Reëlection Watch: December 2011
At least once every month between now and the general election, we examine the reëlection landscape for President Barack Obama. As we progress through the next year, the frequency will almost certainly increase.
Each time, we take a look at the various factors that typically influence election outcomes, and compare them to the previous month.
Let’s look at how things are shaking out this month.
Polls
As of Tuesday this week, the Real Clear Politics average had his approval/disapproval rating with a −8.2 point spread. This is a one-point fall from last month, though the overall trend has been flat.
The Right Track/Wrong Track polls have also been pretty much flat; the spread shrank by 1.8 points to −54.0. Generally, numbers this low are indicative of a change in the party in power. Congress continues to wallow deep in the cellar; this month, the spread shrank by mere 0.2 points to −69.6. The long-term Congressional trend has been bluer for the second half of 2011, with Democrats having a thin 1.2 percent lead in the generic poll. And Obama continues to poll better than Congress. In other words, the country is overall weakly leaning toward the Democrats, which does work in Obama’s favor, though barely.
Intrade has Obama at a 50.1 percent chance of reëlection, up a half point from last month. Obama’s position improved slightly for the second month in a row. He continues to be statistically tied with Mitt Romney in the head-to-head polls, as he has been for pretty much the entire year. He polls well above primary poll leader Newt Gingrich, though.
This month was mixed enough in this category to warrant a gray ball.
The Competition
Last month’s New Kid, Herman Cain, has been replaced with this month’s model, Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has a commanding lead nationally, as well as in the key early states of Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida.
All of the other candidates are deeply rooted in single digit territory.
Romney has long been the candidate who polls best against Obama, but now is well behind Gingrich for the nomination. If Romney had the nomination today, and the general election were to happen today, polls indicate that it would be a close match, at least in the national popular vote. If it’s Gingrich, Obama’s likely to get four more years.
Since Obama is statistically tied with Romney but comfortably ahead against Gingrich, this one gets the green arrow.
The Economy
The past month shows encouraging signs.
Unemployment reports suggest improvement, having droped a half percent to 8.6 percent. While the stock market has gyrated wildly of late, it’s been far more based on speculation over the future of European debt than of short-term economic activity. That makes the stock market’s movements a worse indicator than usual for predicting future employment activity.
As further evidence of the uselessness of the Dow in proxying current economic activity, look at oil prices. Typically, they rise when there is an increase in economic activity. West Texas Intermediate crude is trading at about $100, the second consecutive month of an 11 percent rise. Brent crude (representing the European market) has fallen slightly over the same period. Together, they suggest that the United States economy is improving.
This is the first month in a long time where the major indicators point in the same direction. Better yet, they point up. Green arrow this month.
Other Factors
The debt supercommittee’s failure made Congressional Democrats look bad, and made Congressional Republicans look worse. The continued revolving door of NotRomneys has made Republican Presidential candidates look bad, too. There haven’t really been any negative Obama stories this past month. Overall, this is also a green arrow category.
The Trends
Here’s how things look overall.
| Area | Effect | Change from Last Month |
| Polls | ||
| The Competition | ||
| The Economy | ||
| Other Factors |
Conclusion
This is two months in a row of things looking up for Obama. Obama’s certainly nowhere near assured reëlection, but he’s moving the right direction from an already marginally positive starting point.

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on December 10, 2011 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Reelection Watch. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
I think at some level all one has to do to figure out who will get the nomination is follow the money.
Yes, but…
The money can move from one candidate to another. That is, if Newt picks up a large chunk of dough, and then drops out, he can give it to Mitt. At least, that’s my understanding.
What exactly are the Republicans going to throw at the president that they have not already thrown with only marginal effect?
Nothing new, but the “are you better off now than you were four years ago” meme could be very effective this time. Things were worse in November 2008 than in November 2004 or November 2000, but they aren’t really any better in December 2011 than in November 2008…at least, in the visceral sense that people use in answering that question.
-
#3 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Oh Michael.….Newt picks up a large chunk of dough then drops out and then gives it to another candidate.….……surely you jest? A.…..Newt just isn’t bringing in the money.…B he seems to be able to spend it faster that you can Tifanys and C.…..Newt giving some thing to some one else.…..oh god eggnog up the nose.…..stop it your are killing me.
Now for the Republicans to even think about having the balls to play the “are you better off than 4 years ago” card just seems way to much like some kid killing his parents and then trying to weasel out in court by claiming he is an orphan. Might be easier to pull that bullshit off if they hadn’t spent the last 4 years in open defiance of every damned thing going or if your leaders hadn’t openly made defeat of the president their number one goal.
-
#4 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Btw, it appears Joe Manchin won’t be looking for Obama’s help in his reëlection. He was on Morning Joe this morning and threw Obama and Reid under the bus bigtime. Complained alot about the payroll tax cut raiding SS, about no leadership on Simpson Bowles and how he would’ve gotten impeached as governor for not passing a budget for 3 years. I’ll be interested if it gets any national press as he’s been fairly “bipartisan” so far in his term.
-
rgbact,
Complained alot about the payroll tax cut raiding SS
Yeah, I’m not happy about that, either. I’m not at all convinced that the cost of that cut is outweighed by the benefits.
about no leadership on Simpson Bowles
What leadership in particular is he looking for?
how he would’ve gotten impeached as governor for not passing a budget for 3 years
Well, now, that’s just silly. Why on earth should a Governor be impeached for not signing budgets that never got to the Governor to sign in the first place? I could understand impeaching or recalling a Governor if several budgets got passed by the legislature, but the Governor refused to sign them into law. But that’s not what’s happening here. The budgets aren’t making it out of the legislative branch of government.
