The ONLY poll that counts is the actual election.
The repubs do very well in the generic ballot contest which essentially means that a majority do not like the current President. However, you can't run a "generic" election. They better get a viable candidate or two vetted and ready to run, or they will most certainly lose in 2012.

Don't be so sure about the loss of independents. While some feel their feathers have been ruffled for whatever reasons, their vote is still contingent on what an opposing candidate has to offer. And as of now, the party of no has very little to offer Independents besides cynicism and partisan rhetoric.

Thanks for the push to revisit the SS Mayaguez story. I had long ago forgotten the details. 14 Marines, including a 3 man machine gun team left behind, 2 Navy Corpsmen and 2 Air Force crewmen KIA/MIA. The last fatalities of the Vietnam War. The last names on the Wall. RIP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayaguez_incident

Fortunately for our country, the polls do not reflect your non-fact based opinion(s).

The last 3 Presidents that won a second term also had similar poll numbers during their first term in office. The polls numbers didn't work out so well for the challengers then, and I suspect they won't in the future.

And oh yes, Congratulation President Obama. Change is a happening.

Wall Street/Financial REFORM WILL BE LAW in a few day's.

Seriously, the 2012 is completely dependent of whether the republicans can manage to get a clue in the next two years. As of today, they are still rudderless; they don't know who they are or what they stand for. It's one thing to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks, it's something else to actually have a plan and a candidate that can express that plan. I don't think they have recovered from the noecons yet, they need some leadership...soon. Otherwise, they will be nothing more than a mob of tea-baggers with no ideas of their own.

I happen to believe that if you had anything of substance to controvert obamas array of unfavorable polling numbers - you would have already posted them.

Instead of all the attempts to create red-herrings.....

Like I said, you got nothing to offer but cynicism and rhetoric. Polls are useless when there is no other candidate standing on the podium. Who you gonna put on the stage, Sarah Palin:rolleyes4?

Thank but no thanks. I'll vote for the guy that's getting results. And right now, OBAMA IS DA MAN.

The only time Ford was President he had not received one vote for the office of President. I remember thinking at the time it was a pretty sweet deal to become VP when Agnew quit and then become President when Nixon quit.

It was hard to call his 'election' a mandate since he just fell into the office, and he might have been a caretaker but he acted, and ran, like an office seeker.

Mortgage rates did hit 21% during that era because it bought the real estate market to a grinding halt, and they also hit that level again during some months of the Carter era. People could not sell their homes because no one could get a loan to buy them. The oil company I was with had a deal where if you were re-located they would buy your house if you could not sell it. Our employees in California were bidding on jobs where they would have to take a pay cut just to get a chance to move and get out from under a house that no one could sell.

I don't recall what the Prime Rate was then, but 17% sounds about right.

I really don't blame Ford for the economy, though. He did not run for office to become President and never claimed to have all the answers. The inflation was a left over from the Viet-Nam era that had been coming on for years. Carter did not do any better in this area, and until Reagan convinced the head of the Fed to induce a Recession in 1982 inflation just kept going up, up and up.

But after that Recession ended the economy took off. I remember the price of my house doubled from 1980 to 1985 because with low interests rates (10% was considered low!) a lot of people entered the housing market and demand went through the roof.

The accelerated depreciation Reagan signed off on helped the economy a lot. It also contributed to the sale of S class Mercedes. Have you ever wondered why there are so many 300SD from that era still on the road? It is because Mercedes sold a lot of cars to people who could write them off over a three years period instead of a seven years. This kept up until the 'Oldsmobile Law' kicked in that limited the amount of auto depreciation to $16,000. A 300SD then went for about $36,000.

Oh, by the way.... I know the President cannot control the price of gasoline. I only bought that up because a lot of Cons keep shouting about how gas prices are going to double with Obama in office. Gasoline is now about $2 a gallon cheaper here than it was two years ago, so I am still waiting for the 'Obama Effect', as Rush calls it, to kick in.

Also note that in the first 18 months Obama has had 33 days of vacation. In the same time Bush had had 92 days in Crawford chopping cedar. Sorta lets you know where Shrub's priorities were.

