Support NeoGAF

[LosDaddie]

Is that why his favorability ratings have gone down the more people talk about it?

the Rmoney train was working til about a few weeks ago

I'm just saying that Mitt isn't running from his business background. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[reilo]

Ah. I didn't realize there were that many Portlanders against gay marriage, but I don't really associate with Blazers fans, so perhaps they are a bit more red than the average Portlander.

Oregon outside of Portland metro (Multnomah County to be precise) and the college towns (Eugene, et al) is quite conservative, actually. The Blazers are popular statewide for obvious reasons.

 

[The Librarian]

The Romney campaign is putting out conflicting reports of whether or not he'll be at the next debate. :lol

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Mitt thought he won Iowa and thought Perry would be sucking out evangelicals from Santorum and social conservatives in general from Gingrich.

The Romney train got derailed hard.

 

[Suikoguy]

The Romney campaign is putting out conflicting reports of whether or not he'll be at the next debate. :lol

wtf is going on over there?

 

[Clevinger]

Is that why his favorability ratings have gone down the more people talk about it?

Actually - and this just proves once again how dumb and fickle these voters are - I'm pretty sure Romney's negatives were getting pretty high the first time Gingrich surged. Then Romney/his PAC spent a shitload of money in Iowa and probably elsewhere and then his favorability flew back up again as Gingrich deflated. Heh, now it's going back down again.

 

[Averon]

wtf is going on over there?

You see Romney's debate performance last night? If I was him, I'll have second thoughts, too.

 

[Clevinger]

wtf is going on over there?

It's sadly pretty smart. Romney wants to pull out of it and NBC are now considering not having it at all now.

 

[Measley]

Actually - and this just proves once again how dumb and fickle these voters are - I'm pretty sure Romney's negatives were getting pretty high the first time Gingrich surged. Then Romney/his PAC spent a shitload of money in Iowa and probably elsewhere and then his favorability flew back up again as Gingrich deflated. Heh, now it's going back down again.

Its important to note that Republican voters are willing to put anyone in the White House as long as its not Obama. In that sense, the primaries themselves are pointless. The GOP could have just picked someone to run in the general election, and the same scenario would have happened.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

What logic?

Just a joke.

 

[darkpower]

Just a joke.

So was mine! XD

 

[Opiate]

\That's true. I do think however there is real merit in the idea that the drawn out primary process for Obama greatly improved his chances in the general, because state by state they were able to build vital infrastructure for the general election and just create an immensely superior ground game to McCain, who sat back and saw them slug it out for months. To me that's more important even than the idea that they'd be better vetted, because there's also the possibility in that vetting you might permanently associate a candidate with some negative feature (like say how they're trying to paint Romney as out-of-touch with the lower incomes, considering his recent insensitive commentary).

The actual way to study this -- rather than to build narratives, which is what pundits will do -- is to isolate the variable as thoroughly as possible and increase sample size.

Study all Presidential Primary races that were still in contention after, let's say, 1/2 or 2/3 of all primaries had been run (the precise fraction would need to be carefully chosen, and I'm just giving the general gist here), and then see how those candidates performed in the general election.

Attempt to eliminate other variables, such as expectations (were all the candidates expected to lose to the incumbent anyway? In that case, it doesn't tell us much if they eventually lose, and causality may even be reveresed). If possible, expand the sample size to include smaller primaries at the governor or even mayoral level. See if these provide similar statistical distributions.

But nobody will do this. They'll just tell the story of Obama's manifest destiny, or Romney's clear mandate from the people.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's sadly pretty smart. Romney wants to pull out of it and NBC are now considering not having it at all now.

Best outcome would be, Romney pulls out and NBC hosts the debate anyways. Leave an empty podium for him.

 

[KtSlime]

Oregon outside of Portland metro (Multnomah County to be precise) and the college towns (Eugene, et al) is quite conservative, actually. The Blazers are popular statewide for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I suppose that is true.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yeah, I suppose that is true.

I live in Saint Helens. Believe me it's true.

Most voters - the few who do vote - in my town are idiots.

 

[KtSlime]

I live in Saint Helens. Believe me it's true.

Most voters - the few who do vote - in my town are idiots.

Oooh, St. Helens, I feel sorry for you. At least you have pretty good gas prices being so close to Washington right?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits. The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress."

Here's how the bill starts: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas (and products thereof) and to allow an income tax credit for purchases of fuel-efficient passenger vehicles, and to allow grants for mass transit."