-
#6 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Yeah, I’m not happy about that, either. I’m not at all convinced that the cost of that cut is outweighed by the benefits.
I’m pretty surprised how media/liberals looks at this as a nobrainer. The one program that liberals have been able to defend from cuts is SS, due to the false impression that it is well funded. Now they want to take money from it and worsen its funding? Seems the only thing that brings the parties together is giveaways.
The budgets aren’t making it out of the legislative branch of government.
I’m assuming he’s bashing Reid here, not just Obama. Course, I doubt Obama is helpless in moving it forward.
-
rgbact cited Sen. Manchin on Morning Joe saying he
threw Obama and Reid under the bus bigtime. Complained alot about the payroll tax cut raiding SS, about no leadership on Simpson Bowles and how he would’ve gotten impeached as governor for not passing a budget for 3 years.
Ah yes, Barack the Magic Negro, with his magical powers to pass legislation through a do-nothing Congress.
-
rgbact pointed out:
I’m pretty surprised how media/liberals looks at this as a nobrainer. The one program that liberals have been able to defend from cuts is SS, due to the false impression that it is well funded. Now they want to take money from it and worsen its funding? Seems the only thing that brings the parties together is giveaways.
Let’s be perfectly frank here. I don’t agree with it, but what I strongly suspect the Democrats are playing is this:
They have tried to pass Keynesian stimuli in all sorts of ways, but have been blocked by the Republicans at every turn.
Yet, they have some traction on Social Security, because as rgbact says, it’s perceived as inviolable, the “third rail” of American politics. This gave them an opening they’re now exploiting: a Keynesian stimulus, one that disproportionately favors the middle class who pay a higher percentage of their income in FICA taxes, and one that the Republicans cannot oppose without serious collateral political damage. (Or electrocution.)
Raw, crappy politics? You bet. Laws and sausages are two things we shouldn’t watch being made, in the famous Saxe quote:
Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.
-
-
-
Complained alot about the payroll tax cut raiding SS,
The problem with that complaint is that it doesn’t do this. That’s the reason the Democrats want to institute a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million — to reimburse the Social Security Admin for the funds it would otherwise not take in if the Payroll Tax Holiday were to continue. If the Democratic proposal had been accepted, the Payroll Tax Holiday would have been fully funded and would not have impacted Social Security at all.
The handwringing over this is also mere politics.
-
#13 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Mere politics? You mean like delaying a decision on a major infrastructure project that will create thousands of jobs and increase American energy independence until after the election so as to shore up a certain candidate’s base?
Politics like that?
And MWeiss, if you think Obama’s moving in the right direction with regards to reëlection, take a look at these poll numbers:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011–12-12/2012-election-swing-states-poll/51844930/1
Better rethink that green arrow. He’s losing to Newt Gingrich, for chrissake. -
parksie,
He’s moving in the right direction, but that doesn’t mean that he’s assured a win at this point. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect there to be more interest right now from Republicans…they’re having a highly contested primary. Democrats, on the other hand, already know who their candidate is. The enthusiasm numbers won’t be very meaningful until we get to next summer. -
Mere politics? You mean like delaying a decision on a major infrastructure project that will create thousands of jobs and increase American energy independence until after the election so as to shore up a certain candidate’s base?
Politics like that?More like the politics of coupling an extension of the payroll tax holiday to a gas pipeline that goes through an environmentally delicate area that the Republican governor of the state wants to reassess. You know, the kind of coupling in a bill that the new Republican Congress promised not to do, and the kind that is designed to make a bill unpalatable so that it won’t be enacted, because Republicans do not want any infrastructure projects (that is, after all, Keynsian stimulus) and certainly don’t want a middle-class tax cut.
That kind of politics.
-
By the way, parksie — in addition to that accelerated pipeline provision stuck into the extension of the Payroll Tax holiday, the Republicans have also added defunding of health care provisions, a CUT in unemployment benefits, a requirement for potential UE recipients to have a high school degree or be enrolled in a GED program, and drug testing for many UE recipients.
The whole point was to produce a package the Democrats would not vote for, so Republicans could pretend the Democrats voted against the Payroll Tax Holiday, and could pretend the Republicans voted for it. They weren’t serious, and it’s pretty dumb to pretend they were.
-
DC says:
By the way, parksie — in addition to that accelerated pipeline provision stuck into the extension of the Payroll Tax holiday, the Republicans have also added defunding of health care provisions, a CUT in unemployment benefits, a requirement for potential UE recipients to have a high school degree or be enrolled in a GED program, and drug testing for many UE recipients.
Oh, you mean these Republicans?
Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time
We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.That’s a pledge they’ve certainly kept.
-
#19 written by rgbact 1 year ago
-
-
#21 written by shortchain 1 year ago
-
Apparently, Republicans do not view any of those issues as being “major legislation.”
And yes, parksie, the House wasted taxpayer money passing another bill they know isn’t going anywhere. Another symbol of the Republican do-nothing obstructionists. If they were serious, they’d at least allow a vote on the Democratic version. But then, the Republicans in the Senate won’t allow that one to come up for a vote either.
-
#23 written by parksie555 1 year ago
DC, don’t forget the Federal pay freeze. I hope Boehner sticks to his guns. Looking forward to watching Obama trying to defend this pipeline decision during the campaign. 20,000+ jobs that don’t cost taxpayers a penny down the crapper so he can appease envirowhackos and his guilty rich liberal base. Obama absolutely disgusts me at this point. His Osawatomie speech last week represented a new low. Can’t stand even to listen to his blather any more.