The race in Nevada is instructive. Harry Reid essentially lost the vote of independents. The Republicans then nominate a right wing nut, Sharon "Psycho Smile" Angle. The independents are now flocking back to Reid. This is being repeated across the country. Even Alabama rejected the Tea Party nut who ran commercials where dead people told him to "gather your armies". So far, the biggest thing the Dems have going for them, are conservative Republicans. The only place Republicans have shown real success is in the North, where they have elected a succession of liberal Republicans like Scott Brown and Christie in NJ, but to listen to the far right, you'd think they were the ones electing winners. They are not. Keep nominating far right anti-Social Security, anti-everything else nut jobs, we love it.

It's guys like ole Skid who are guaranteeing the re-election of Obama.

ERTA in 1980 was a great deal for car write offs. 3 years. Bang! 25/38/37% Done. A marine surveyor client bought a new 81 Jag..100% biz. Nice write off.;) Now..."luxury auto rules":rolleyes: You can keep a car 5 years & still have a large undepreciated basis to roll over into your next purchase.:(:rolleyes:
Then there was the 15 year recovery period for real estate.:)

The first time I saw a guy lose money on selling his home was back in about 84. He moved up east from Texas when the "oil patch" collapsed. :o


Final comment on ancient mortgage history....
I got my numbers on the 17% peak in mtge rates here viewing the last 36 years:
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage_rates/charts.asp

and prime rate history here: http://www.mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/prime.asp

But its water over the dam...;)

Why I'm not worried:


Mike Pence Explains Why America Can Afford Tax Cuts For The Rich But Not Jobless Aid
First Posted: 07-18-10 11:58 AM | Updated: 07-18-10 11:58 AM


The unsavory task of explaining why America apparently can't afford to help the unemployed but can afford tax cuts for the rich fell to Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) on Sunday.

"Republicans, me included, have supported numerous extensions of unemployment benefits and we're anxious to do so again," the Indiana Republican told interviewer Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "The deficit this year is a trillion dollars for the second year in a row ... The American people have had it with runaway federal spending, deficits and debt, and they want to see men and women in Washington, D.C. make the hard choices."

Polls released last week showed that despite anxiety about spending, registered voters actually favor helping the unemployed even if it adds to the deficit.

Nevertheless, extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless lapsed at the beginning of June because Republicans in the Senate, joined by Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, insisted that the $33 billion cost of reauthorizing the benefits not be added to the deficit (though some deficit hawks actually don't consider stiffing the jobless a smart way to reduce the deficit to begin with). Fox's Wallace said he understood the Republicans' argument that the unemployment benefits be "paid for" -- but why not also "pay for" a reauthorization of the tax cuts, which will cost $678 billion?

"The reality is that as you study -- when President Kennedy cut marginal tax rates, when Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, when President Bush imposed those tax cuts, they actually generated economic growth, they expand the economy, they expand tax revenue," Pence said. "The point is we've got to get this economy moving again and we can't go back to the tax-and-spend policies of the Democrats or the tax-cut-and-spend policies of the prior administration."

Since extended benefits lapsed at the beginning of June, some 2.5 million people prematurely stopped receiving checks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has called for another vote to reauthorize the benefits on Tuesday, after the replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has been sworn in. He will presumably give Democrats the 60th vote they need to break the GOP's filibuster. People who missed checks will be paid retroactively if the bill is approved.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) explained on Wallace's show last week that "you do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

When the price of oil dropped to a posted rate of about $13 a bbl there were a lot of folks that lost their oil patch jobs. The actual rate of the 'If you buy 1,000,000 bbls. at a time' rate was around $8.50. One of my co-workers worked a deal with an Arab Sheik for 5,000,000 bbls at $3.25 per bbl.! This was in about 1984 or maybe 1985.

I remember in the early 1980's there were people camped out along US 80 in Midland, Texas that were trying to get oil patch jobs. A lot of the majors had tank farms along that road and they let the 'campers' use their water supplies. Some people even got hired.

Then the price dropped from around $36 to the posted $13.50 price. This was at the same time the Savings and Loan debacle unwound the housing market and about 425,000 people in Texas alone lost their jobs in one year.

After the USSR fell the Russian oil minister gave a speech where he said Reagan's 'Star Wars' program had nothing to do with the USSR coming apart. He claimed it was $8.50 a bbl oil prices. (Russia exports a lot of oil and gas). I really think it was a lot of both.

I mean, if you were a Russian would you want to give an American President the credit for causing the break-up of your country?