Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[Credo]

Oil is emotional and it is used to scare the crap out of people. Take away their car and you have taken away their independence.

Oil is also complex. It takes many years to develop and oil field. The amount of gasoline available also depends on the ability of refineries to process it and they cannot process just any grade of oil.

I spent much of my life on the edge of a large oil field. When prices were reasonably high, it pumped oil like crazy. When the price dropped, the wells were capped. When it went up, they started pumping again. Oil from some countries was cheaper and easier to retrieve and probably of a grade that is easier for existing refineries to handle.

[samran]

Are you content with OPEC setting the price of oil? Supply and demand has everything to do with the price of oil. High demand along with limited supply generally causes a hike in the price of oil.

If the US becomes energy independent, that would conceivably remove the US demand from the world market, thereby causing a lowering of the price per barrel worldwide.

Securing the oil from both the US and Canada would lower the transportation costs currently associated with Middle East oil as well.

And just think how many jobs could be created by having a truly viable oil industry.

So, what is wrong with my thinking here?

Assuming you can find enough domestic oil to meet current US demand ( and I doubt it, and even if they could it would take a few decades to even find enough) you'll simply have China and India simply step in and keep that global demand ticking over...

So you are back to square one.

Ps. I'm an economist so I hate the idea of OPEC, but there isn't much that can be done about it. As long as we want oil, we are stuck with it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by samran

[Asiantravel]

One question though.... (nb..I work in oil and gas. And mining. So I'm not some tree hugging hippy)

Are people really that stupid to think that government actually has control over the global price of oil and gas?

I'm no expert on the subject but isn't speculation on supply a big factor in determining prices, and not just the physical available supply at the moment? Isn't that why anytime there is a perceived threat to the world oil supply the price increases even before anything happens? If speculation is a factor, then the prospect of getting more oil from more drilling (Alaska, continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico, etc), from the Keystone pipeline, more favorable regulations, would lower prices and these are all things the government controls.

You can simplify the regulations all you want. It will still cost $80 upwards per barrel to access that supply (more in the frozen wastelands if siberian oil is anything to go by) as opposed to sub $20 in the middle east. So you can bring on all the oil you want, but it won't be cheap. And the world price is basically held around the cost of the marginal barrel of oil, the only way those new supplies which are 'freed' by the republicans are going to be economic are if the bowser price stays high, or goes higher.

So as I said, I find that particular policy dumb and misleading. But people seem suckered in by it.

Are you content with OPEC setting the price of oil? Supply and demand has everything to do with the price of oil. High demand along with limited supply generally causes a hike in the price of oil.

If the US becomes energy independent, that would conceivably remove the US demand from the world market, thereby causing a lowering of the price per barrel worldwide.

Securing the oil from both the US and Canada would lower the transportation costs currently associated with Middle East oil as well.

And just think how many jobs could be created by having a truly viable oil industry.

So, what is wrong with my thinking here?

I simply don't understand the group that keep arguing against making use of your own stuff when you have it within your own country versus having to be at the mercy of an oil cartel that don't seem to like or respect USA? As America relies so much on oil surely it is worth even paying a premium to have energy security within its own borders

[Credo]

Well, suddenly the socialists are out in full force! Remember when their was a (cooking) oil shortage in Thailand, which is one of the largest producers of palm oil? A big part was because of attempts by the government to control the price. What happened? Suppliers quit selling their oil at a loss. Prices went up--at least on the black market--or in other countries. Lots of bad things happened.

The oil that is available in the US will get pumped when it is economically feasible to pump it. If it can be purchased from another country at a cheaper price, it will be bought. It has to do with supply and demand.

Oh, and the gov't has the strategic oil supply. The average citizen may get caught short, but the US gov't isn't in the case of an international incident.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Credo

[samran]

I simply don't understand the group that keep arguing against making use of your own stuff when you have it within your own country versus having to be at the mercy of an oil cartel that don't seem to like or respect USA? As America relies so much on oil surely it is worth even paying a premium to have energy security within its own borders

Not arguing against it. Far from.