-
#24 written by Mainer 1 year ago
I know how you feel parksie I get the same feeling with your posts. Hey do us all a favor and at least get the damned numbers right. Try that Google thing and come back with some that reflect reality over the talking points version. One can pretty much figure which side is getting greased with this little boondoggle.
-
20,000+ jobs
Actually, that number is from the industry lobbyists. Actual impartial studies have shown far less jobs, maybe a net of zero. Additionally, even the oil industry admits the pipeline would cause fuel prices in the American heartland to increase.
… meanwhile, the Republicans are supporting a tax increase on the middle class, because they can’t stomach a tiny surtax on the most wealthy. While Republicans are also trying to freeze the pay of tens of thousands of Americans. And slash their unemployment insurance benefits. That one’s a campaign commercial that doesn’t even need a script.
-
#26 written by rgbact 1 year ago
… meanwhile, the Republicans are supporting a tax increase on the middle class, because they can’t stomach a tiny surtax on the most wealthy.
Nice try. I’m assuming the Dems don’t want the cut to be permanent, so they’ll be supporting that same tax increase next year. Anyway. I don’t recall the GOP ever being for cuts in payroll taxes. The last big change was under Reagan.….who raised payroll taxes.
This is just pure wealth redistribution/gerryrigged stimulus. Pretty sad. Temporary tax cuts, spending cuts that don’t kick in for years, budgets that can’t be produced till “later”, Obamacare that takes effect “years later”, doc pay cuts that always get put off till “next year”. Whatta disaster.
Do you support the 25%+ cut in doctor fees? Doctors make up alot of the evil wealthy. The doctor fee cut would pay for your payroll tax cut likely. -
#27 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Bullshit DC. Republicans have just passed a bill, with bipartisan support, which some Republicans voted against, which extends the payroll tax cut.
It is now being held hostage by our pretender-in-chief so that he can appease certain elements of his political base going into a difficult election.
Where is the alternative bill from the Democrats in the Senate? And spare me your usual bullshit about Republican obstructionism. Boehner was able to get Democratic support for his bill by sacrificing the votes of some Republicans; Reid is clearly not willing to compromise in this fashion.
Why? Because Obama and Reid know that the Dems absolutely must have their base to do anything in this cycle, as they are clearly losing the middle.
This article in the Post offers a fairly even account of the jobs that might be created by the Keystone pipeline:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-claims-a-bipartisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html
Obviously the Huntsman 100,000 job claim is way too high, but given the direct estimate of 13,000 construction jobs plus some supply-chain related job creation a figure of 20,000 jobs seems reasonable.
Maybe your president could be creative and add an additional rider to the bill that the pipeline must be produced with American-made pipe, creating more jobs.
Never mind. He’s clearly more interested in political pandering at this point rather than creating actual jobs building something useful. He sickens me. -
#28 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
Maybe your president could be creative and add an additional rider to the bill that the pipeline must be produced with American-made pipe, creating more jobs.
And just how does the President legally “add a rider” to a bill?
Are you recommending the use of a signing statement?
As for “bipartisan” — everybody knows this turkey isn’t going anywhere. Therefore, some people will vote for it in the House simply to confuse their electorate. And, with people whose political acumen is sufficiently weak, this strategy works. But it shouldn’t fool anybody into thinking they really support it.
For that matter, it’s highly likely that a significant number of the GOP caucus voted for this bill simply so that the national party will give them money. Does that mean this is a good bill?
-
#30 written by parksie555 1 year ago
I’m recommending that your president and your party get down to the business of governing. Of compromising and getting things done. Of proposing and passing legislation that draws broad support from the middle of the political spectrum, and doesn’t pander to envirowhackos and OWS types.
I had some “hope” after the Democratic shellacking in 2010 that Obama would tack to the middle as Clinton did and actually accomplish a few things. I was sadly disappointed. -
#31 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
Some questions:
What would be a compromise here? Just passing the turkey that the House GOP threw on the wall? What does the GOP give up?
Why do you think you know what the “middle of the political spectrum” wants? Most polling I’ve seen indicates that, with the polarization of the electorate, there just isn’t any “middle” to appeal to or represent (see other thread for more on this).
I’m not sure that it is completely fair to characterize opposition to the proposed pipeline as “envirowhackos”. That pipeline isn’t even supported all that well in Canada.
Oh, yeah, Obama is the left’s wet dream. Sure he is. -
parksie, I’m recommending that your congressional leaders and your party get down to the business of governing. Of compromising and getting things done. Of proposing and passing legislation that draws broad support from the middle of the political spectrum, and doesn’t pander to business lobbies and far right religionists.
I had some “hope” after the Republican shellacking in 2008 that conservatives would tack to the middle and actually accomplish a few things. I was sadly disappointed. -
Republicans have just passed a bill, … which some Republicans voted against,
… so the bill has bipartisan opposition.
It was a bill to freeze wages, restrict unemployment compensation, also restrict access to unemployment compensation, ram through an unnecessary and environmentally dangerous pipeline as a giveaway to oil companies. It had a rider to extend the payroll tax holiday as a bribe to Democrats to enact a series of rightwing priorities. It was a bit of nonsense.
-
#34 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
That takes leadership skills and experience, of which the President has none.
… which is why the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history certainly since the days of Lyndon Johnson.
Sorry, Grog, those particular Republican talking points just won’t fly. The problem is Republican obstructionism and blind partisanship. Mitch McConnell and John Boehnor both said their top legislative priority was to deny President Obama a second term, and that has been the only thing on their agenda. We really can stop pretending otherwise. No one is fooled by the empty rhetoric about “leadership” and “experience” when Republicans are running a clown car full of cartoon characters for President.