I'm sure this will make it out of committee, lol.

Where's our 'Reasonable Deficits Board'?

 

[adamsappel]

Another person who can't follow a conversation. Go snipe somewhere else.

I followed the conversation just fine. I knew what you were doing. Why argue vociferously for something you don't actually believe? There are enough people who actually hold those beliefs to argue them. You throw chum in the water and then say, "Why are these sharks fighting?"

PD, APF is still around, he just doesn't post much or come around these parts. You know who I miss? Stoney Mason. He was a great PoliGAFer.

 

[The Librarian]

Best outcome would be, Romney pulls out and NBC hosts the debate anyways. Leave an empty podium for him.

I think either situation looks bad. The media would be all over him, and Gingrich will rock around Florida saying he's afraid to debate.

 

[ToxicAdam]

. Why argue vociferously for something you don't actually believe?

Because I don't believe that Romney has the opinion strictly due to his own self-interests/benefit. It is a pretty established ideological belief that has been around for decades.

That's what the contention was about and if you followed the conversation me and EV had, you would know that.


Then there was a separate contention with another user that the capital gains tax is not a 'double tax'. Something else I disagree with, even though I favor capital gains taxes.

 

[The Librarian]

Newt's wrapped up two semi-worthless endorsements: Michael Reagan and Chuck Norris.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm sure this will make it out of committee, lol.

Where's our 'Reasonable Deficits Board'?

Its all of Republicans when a Republican is not the President?

 

[Suikoguy]

I'm sure this will make it out of committee, lol.

Where's our 'Reasonable Deficits Board'?

Yeah, I don't think this is the proper way of going about it.
Trying to determine what is reasonable will be a nightmare.

 

[Hootie]

Newt's wrapped up two semi-worthless endorsements: Michael Reagan and Chuck Norris.

Didn't he endorse Huckabee in 08? Lol...

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Yeah, I don't think this is the proper way of going about it.
Trying to determine what is reasonable will be a nightmare.

The 1st thing is that the oil companies do not need tax breaks anymore...and we can take it up after that.

 

[Suikoguy]

The 1st thing is that the oil companies do not need tax breaks anymore...and we can take it up after that.

Yeah, that should be the first step.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I'm sure this will make it out of committee, lol.

Where's our 'Reasonable Deficits Board'?

The very definition of D.O.A.

 

[Plinko]

I'm sure this will make it out of committee, lol.

Where's our 'Reasonable Deficits Board'?

Will. Never. Happen.

I'm very vocal about how ridiculous and unnecessarily high gas prices are now, but this isn't right.

Repeal all tax breaks for them and then we'll see what else needs to be done.

 

[speculawyer]

Will. Never. Happen.

I'm very vocal about how ridiculous and unnecessarily high gas prices are now, but this isn't right.

Repeal all tax breaks for them and then we'll see what else needs to be done.

Exactly . . . if we can't even eliminate subsidies they get why would that bonehead think we could tax more?

 

[Clevinger]

Another reason to hate Chuck Todd:

Meanwhile, not everyone sees Colbert’s meddling with the electoral process as funny and/or a good way to publicize the problems inherent in the current political finance system.

“He’s making a mockery of the system,” said Chuck Todd, NBC political analyst, at a university forum on Thursday.

“Yes, the process is a mess, but he’s doing it in a way that feels like he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican,” said Mr. Todd, according to an account of the incident on the Huffington Post.

 

[watershed]

Another reason to hate Chuck Todd:

I hope Colbert comments on this. He can turn it into his media-bashing moment that all candidates have.

 

[speculawyer]

“Yes, the process is a mess, but he’s doing it in a way that feels like he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican,” said Mr. Todd

How is he influencing it at all? The serious voters will just ignore him and he'll only affect some single digit percentage of votes of people that were obviously not serious.

 

[watershed]

How is he influencing it at all? The serious voters will just ignore him and he'll only affect some single digit percentage of votes of people that were obviously not serious.

I think an unspoken premise in Chuck Todd's argument is that some republican voters are dumb enough not to realize Colbert is joking.

 

[reilo]

It's akin to SNL doing the Sarah Palin sketch by having Tina Fey answer one of the questions verbatim.

 

[kkaabboomm]

If Romney wins SC, I can 100% see him not doing the Fl debate. The media narrative would be Romney locking things up, and thus wouldn't "punish him" for not doing more debates.