Do it if you want. All I'm saying is that I don't understand why people think it will make petrol prices cheaper. To me it's dumb economics...and hardly free market stuff that the Republicans pretend to stand for.

[samran]

Well, suddenly the socialists are out in full force! Remember when their was a (cooking) oil shortage in Thailand, which is one of the largest producers of palm oil? A big part was because of attempts by the government to control the price. What happened? Suppliers quit selling their oil at a loss. Prices went up--at least on the black market--or in other countries. Lots of bad things happened.

The oil that is available in the US will get pumped when it is economically feasible to pump it. If it can be purchased from another country at a cheaper price, it will be bought. It has to do with supply and demand.

Oh, and the gov't has the strategic oil supply. The average citizen may get caught short, but the US gov't isn't in the case of an international incident.

Hold on, I though the socialist were the Democrats

[Credo]

Samran, according to the Republicans, they are, but things suddenly change when it is their ox that is getting gored.

Free enterprise is what they say they want--unless of course it is the soviets or Chinese who we are trading with.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Credo

[samran]

Samran, according to the Republicans, they are, but things suddenly change when it is their ox that is getting gored.

Bingo!

[Chicog]

Unfortunately I was travelling during the last debate, but I've seen snippets of it here and there. However, today I finally saw Romney's "Act of Terror" howler, which must have surely cost some debate prepper their job.

The one who should be losing her job is Candy Crowley. She ended up having to walk back her huge gaffe and admit that Mitt Romney had his facts correct.

Funny because they showed Obama saying it on Sky News this morning.

Or are you quibbling over the exact wording because Romney got it wrong?

Let's face it, Romney is trying to say he can do a better job of being Commander in Chief than Obama. The truth is, he says a lot of things, the trouble is he has absolutely no detail to back up his claims.

[chiangmaikelly]

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.

[Ulysses G.]

The debate on Monday is about foreign policy and new revelations about the security in Libya could prove problematic for the president. It turns out that Blue Mountain guards patrolled with flashlights and batons instead of guns. Some had no training at all and were hired after a casual recruiting and screening process. The Libyan commander in charge of the local guards at the mission was a former English teacher who said he heard about Blue Mountain from a neighbor. He has said, "I don't have a background in security, I've never held a gun in my life." The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack. What a complete screwup!

[samran]

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.

Well simplistic 5 point plans don't need that much time...

[Ulysses G.]

Unfortunately I was travelling during the last debate, but I've seen snippets of it here and there. However, today I finally saw Romney's "Act of Terror" howler, which must have surely cost some debate prepper their job.

The one who should be losing her job is Candy Crowley. She ended up having to walk back her huge gaffe and admit that Mitt Romney had his facts correct.

Funny because they showed Obama saying it on Sky News this morning.

If you look at the transcript of the speech, he was not referring specificaly to the incident in Libya - although he cliamed that he was in the debate - and in the same speech he blamed the attack on religious denigration - i.e. the video. That is why Candy Crowley had to walk back her mistake.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

-Barrack Obama

[koheesti]

Oil is emotional and it is used to scare the crap out of people. Take away their car and you have taken away their independence.

Oil is also complex. It takes many years to develop and oil field. The amount of gasoline available also depends on the ability of refineries to process it and they cannot process just any grade of oil.

I spent much of my life on the edge of a large oil field. When prices were reasonably high, it pumped oil like crazy. When the price dropped, the wells were capped. When it went up, they started pumping again. Oil from some countries was cheaper and easier to retrieve and probably of a grade that is easier for existing refineries to handle.

Gasoline is only one of hundreds of products that comes from petroleum. I doubt many people in today's world could live without petroleum products. All the windmills and solar panels will never make up for all that.

[koheesti]

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.

Well simplistic 5 point plans don't need that much time...

I have also joked about Romney interjecting his "5-point plan" at every opportunity. And you may be right, it is could be simplistic. Maybe the math doesn't add up. Maybe it won't work. But you know what? If anyone who watched only the debates asked themselves how Obama's plan stacks up, they would not be able to answer because Obama never presented one. And that, is the gist of the it - Romney has a plan, Obama does not. And if that is the only thing people take away from the debates into the voting booth, then Obama maxes out at 44% of the vote in a landslide Romney victory.