-
#36 written by rgbact 1 year ago
as a bribe to Democrats to enact a series of rightwing priorities.
Good grief. One minute they complain about not compromising.….then when you actually offer deals, its a deceitful bribe. You want the tax cut.…we get the pipeline. You want the UE bennies.…we want some common sense restrictions. Its called negotiating. Is Obama up to it.…not likely. Too busy ginning up the class warfare. -
You want the UE bennies.…we want some common sense restrictions.
Nothing “common sense” about those restrictions, and they are cutting, not extending, the UE bennies.
As for the pipeline, it is still already in the works, pausing just long enough to work out the environmental issues. Republicans want to ram it down our throat before it’s safe.
Republicans are not interested in negotiation honestly They want to posture and obstruct. They’re too busy engaging in their class warfare to be serious about compromise.
-
#38 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Chain — reasonable compromise:
a) Drop the pipeline. It’s going to get built anyway in 2013, and this way Obama, Reid, and the rest of the Dems can be hammered on this issue throughout the 2012 cycle.
b) Drop the “millionaire surtax”. It’s largely symbolic anyway, designed strictly to appeal to the OWS crowd. It does hand the Dems a reasonable campaign issue, but I think it can be countered by tying the Dems to OWS.
c) Drop unemployment benefits from 99 weeks to 79 weeks. Obama himself proposed this in September of this year.
d) Reduce the Obamacare “prevention” funding by $4 B, rather than the proposed $8B.
If Obama were smart, he would allow the pipeline and demand the millionaire surtax in exchange. I think this would buy him the most support among the middle class but still allow him to retain some credibility with the spoiled rich liberals that are his base. It would take away an easy avenue of attack for the R’s and put them in the more perilous position of defending millionaires vs. middle class tax cut.
But I don’t think he’s that smart. -
#39 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Yep Parksie, seems like a nobrainer. Obama gets to look like a compromiser and gives on something not even that big. I still think the deal sucks, but the GOP is desperate to hand out presents, all he has to do is give a little. But, evidently he “can’t wait” when it comes to building roads and bridges in big cities, but a pipeline that runs thru red states can wait till 2013. -
rgbact said,
Obama gets to look like a compromiser…
That’s assuming he wants to look like a compromiser. I don’t think that assumption is supported by the evidence. Compromise (or rather, the perception that he compromised unnecessarily) is what got him the débâcle of 2010.
See, for example, this from CNN today.
-
#41 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Treme, do you think this the correct strategy for Obama going into the 2012 campaign?
The problem I have with the CNN piece you cited is that it gives very detailed statistics that illustrate his slumping support.
But then they make this claim…
“Among the chief complaints of many voters: Obama has been too quick to compromise, too weak in taking on opponents and too much like just another politician intent on triangulating re-election, rather than being the transformative, bold leader they thought they were electing“
… without any backing data whatsoever.
So what caused his collapse in support among independents and moderate Dems/Reps?
Did he tack too far to the center, as his liberal base suggests?
Or did he veer too far to the left?
I don’t think compromise brought on his 2010 débâcle. It was overreach, misinterpretation of his electoral mandate that was built largely on a collapsing economy and GW Bush fatigue. -
#42 written by shortchain 1 year ago
rgbact and parksie,
There is not an ounce of evidence that the GOP would accept what you consider a compromise, if offered by Obama, Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. Boehner might be willing, but he can’t even bring his caucus along with him. He’s the most ineffectual speaker of modern times, as evidenced by the times he’s brought Republican bills to the floor and had them go down in flames.
-
#43 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Chain — take off the blinders…
Which part of Congress has passed a bill with bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition (indicative of normal legislative give and take) and which part has yet to offer anything?
I’ll give you a hint — the Republican controlled House has produced a bill with significant compromise on both sides and the Democrat controlled Senate has produced nothing.
Don’t believe me?
Maybe you’ll believe Claire McCaskill (D).
“Let’s hope we can negotiate something. I think if I were going to critique [Democratic Majority Leader] Harry Reid this morning, I really wish that we could stop with this ‘dead on arrival,’ ‘not going to go there’ and begin to have language like, ‘we’re going to take a look at it,’” said McCaskill on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown. “I believe that we will have a compromise here.” -
#44 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
No, I won’t take anything McCaskill says as gospel. Let’s unwind your assertions a bit. Here are the facts:The Senate cannot “pass” anything in the face of a minority filibuster (which has been used an unprecedented number of times in this Congress).
In the House, the Speaker has the power to bring anything to the floor, and the majority party can pass it.
The President cannot legislate anything.
Neither can the House, by itself, which is why, when the House GOP passes a dead bill, it’s not evidence of anything except their desire to waste time.So claiming that “only one part of government” has “passed” something is simply recitation of a talking point.
Bringing up what some random Democrat says in an election year, either pro or con, is simply seeking bias confirmation. If you really want to provide evidence of “bipartisan support”, you need to take sense of the Democrat leadership or a significant number of the caucus. Otherwise, it’s just cherry-picking.
-
Parksie,
So what caused his collapse in support among independents and moderate Dems/Reps?
Did he tack too far to the center, as his liberal base suggests?
Or did he veer too far to the left?
I don’t think compromise brought on his 2010 débâcle. It was overreach, misinterpretation of his electoral mandate that was built largely on a collapsing economy and GW Bush fatigue.Gosh, if I knew, I’d be a highly paid political consultant. Or a pundit, at least. Maybe Nate Silver can throw some of his extra business my way.