If Romney loses SC, there is no way on in hell he can not do the Fl debate without catching hell from now until election day from Gingrich and the media. "He lost again, no he won't debate" "Gingrich rides SC debates to a win, now Romney won't debate" "Gingrich asks Romney what's he afraid of?" "The going gets tough, Romney gets going - refuses to debate" ad nausea.


The debate will hinge on the SC result. My hope is Santorum bails after his 4th place SC finish, letting Gringrich solidify as the 'Not Romney'.

 

[speculawyer]

I think an unspoken premise in Chuck Todd's argument is that some republican voters are dumb enough not to realize Colbert is joking.

If that is the case then he is doing them a service by weeding out some of the retarded votes.

 

[KtSlime]

How is he influencing it at all? The serious voters will just ignore him and he'll only affect some single digit percentage of votes of people that were obviously not serious.

What's *wrong* with how he is attempting to influence it - if he is at all? If he's influencing it in an unfavorable way, maybe it just means we should FIX THE SYSTEM. :lol

 

[rohlfinator]

What's *wrong* with how he is attempting to influence it - if he is at all? If he's influencing it in an unfavorable way, maybe it just means we should FIX THE SYSTEM. :lol

With our legislature, the "fix" would be something idiotic like a blanket ban on comedians running for public office.

 

[Mortrialus]

Another reason to hate Chuck Todd:

I saw this earlier today. If the system is so broken that Stephen Colbert can do this, the problem is with the system, not him you retarded toad.

 

[RustyNails]

Where's our 'Reasonable Deficits Board'?

Here's an idea: You dont need a "reasonable deficits board".

So much frustration about a problem so incredibly easy to solve. Masterful concern trolling by the Republicans about the deficitpocalypse has done wonders for everyone.

 

[GhaleonEB]

“He’s making a mockery of the system,” said Chuck Todd, NBC political analyst, at a university forum on Thursday.

Actually, he's mocking the system, Chuck. It's the system that's made a mockery of us.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

John King is on CNN right now trying to make Newt seem like the bad guy in his response.

I don't know how you guys feel on it, but I think Newt was in the right.

 

[Amir0x]

I think his timing was off; it shouldn't have been the lead question. I think even though the topic should be fair game, it should have been contextualized within the framework of the relevant issues on the national stage.

Such as "Given your stance on the 'sanctimony of marriage' vis-à-vis gay marriage, do you think you're a good spokesman for the family values you support given your history?" Something approximating this would have been better political fodder.

 

[Clevinger]

John King is on CNN right now trying to make Newt seem like the bad guy in his response.

I don't know how you guys feel on it, but I think Newt was in the right.

Newt is a piece of shit serial adulterer, and there's at least a decent chance he cheated on his current wife as well (or so the same guy who scooped the John Edwards affair claims). At best they're both in the wrong.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

I think his timing was off; it shouldn't have been the lead question. I think even though the topic should be fair game, it should have been contextualized within the framework of the relevant issues on the national stage.

Agreed. Is it relevant? Yes. However is it worth opening the debate with? Especially because his wife doesn't look or seem like a viable source. Her own daughters have said this isn't true, as other people have as well.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Newt is a piece of shit serial adulterer, and there's at least a decent chance he cheated on his current wife as well (or so the same guy who scooped the John Edwards affair claims). At best they're both in the wrong.

Alright, how do you feel about Bill Clinton?

 

[Stinkles]

John King is on CNN right now trying to make Newt seem like the bad guy in his response.

I don't know how you guys feel on it, but I think Newt was in the right.

Newt has made an absolutely public spectacle of himself and his paramours. He deserves the questioning for any number of reasons that are in direct contravention to his stated values, but more importantly, historically, Newt was the LEAD ATTACK DOG on the Clinton mess with Lewinsky and the sheer overflowing, burstingly vast volume of hypocrisy should allow any journalist to ask him any and all questions, up to and including, "Why are you such a hypocritical mysoginistic shitheel?"

 

[jamesinclair]

Any recent SC polls?

How is Cain doing?

Alright, how do you feel about Bill Clinton?

Did Clinton ever run on the family values platform in a platform that believes in banning gayness because it destroys marriages?

 

[The Librarian]

John King is on CNN right now trying to make Newt seem like the bad guy in his response.

I don't know how you guys feel on it, but I think Newt was in the right.

What response? He never answered the question..

 

[Clevinger]

Alright, how do you feel about Bill Clinton?

He's a piece of shit serial adulterer as well.