Edited October 18, 2012 by koheesti

[hellodolly]

I am listening to both CNN and Fox. Pretty much everyone is saying it is a draw while adding a little spin for their candidate.

Are you saying fox is calling it even?

I didn't get to see that much but I did catch the last exchange. I was waiting for Romney to tell how he loved mother and apple Pie. I did catch a little bit earlier when Romney was talking about bringing jobs back home if every thing is on a level field.

Damned near died laughing thinking of Americans lowering their standard of living to match the standard of living in China or for that matter here in Thailand. I can just see it all now average Joe and Mary American living in a one or two bed room home with there two kids.

[Chicog]

Unfortunately I was travelling during the last debate, but I've seen snippets of it here and there. However, today I finally saw Romney's "Act of Terror" howler, which must have surely cost some debate prepper their job.

The one who should be losing her job is Candy Crowley. She ended up having to walk back her huge gaffe and admit that Mitt Romney had his facts correct.

Funny because they showed Obama saying it on Sky News this morning.

If you look at the transcript of the speech, he was not referring specificaly to the incident in Libya - although he cliamed that he was in the debate - and in the same speech he blamed the attack on religious denigration - i.e. the video. That is why Candy Crowley had to walk back her mistake.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

-Barrack Obama

As an outsider, this is just politicial blithering. Obama was talking to the press the day after the incident in which he said " "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.". And Republican commentators are saying he was talking about what? 9/11?

Jesus some of them need to get a life.

And let's not forget Romney's original - and I have to say rather pathetic - attempt at political point scoring was in response to a press release from the Embassy in Libya hours before the killings even took place.

It's pretty poor politics if you ask me.

[geriatrickid]

Are you content with OPEC setting the price of oil? Supply and demand has everything to do with the price of oil. High demand along with limited supply generally causes a hike in the price of oil.

If the US becomes energy independent, that would conceivably remove the US demand from the world market, thereby causing a lowering of the price per barrel worldwide.

Securing the oil from both the US and Canada would lower the transportation costs currently associated with Middle East oil as well.

And just think how many jobs could be created by having a truly viable oil industry.

So, what is wrong with my thinking here?

Wow, now all of a sudden you have abandoned the effect of a the market. Where Romney's argument falls apart is that it doesn't matter if the USA is energy independent, prices at the pump are still significantly influenced by energy prices in the open market. One of the reason's why both Obama and Romney did not answer the price of fuel at the US pump question directly is that they both know, that US energy providers set their prices based upon world prices. The only way to change it is if the US government imposed pricing regulations and this would be impossible.

I am fascinated by the American assumption that Mexican and Canadian energy will automatically be spoken for in the market. Both Mexico and Canada are sovereign countries and can sell their energy where they see fit and to the markets that offer the best prices. Mr. Romney raised the issue of the delay of the oil pipeline from Canada and blamed Obama. What he failed to mention was that the resistance to the pipeline came from Repoublican state governors and congressional delegates. The resistance was a legitimate expression of serious concerns that the Canadian pipeline developers did not address. There is a growing resentment in Canada that western oil flows to the USA to be refined and is then sold back to Canada at a much higher price, while the eastern region of Canada imports oil from Venezuala and the middle east. Pressure is growing to build oil refineries in the east to service the domestic Canadian market and LG facilities on the west coast to service the asian market. Canada can make musch more by selling its energy to China and it is why China is trying to gobble up some of Canada's largest energy producers. Mexicans are increasingly asking why their energy is being exported to the USA when the Chinese are willing to pay more.

If the USA wants to be energy independent it will have to reduce its squandering of energy. That means no more gas guzzling vehicles and that means increasing costs at the pump to encourage restraint. It means a continued emphasis on building fuel efficient vehicles and in supporting public transit. Mr. Obama spoke to that and Mr. Romney wasn't interested in such notions. None of the aforementioned is popular with Americans. The USA can drill as much as it wants, it can build all the coal plants that spew pollutants into the atmosphere causing health and environmental damage, it can rush forward with shale gas development that imperils an already damaged water table and that has the potential to severely damage the agriculture of the USA as water is polluted , but the fact remains that the only way to become energy self sufficient is if demand is reduced and that means behaving responsibly. I don't think American's are capable of doing that because they live in a country where the subject is taboo and no one wants to address the reality.