Seriously, though, I’ve been crunching some data (in response to GROG’s questions in the Gingrich thread) that indicate what it’s NOT: it’s NOT that he’s too far to the left. He’s actually quite a centrist. So the supposition that his centrist/compromise positions pissed off the liberals is supported (certainly not proven) by the evidence.
-
#46 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Your first fact is bullshit. They can pass plenty in the face of a filibuster. Just propose legislation that if filibustered will cause harm to the minority party at the voting booth.
The filibuster has been around for a long time. Every other majority party has found a way to deal with it. The current crop of Democrats, not so much. It’s an excuse for poor governance — nothing more. Just another thing for whiny liberals to bitch about. -
#47 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
Sure, all they have to do is propose a bill that the right wing cannot misinterpret, lie about, misrepresent, and, in a couple of years, if the base of the GOP figures it out, you’ll get a different Congress. Unless, of course, the state legislatures gerrymander the districts so that the GOP has an advantage.
So simple! Why didn’t the Democrats think of it?
You know, the Senate was designed to make it hard to pass legislation. It used to be that the Senate was a gentleman’s club, where there was a lot of compromise. Those days are done, and now a minority party that really doesn’t want to govern can prevent the other party from passing legislation.
I stick by my first fact. Your claim is simply wrong. -
#48 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
-
#50 written by parksie555 1 year ago
So I give actual evidence as to the where the difficulty in passing the bill under discussion is coming from, in the form of a quote from a member of the majority speaking directly about the matter at hand.
You give me “your claim is simply wrong”, backed up by the reliable Logarchism liberal “just because” argument.
Nice. Makes for a fun discussion. Good to see things haven’t changed much around here. -
parksie,
Good to see things haven’t changed much around here.
I note that you are more inclined to engage with those who you feel provide “just because” arguments, rather than those who present data-driven arguments. Perhaps, then, you are part of the problem about which you complain, rather than part of the solution you claim to desire.
-
#52 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Sen. Frank Lautenberg says pipeline will carry toxins to the US. I guess thats the new term for oil, that substance that drove the industrial revolution and without which we live an 1870’s existence. Evil, evil oil. Meanwhile, Americans struggling to pay $3.50+/gal to fillup their car, trying to save up to buy a $35,000 Chevy Volt. -
#53 written by shortchain 1 year ago
-
-
#55 written by parksie555 1 year ago
I’m not a geologist but from what I understand aquifiers are sub-surface and would not be particularly vulnerable to surface oil spills. In general I would have to believe a pipeline is probably the most environmentally benign way to transport petroleum products, especially a pipeline that is primarily within our borders.
Do you deny that Obama’s delay of the pipeline is pure political pandering designed to appeal to his political base? -
#56 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
Aquifers don’t create water. They are basically underground lakes, and they have to be fed from the surface. In the case of the Ogallala aquifer, that surface water is the precipitation on places where the aquifer is exposed. Which is where the proposed pipeline path cut right through.
-
#57 written by parksie555 1 year ago
My reading on the Olgallala aquifer (admittedly straight Wikipedia) is that there is actually little recharge from surface water. The aquifer is essentially shrinking because the withdrawal rate is significantly greater than the recharge rate, due to the geology of the surface over the aquifer.
In any event the pipeline was proposed in 2008 and the environmental impact of the project has been under review for several years. The State Department has already issued a final environmental impact statement.
Do you still deny that Obama’s insistence on additional delay and study is politically motivated? -
#58 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
Au contraire, the Ogallala aquifer has a large infall. But because of its extent, which is huge, extending over multiple states, and the fact that it is, in much of that area, the primary source of water (it was the only source of water on the farm I grew up on), its recharge rate is low.
That being said, yes, a pollution of its sources would not affect the water quality far from where the spill took place — at least, not for many years, perhaps centuries — but the pollution would be irrevocable. Is it really wise to gamble on the degradation of such a resource?
And, of course, the ecological destruction in the tar sands up north is incalculable.
As for your “politically motivated” charge, do, please, point out a politician doing something which cannot be described as politically motivated. In the case of the pipeline, I’ll refer you to wikipedia. Seems there’s some argument going on between various branches of the executive department over whether the pipeline is a good or bad idea.
Do you think the “tacking on” of this requirement on an extension of the payroll tax vacation is anything but a politically motivated stunt? Especially since it will not pass the Senate? -
#59 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Sure it’s politically motivated. But there is a significant difference.
The difference is Boehner’s political motivation is based on a negotiation tactic to get a bill passed which both parties basically agree needs to be passed.
Obama’s political motivation is to curry favor among his base going into a difficult election, seeing as his own State Department has already given it’s blessing to the project. Most political observers were surprised that Obama raised an objection this late in the game, and most expect Obama to bless the project in 2013.
