It's not that they are using the 2008 model, which was quite unique when compared to the last several elections, but they are using models that favor the Dems even more than the unusually high turnout from 2008.  Hell, the last CNN poll had an 8 point advantage for Dems against Republicans (was only a 3 point advantage in '08), as well as having a 3 point advantage for Dems against Independents (Independents/Others had a 9 point lead over Dems in '08) , and Obama was only up by 3 points.  Their sample was 37% D, 29% R, 34% I.  Now keep in mind that in 2008, ~31% of the vote was Democrat (which are not as enthusiastic this election), ~29% were Republican (more enthusiastic this election), which left ~40% for Independents/Others (Romney leads Independents by 8%-15% depending on what poll you go by).  If people think these polls are accurately showing the turnout makeup and end results of this election, they are fooling themselves.

Economies are really big and really complex, but the state, through law, policy and expenditure, exerts more control over it than other single entity. A single bill can create or destroy a monopoly, or shift a trillion dollars worth of supply or demand around.

In the 19th century, economies were as capricious as the weather, but we learned a lot about controlling and stabilizing economies in the first half of the twentieth century. Look at this list of banking crises and note how over the course of the 19th century, every ten years either the US or the UK or both would have a meltdown. Since the second world war, economic crises have become less frequent and less severe. That's thanks to central banks, welfare states, Keynes, and other lessons learned.

Managing an economy is far from easy, but it isn't impossible either, so leaders need to be held responsible for their performance. Not just the head of state, but a lot of other public officials and influential private actors. The argument that "Well, nobody can really be expected to manage the economy" is an argument for the laissez-faire boom and bust economics of the 19th century.

I understand that argument, which is why I think it's fine to say (hypothethically) "Obama's stimulus package alleviated/worsened the economic crisis," or "the new regulations Obama pushed through the Congress are a hindrance/help to America's economy." That's dandy.

What causes me to raise an eyebrow is holding a single man responsible for how the entire economy pans out, which is precisely what some folks try to do. We're in a republic, after all, a system that by design prevents any individual from gaining excess political power. "Is the economy better for you today than it was four years ago?", and then holding one political figure responsible for the answer either way, is a fallacious argument at best. This goes double when the opposition has a majority in one of the legislative houses, and when the actions of previous administrations (good and bad) continue to play out during the current one.

Someone wants to break down how the current president's actions affected the economy, be my guest. But few do that, because it's a sisyphean task.

Hasn't the USA had a meltdown about every 10 years though?  There was the oil crisis and hyper inflation, stock market crash in the late 80s, dot com bubble in the 90s, housing market crash in late 2000, etc.  There is a bubble every 10 years or so still.

This is incorrect.  Bill Clinton could note veto that bill.

Well ok he could of but it wouldn't of mattered.

The Banking Modernizations act passed with a stunning  83% vote in the house of representatives meaning any veto would be overturned.

75% of House Democrats voted for the bill.  Largely because it was mostly a smart move.


Also, this didn't deregulate big banks really.  All it did was let the banks merge easier... assuming said banks got good CRA reviews.

Which is why they gave more unqualified loans.  Not because the bill had any new laws or lesser lending restrictions, but because to be able to merge and buy other banks, you needed to give said loans under CRA guidelines.

GBL is actually seen as part of the GFC because it allowed banks to get "Too big to fail".   So really it's only a problem if you think there are banks that actually are too big to fail.

Doesn't seem that way to me though.   Let those banks fail, peoples debts be wiped clean, and if you need to normalzie credit (which never even happened so whatever) then throw money out there directly or empower the smaller more intellegent banks.

Polling is something of a science. There's a lot of math and demographics and stuff involved. I was making a crude joke linking that fact to the stereotype that Republicans reject scientific claims.

If I were Obama I wouldn't want to be president for another 4 years so let Romney win.

Only reason I say that is because DAMN the man has aged. Talk about a stressful job. Another 4 years in the job and he wil look like morgan freeman.

Wonderful of Rasmussen Report which gives us an idea of who will win if it's stays the same!

A president’s job approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s job approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) at least somewhat disapprove (see trends).

Well then your joke makes sense. I didn't know Polling could be a science. 

LOL. Yes delusional to facts.