[Ulysses G.]

I am listening to both CNN and Fox. Pretty much everyone is saying it is a draw while adding a little spin for their candidate.

Are you saying fox is calling it even?

Pretty much every commentator was saying it was even right after the debate. With all the hostility, charges and counter-charges it was pretty hard to say that anyone won. However, Obama got a lot of points simply by not repeating his previous performance

[Chicog]

In fact, in reading what he actually said that day, I see nothing wrong with it. It's now up to him to direct America's resources into doing what he says he's going to do. If he can do it before the election, he gets kudos.

But then I suppose the right wing loonies would say he orchestrated the attack in order to get that kudos.

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

[geriatrickid]

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

If you want more time to get your message out in debates, it’s good to be a Democrat.

Well simplistic 5 point plans don't need that much time...

I have also joked about Romney interjecting his "5-point plan" at every opportunity. And you may be right, it is could be simplistic. Maybe the math doesn't add up. Maybe it won't work. But you know what? If anyone who watched only the debates asked themselves how Obama's plan stacks up, they would not be able to answer because Obama never presented one. And that, is the gist of the it - Romney has a plan, Obama does not. And if that is the only thing people take away from the debates into the voting booth, then Obama maxes out at 44% of the vote in a landslide Romney victory.

Let's get real. The big issue is the fact that Social Security, Medicare Defense spending are the biggest drain on the US budget. Neither Obama nor Romney can fix it. They do not have the power to do so. That power rests with Congress. Until the House gets its act together and does something, no President will be able to get a responsible budget. The problem is the US Congress. Americans should be putting the tough questions and demands to their Representatives since the Congress men and women control the spending Bills. I think Americans know that cuts have to be made and that taxes for some people will have to increase. They are not stupid. The thing is, political parties are afraid to address the issue because some vested power groups within both the political parties will have a sh*t fit.

[geriatrickid]

I am listening to both CNN and Fox. Pretty much everyone is saying it is a draw while adding a little spin for their candidate.

Are you saying fox is calling it even?

Pretty much every commentator was saying it was even right after the debate. With all the hostility, charges and counter-charges it was pretty hard to say that anyone won. However, Obama got a lot of points simply by not repeating his previous performance

As the commentators now revisit the statements made by the candidates, the consensus is that Mr. Romney dropped the ball. It is amazing what happens 24-48 hours later.

[Ulysses G.]

As an outsider, this is just politicial blithering.

Obama was clearly talking about the video which had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. The State Department was monitoring the attack in real time, so they knew it right away, but the administration kept blaming it on the video for 2 weeks after it happened. That is not "blithering." to voters.

[samran]

For a second there we were having a rational discussion on policy, and none of the usual suspects turned up with some notable exceptions.

Normal programming has now resumed.

[Ulysses G.]

I am listening to both CNN and Fox. Pretty much everyone is saying it is a draw while adding a little spin for their candidate.

Are you saying fox is calling it even?

Pretty much every commentator was saying it was even right after the debate. With all the hostility, charges and counter-charges it was pretty hard to say that anyone won. However, Obama got a lot of points simply by not repeating his previous performance

As the commentators now revisit the statements made by the candidates, the consensus is that Mr. Romney dropped the ball. It is amazing what happens 24-48 hours later.

Sorry, but there is no "consensus" that Romney "dropped the ball". Even the snap polls that the media are relying on were close to even on Romney winning, Obama winning and it being a draw.

[Chicog]

I'm just reading about the "Binders full of women" stuff, which again seems to me to be taken extraordinarily seriously. It does mask some fibs from Romney (the number of women under him in Mass. actually contracted from 30 to 27% during his tenure), but it's typical of the petty bickering in this campaign that seems to be obfuscating the real issues.

Of the two and a bit debates I've seen there seems to have been no real effort to actually come up with meaningful, detailed solutions - maybe neither of them can - yet the debates seem to have a remarkable influence on the polls.