As far as the tar sands go, blame the Canadians. Would you rather see the oil shipped to China via another pipeline and then by tanker? -
#60 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“I note that you are more inclined to engage with those who you feel provide “just because” arguments, rather than those who present data-driven arguments. Perhaps, then, you are part of the problem about which you complain, rather than part of the solution you claim to desire.“
I couldn’t let this comment pass, Michael, as you tried to play that same sanctimonious bullshit card on me recently when I was tying into it pretty good with DC and shortchain. You need to man up and own the allegiances you’ve forged here at Logarchism. This “new” critique you’ve come up with to some of us conservative-leaning folk as being part of the “dialogue problem” here because we seem to engage in the more emotive and/or irrational posters here rather than the “logical, data-driven” few who, I’m assuming includes you, Mono, and maybe one or two others, just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Let me, as I often do, make an analogy for you to put it in perspective. DC and shortchain are like two stray pitbulls (actually DC is more like an angry yipping chihuahua) that strolled into your yard one day and made themeselves at home. You let ‘em hang around, not really cozying up to them per se, but you let them hang around in the yard (not fenced in or chained up), doing as they please, and even throw plenty of scraps out for them to make them feel welcome in their new-found home, even if you don’ t get out and walk them or play with them. As people walk by on the sidewalk, though, your new “pets” constantly harass and do ugly things to them. They bark angrily and even chase a few people, nipping at their heels, and do it over and over and over again. You refuse to take steps to rein them in by putting them on a leash or in the back yard in a fence or, as a last resort, to animal control. In fact, some neighbors believe a time or two that they’ve seen you in the window watching your two dogs harass passers-by with a cup of coffee and a slight but warm grin on your face. People complain, but instead of taking any action on these dogs that just happened to come into your yard and wound up making it their home, you redirect the criticism back at the people for walking too close to your house on the sidewalk knowing there are angry, barking dogs and tell them they’re the problem for not just “ignoring” the dogs’ harassment — and explaining them away for just being “strays” that wandered up anyway — and for not coming on up to the house anyway because people should know you’re inside just waiting to treat them warmly and with respect despite having two angry, unchained dogs in the yard that chase everybody around.…and don’t forget that annoying poodle named shiloh that also barks and yips around with little/no restraint.
Make sense?! Hope so, because it describes to a tee what happens at this site. Whether you like it or not, and as much as you (claim you) want to disassociate from the other left-wing opinions here and have people come straight to you for a debate, the perception here is that you’ve got angry dogs in the yard who serve as a proxy for YOU because they see little or no willingness on your part to do anything to restrain your new-found pets. In fact, it’s almost like they provide cover for you in a way.…they can vent paranoia, left-wing talking points, and snide/crass remarks about conservatives, and you can sit back with a grin but then take the high ground when you actually step in by trying to claim, “Hey, I’m the data-driven, logical guy; you’re being the tool for running around with my dogs.…“
What a pant-load.… -
#61 written by shortchain 1 year ago
parksie,
Since I’m primarily concerned with whether the pipeline is a good idea or not, I’m not interested in arguing whether it’s nobler or more vile to play a game of political chicken for the sake of longer term electoral advantage (which is what Boehner is doing) than it is to cater to (or, as the politicians say, “pay heed to”) a constituency that helped elect Obama.
I’m not impressed with an “environmental impact statement” by the State Department. It seems flawed in several ways to me, and I’m not alone in that assessment. Too much of the executive department is too firmly under the sway of corporate America, and I don’t trust them. I’m rather surprised that you seem to trust them implicitly.
Since oil is a fungible commodity, it doesn’t matter if it gets shipped to China, so long as the existing routes of supply are sufficient to supply our needs.
-
parksie,
from what I understand aquifiers are sub-surface and would not be particularly vulnerable to surface oil spills.
The proposed pipeline is underground. Aquifers are vulnerable to leaks from underground pipes.
In general I would have to believe a pipeline is probably the most environmentally benign way to transport petroleum products, especially a pipeline that is primarily within our borders.
It certainly can be. That doesn’t mean that you route the pipe over the largest aquifer in the nation. Or, if you must do so, then route it on the surface, rather than underground. Neither of those options have been offered.
My reading on the Olgallala aquifer (admittedly straight Wikipedia) is that there is actually little recharge from surface water.
I belive you have misread the situation. Yes, the aquifer is shrinking, because the withdrawal rate is significantly greater than the recharge rate. But that’s a far cry from saying that there’s little recharge. Rather, what’s happening is that there’s substantial recharge, but insanely massive withdrawal. That’s a problem we have on a national scale, and it’s likely to be the next “global warming”…nothing of substance will be done until it will be so expensive to address that people won’t bother until we have nowhere near enough water to maintain our standard of living anymore.
Do you deny that Obama’s delay of the pipeline is pure political pandering designed to appeal to his political base?
Yes, I do. I don’t deny that he has political motivation, but I seriously doubt that’s his only motivation. I see no reason to believe that he would otherwise have been in favor of the pipeline.
-
#64 written by dawolf 1 year ago
@rgbact
“Sen. Frank Lautenberg says pipeline will carry toxins to the US. I guess thats the new term for oil, that substance that drove the industrial revolution and without which we live an 1870’s existence. Evil, evil oil. Meanwhile, Americans struggling to pay $3.50+/gal to fillup their car, trying to save up to buy a $35,000 Chevy Volt.”Why do you think that Keystone XI will reduce the price of filling up a car? You’re talking about less than 1% of worldwide oil supply, and oil price is not correlated with oil supply — you can see that on a worldwide basis in this image
This isn’t about oil supply itself, and certainly isn’t about reducing prices.
You can argue that Keystone XL will create jobs in the US ( I’ll give you that one), but in that case why not support Wind Energy which will do the same? Or any government job for that matter? This isn’t about jobs either.
This is about money, and which energy companies have supported which politicians financially.
-
Mule,
You need to man up and own the allegiances you’ve forged here at Logarchism.
You read far too much into the continued presence of those of whom you disapprove. The rules have been pretty clear from the start. Both liberals and conservatives have had occasional timeouts, and only one person has ever been outright banned (and not for any reason having to do with politics).
My issue with your complaint (and with parksie’s) is that you do precisely what you complain about them doing. In your analogy, you aren’t one of the neighbors; you’re one of the dogs. And then you complain about the yard being full of dogs. That sort of thing makes you far less sympathetic.
