEN AND LESLEY CLARK [email protected] Increasingly critical of President Bush on his handling of the economy and the war in Iraq, more Florida voters now say they plan to support Democrat John Kerry than to help reelect the president, according to a new poll. The Herald/St. Petersburg Times survey reveals striking vulnerabilities for Bush among key independent voters in the state that narrowly put him into the White House four years ago. More Florida voters disapprove of his job performance than approve, another sign of the president's lagging popularity since the 2001 terrorist attacks transformed Bush from a polarizing figure into a popular wartime president. A majority of voters believe that the United States is ''moving in the wrong direction'' under Bush -- a marked reversal from two years ago, when 7 in 10 voters, including half of Democrats, approved of Bush's job performance. MAJOR TURNAROUND While Kerry secured the nomination only days ago, he holds a 49 to 43 percent lead over a president who just four months ago led every potential Democratic challenger by as many as 18 percentage points. Still, the results could merely reflect a high point for Kerry, coming after weeks of positive publicity associated with his string of primary victories and just as Bush begins a massive TV ad campaign in Florida and other battleground states specifically aimed at bolstering his image on the economy and security. In a worrisome sign for Democrats, consumer advocate Ralph Nader continues to win enough support -- 3 percent -- to swing the election, as many believe he did in 2000 by winning 90,000 votes in Florida. ''This poll clearly demonstrates that the state which gave us drama and nail-biting in 2000 may prove no different in 2004,'' said Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who conducted the survey for the two newspapers with Democratic pollster Rob Schroth. PROPITIOUS TIMING The survey of 800 registered voters was conducted March 3-4, beginning the day Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina dropped out of the race and just after Kerry sealed his party's nomination early enough to avoid a bloody primary battle. The poll's margin of error is 3.5 percentage points. Most alarming to the White House is likely to be the president's eroding approval ratings on the very issues that he plans to make hallmarks of his reelection and that typically favor Republicans. More than half of Florida voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, while only 46 percent approve of his leadership on Iraq. Despite the GOP's attempt to woo seniors by pushing legislation to curb the rising cost of prescription drugs, voters overwhelmingly trust Kerry more than Bush to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits. The Florida results reflect national polls that have shown Kerry leading Bush by as many as 10 percentage points, a striking contrast to Bush's rising numbers after the United States captured former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in December. DEMOCRATS DISPLEASED Bush has come under fire from Democrats for what they say is misleading information justifying the invasion of Iraq, a rising death toll of U.S. soldiers, mounting job losses across the country, tax cuts that benefit primarily the wealthy and a burgeoning deficit that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned last week could imperil Social Security. ''I think this president is too much of a cowboy,'' said Diane Chisholm, 60, a Naples retiree and registered Republican who backed Bush in 2000 and responded to the poll questions. ''I know he can't create jobs, but he can create an atmosphere that creates jobs, and that hasn't happened,'' Chisholm said. ``He's given us tons of promises, but he hasn't delivered.'' The survey reveals that Florida is again evenly divided, with just 5 percent undecided, and that the race in the state will come down to the mood of independent swing voters in Central Florida and the ability of each side to excite its core voters. KEY BATTLEGROUND Both sides have pledged to make Florida a key battleground, spending millions on advertising and voter mobilization. Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, are scheduled to campaign in South Florida on Monday, the eve of the state's now meaningless primary. While some strategists argue that Kerry's chances of winning Florida's 27 electoral votes would be helped if he names the state's retiring senior senator, Bob Graham, as his running mate, the poll suggests that Graham offers no particular benefit. A Kerry-Graham ticket leads Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney 49 to 44 percent, the same margin as a Kerry-Edwards team. A ticket that includes Florida's junior senator, Bill Nelson, leads Bush-Cheney by only 2 percentage points. Not all is gloomy for the president. HISPANIC BACKERS Despite at least one survey last week showing concerns among some Cuban-American voters about Bush's approach to Cuba policy, that survey and the Herald/St. Petersburg Times poll show Bush winning the solid backing of Florida's influential Hispanic bloc. Among Hispanics, Bush leads Kerry 56 to 40 percent. The Bush number includes not only the typically GOP-voting Cuban Americans, but also traditionally Democratic non-Cubans who backed Al Gore in 2000. Bush strategists can also take solace from the fact that more than 6 in 10 voters do not think his lack of service in the Vietnam War is a legitimate political issue and that most respondents are satisfied with Bush's handling of the crisis in Haiti, two points on which Democrats have attacked him. At the same time, Bush could be helped by the continued popularity of his younger brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who manages to retain relatively high marks despite controversial stances. ''George W. Bush would do well to associate himself with his brother,'' Conway said. GENDER DIFFERENCE Bush also retains strong support from white men, further suggesting that he is popular with his base and pointing to a ''gender gap'' that will frame the race. Bush wins 52 percent of men, while Kerry gets 57 percent of women. Bush has ''done a great job with the most important issue,'' said Joshua Smith, 29, a student in Jacksonville. ``He kept his promise. He was going to go after the terrorists, and he has.'' There are signs that Kerry is strong in his own base. More than 8 in 10 Florida Democrats say they would vote for the Massachusetts senator, while 77 percent of Republicans plan to back Bush. Those numbers suggest a return to the 2000 political landscape in Florida, which left Bush narrowly victorious after a monthlong recount battle and Democrats angry. ''Florida Democrats remain militant from the 2000 election,'' Schroth said. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has emphasized his military credentials to court centrist voters and shed the liberal label, also performs well among independent voters -- a primary reason for his lead over the president, the pollsters said. Fifty-seven percent of independents back Kerry, compared with a little more than one in three for Bush. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.