As an outsider, this is just politicial blithering.

Obama was clearly talking about the video which had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. The State Department was monitoring the attack in real time, so they knew it right away, but the administration kept blaming it on the video for 2 weeks after it happened. That is not "blithering." to voters.

I'm a bit lost as to how you can say:

""No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

is "clearly talking about the video".

It would seem to me it is talking about acts of terror and seeing justice for four American deaths.

Where is the video mentioned in those sentences?

It's a terrible shame if voters are concentrating on this distracting "he said, she said" chatter, when they should really be asking if Obama was to blame for intelligence and state department failures (I'm not sure he was, yet he took full responsibility in the debate), and more to the point how he is dealing with it.

I don't think Obama would be the first person to suffer because of intelligence failures, would he? I seem to remember a litany of them leading to one terror attack in this century.

As I said, his response was appropriate and he has stated unequivocally that "justice will be done".

Failure to do so would be a stick with which Romney can beat him. Success on the other hand would be a massive plus.

I reckon the bickering on this subject would be ended by a surgical strike on the "militants" that did it, but then again I've seen "Wag The Dog", and it's eerily feasible.

[Chicog]

This is extremely bizarre. What are his advisers thinking?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/romneys-morbid-new-stump-speech/263789/

[koheesti]

If you look at the transcript of the speech, he was not referring specificaly to the incident in Libya - although he cliamed that he was in the debate - and in the same speech he blamed the attack on religious denigration - i.e. the video. That is why Candy Crowley had to walk back her mistake.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

-Barrack Obama

As an outsider, this is just politicial blithering. Obama was talking to the press the day after the incident in which he said " "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.". And Republican commentators are saying he was talking about what? 9/11?

No matter how anyone wants to interpret Obama's "No acts of terror..." sound bite, the undeniable fact is that for a long time after that moment, he and his administration refused to call it a terror attack. They came out all over the place (White House press briefings, interviews, political talk shows, etc) saying it came from a spontaneous protest to that crappy video about Mohammed. If he meant to call it a terror attack the day after, why didn't anyone ever call it that again during the weeks that followed? Why did they keep coming out saying it wasn't a planned attack, that it was the result of a spontaneous protest where instead of signs people brought rocket launchers?

Now we learn that we had real-time intel on the ground while it was happening. There never was any protest and our government knew it all along. The White House chose to lie to the American people. WHY? Simple, because a powerful weapon in the Obama Campaign was going to be that he killed Osama bin Laden and with the death of bin Laden, Obama had been making the case that al Qaeda was on the run. To admit Benghazi was a terror attack, not only leaves Obama up for criticism, it makes him weaker by taking away one of his very few accomplishments.

The media has tried hard to spin it this was to keep their man, Obama, in office. How many here remember that for DAYS after the attack, the media was full of stories about Romney's bad timing in making a statement and the video vs freedom of speech? In fact, it took a British newspaper to first print that it was a terror attack and that we had ignored warnings that there would be trouble. Only then did our own media start to look at it a little more closely.

So you see, this is a lot more about semantics. It's about a sitting US President trying to cover up a terror attack on our country to ensure he gets to keep his job. How Nixonian.

[koheesti]

Pretty much every commentator was saying it was even right after the debate. With all the hostility, charges and counter-charges it was pretty hard to say that anyone won. However, Obama got a lot of points simply by not repeating his previous performance

As the commentators now revisit the statements made by the candidates, the consensus is that Mr. Romney dropped the ball. It is amazing what happens 24-48 hours later.

Right, before he "dropped the ball" he was going in for the game winning score when the referee stuck out her leg and tripped him up with some impromptu false fact-checking of her own. If not for her, Romney could have put the game away.

[maidu]

Interesting that the topic of 'climate change' hasn't shown its fuzzy head in the debates. It's yet another issue where the two candidates differ. One believes it's a serious concern and vows to do what he can to address it. The other avoids the issue, and makes jokes about it. Romney's only reference to it at the Rep Convention, was a dry joke: "Obama vows to lower the world's oceans."