Incidentally, had those of whom you complain made similar complaints about you, I’d have as much sympathy. And I’d call them out for being part of the problem. But, as you probably are aware, they haven’t been complaining.
GROG has been engaging in a less antagonistic way, and we’ve all gained from it. I know you’re capable of it, too.
-
Monotreme,
The problem is not just the Ogallala aquifer, but the carbon content of the tar sand oil.
Yes, the tar sands are particularly inefficient sources of petroleum. But the presence or absence of the pipeline will have a tiny impact, if any, on the amount of those tar sands that are extracted. It will merely decide which path the bitumenous extractions take. Demand is what determines whether they’re extracted at all.
-
#67 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
I’ve sat on the sidelines on this one just to let parksie and friends braid the rope, tie the noose in the rope, drape the rope over the crossbar, place the noose around their collective necks, and position themselves over the trapdoor.
Seems they all agree the “enviro-whacko” President and his fellow Dems are politically driven mules, stubbornly keeping America dependent on foreign oil and not letting Americans fill their gas tanks with $2/gallon gas.
Well, gents, IT JUST AIN’T NECESSARILY SO!!!! And if you took some time to learn the difference between shit and shinola (metaphorically speaking) and get those damned partisan blinders off, you know the truth!
” In general I would have to believe a pipeline is probably the most environmentally benign way to transport petroleum products, especially a pipeline that is primarily within our borders.
Do you deny that Obama’s delay of the pipeline is pure political pandering designed to appeal to his political base?
Obama’s political motivation is to curry favor among his base …“
“But, evidently he “can’t wait” when it comes to building roads and bridges in big cities, but a pipeline that runs thru red states can wait till 2013.
Well, seems the truth is jest a little bit different than you boys make it to be. To wit:
Many Americans hadn’t heard of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman until his sparsely populated state blocked a $7 billion Canadian oil pipeline.
“We’ve certainly been getting a lot of national attention we don’t normally get,” said Heineman, a 63-year-old Republican.
In a series of maneuvers, Heineman managed to delay construction of the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone XL pipeline — and prompt its owner, Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. (TRP), to reroute the 15 percent that was to cross Nebraska and its environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.
A conservative stronghold that hasn’t been carried by a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, Nebraska joined environmentalists, celebrities and scientists in opposing the pipeline. They expressed concern that an oil leak could foul the Sandhills or the Ogallala Aquifer that runs underneath and provides drinking water to 1.5 million people.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011–11-22/heineman-s-nebraska-pipeline-showdown-hints-at-red-state-environmentalism.html
Let’s see, “Bloomberg”, hmmm, not exactly a bastion of left wing, envio-whackery as I recall? Nebraska GOP governor Heineman maneuvering the delay?
Damn, the sound of that trapdoor dropping shore ain’t purty, is it? -
#68 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
#69 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
parksie,
There is no conflict. Delay was YOUR point. And delay was also the governor’s, until such time as HIS state’s concerns were addressed.
YOUR charges was ALL ABOUT OBAMA and the fact that his own State Dept has favorably looked at Keystone, and I have highlighted the fallacy and contradiction in YOUR repeated statements by demonstrating a GOP governor in a red state ALSO had culpability in delay.
Please note: with the proposed changes made in the routing there is STILL State of Nebraska review ongoing.
“One reason is a required environmental review under a Nebraska law signed last month that altered the pipeline’s route through the state to avoid the Sand Hills region and Ogallala Aquifer, which environmentalists feared would come under threat.
The assessment by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality will take an estimated six to nine months to complete, spokesman Brian McManus told CNN on Tuesday.
While the review, being handled by HDR Engineering of Omaha, will focus on the altered pipeline route in Nebraska. McManus was unable to say if construction work on the project could begin before its completion.” Source: CNN 13 December
So, the matter is NOT settled at the state level. Wouldn’t you want Nebraska to make sure everything meets their concerns BEFORE a final decision?
You HAVE read the reports, now confirmed, of the water contamination due to fracking, which is SUPPOSED to be too deep to affect water supplies, haven’t you. See, there IS a common sense reason that “shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped” is a cliché and a truism.
Or do you want to ignore the 10th Amendment so as to impose federal dictate?My statement concerning your partisanship coloring your perception stands.
-
parksie –
The most important line in that article is that TransCanada has agreed to choose a different route. That’s what President Obama was pushing for, and the delay he supports is to re-plan that route and do the impact statements and surveys etc. that are needed for that new route.
Republicans are just using this as a political mudball.
-
-
#72 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Maxie — Just say “I was wrong”. Stop digging. You are embarrassing yourself.
And I have read quite a few fracking reports. I know some engineers in my company who own land in upstate PA with gas wells on them who know the process very well.
Compared to the safety, health, and environmental impact of mining and continuing to burn coal, I’ll take fracking and a new generation of combined-cycle natural gas powerplants any day of the week.
Sure could create a lot of jobs building those nice new powerplants, couldn’t we?
And we wouldn’t have to spend any tax dollars creating these jobs, would we?
Real infrastructure projects — not “light rail” or “wind turbines”. -
#73 written by parksie555 1 year ago
DC — the rerouting is going to impose a delay anyway. Obama is posturing.
It’s not just me that’s saying this.
That bastion of the right wing, the New York Times:
“The move is the latest in a series of administration decisions pushing back thorny environmental matters beyond next November’s presidential election to try to avoid the heat from opposing interests “
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/politics/administration-to-delay-pipeline-decision-past-12-election.html
Or this from those noted right wingers at ABC News
“The Obama administration announced today that it would study alternate routes for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, kicking a politically contentious issue down the road past the 2012 election… The move avoids a politically difficult decision that was expected before the end of the year.“
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-administration-delays-keystone-xl-pipeline-12–18-months-punts-past-election/
-
#74 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
parksie,
In spite of your self delusion, I was NOT wrong. The Bloomberg article speaks for itself. That is a fact!!!! You may take up the issue of the governor’s delay with either them, or perhaps the governor himself. Do you deny the article’s veracity? Do you believe the citing of fact to be “embarrassing”? Personally, I find such a statement by you perhaps a demonstration of projection of you own feelings.
Notwithstanding the RECENT change in the governor’s position (which I readily admit), there WAS a delay until the pipeline rerouting occurred! And THAT DELAY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA! Can YOU not just say that YOU were wrong to make it appear, in YOUR statements, that the President was solely at fault? Bet not!
Can YOU not admit that Nebraska is now studying the impact of the rerouting, such study will take as much as 9 MONTHS? A period not much shorter than that put forth by Obama.
Again, do YOU want the feds to trump a state’s right to determine the safety of it’s land, water and citizens? A question, I note, you failed to answer in your previous comment.
And, quite frankly, I don’t consider YOUR OPINION on the safety of fracking as any more or less valuable than anyone else’s and certainly not of sufficient standing to determine policy.UPDATE: I just saw your quotes from NYT and ABC, but I note YOU LEFT OUT THE FACT of Nebraska’s study! Cherrypicking and telling only part of the truth to make your partisan point much?
-
#75 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Please show me where I said Obama was solely at fault for the Keystone XL delay.
What I am accusing Obama of is pandering to the baser elements of his party. You support the contention. If the project was to be delayed by Nebraska state authorities (which should have final say on the project, not the Feds) anyway, why does he feel the need to get up on his little stump and make a big announcement about “delaying the decision” when he knows full well the project is going to be approved and it’s just the details that are being worked out? -
#76 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
parksie,
Your sin was one of OMISSION, not commission. Again, telling PART of the truth so that you make a partisan point. Just like in comment #73. NOTHING about Nebraska’s study. You must have liked Romney’s little “judgement” commercial. If you only see the ad, the perception is that Obama was speaking of himself, not quoting McCain. Your lack of complete honesty creates the perception you wish to convey. One with a partisan bias.
Anyway, you also are aware, I hope, seeing that you have spoken about the support of, and influence on, of unions and this President, that the President’s delay is a double edged sword. In “pandering” to the environmentalists, he is pissing off the unions by delaying those jobs. Which group do you think gives more money and time to his election? Hmmmm?
So your lambasting is very weak tea as far as its political justification.
Perhaps you may find it better to move on and find another subject you could lambaste Obama for. -
#77 written by mclever 1 year ago
This debate about who’s playing worse politics with the payroll taxes/UE benefits/Keystone Pipeline/etc. reminds me of the No Child Left Behind debates from a couple years ago. Whether you blamed the failings of NCLB on Bush or Kennedy probably depended on whether you were a Democrat or a Republican.
So, whether you think one side or the other is just “playing politics” may depend a lot on which side of the fence you’re sitting. -
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
- The First Scandal of 2016
- Math Beat Ideology
- Poopyheads!
- Election Watch: Election Day
- Romney’s Tax Plan: You Can’t Get There from Here
- The Romney Plan: Winners and Losers
- Reëlection Watch: October 27, 2012
- Faith, Hope and Charity
- October Surprise: Romney Endorses Obama!
- Reëlection Watch: October 20, 2012
About Michael Weiss (326 posts)
Michael is a jack of many trades, and master of a few. His varied background includes government and private businesses, both large and small. His experience in the financial services and computer industries has led him to computer security.





Michael, interesting as always. I think at some level all one has to do to figure out who will get the nomination is follow the money. And if we look at where the money is flowing then one would have to seriously think that Mitt will get the nomination and grab Perry as VP. But Perry seems to be doing his best or worst to screw that up.
Had coffee yesterday with some folks that are or were all Republicans (guess that would even include me as I was once) and they are still not convinced any of the present crowd can or will get the nomination. Now how some thing like that would ever play out remains to be seen but if this up one week down the next patern was to continue into the primaries I guess it is possible that no one would have the requisit votes to pull it off before the convention.
I would hazard a guess though. If all of these polls listed the presently known candidates and a box for some one/any one else that some one/any one else would score at least in the middle and maybe higher.
Some things to consider: The Democrats/Obama have yet to actually go after much of this crowd because up to this point they have been pretty much self destructing with out outside help. Why waste time or money picking off your opponents when they are already doing a good job of it. I have this feeling that Mitt is vulnerable for a number of things and that should he appear to be moving again that we could well see a torrent of stuff that he will have serious problems countering. No not his religion even though with some elements in the Party it is going to hurt regardless what they may be saying. I’m thinking more of his Bain Capitol baggage, how he left office in Mass, his love of Citizens United, illegal aliens, his 255 million etc. I figure a few photos of plants he closed, workers he got rid of or some thing of that sort and he will be flailing around and losing his cool big time. Could be wrong but when only 20% of even Republicans want you I really really question just how even he is running with the president regardless of what the polls might indicate.
One last item. What exactly are the Republicans going to throw at the president that they have not already thrown with only marginal effect? If they thought they had any thing they would already have used it. In the mean time the Republicans just keep adding to the sound bite inventory of the Democrats. Is the president not in the best position? Sure but I would much prefer to be in his shoes than any of his pretenders.