• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, everyone making that kind of money should be paying more than the current rate. But my point is that Americans do not feel that it's fair for someone like Romney to make the money he does and be taxed at such a low rate. I can bet you the majority of the audience during the debate last night pays a higher tax rate than Romney, and make nowhere near as much as he does.

And although policy wonks and political junkies know this, I think that a large swath of America really doesn't know that extremely wealthy people like Romney pay a lower tax rate. When they learn this, they might not look so kindly on GOP policies.
 
If mitt were a birther you might have a point. But...you don't.

I didn't mean to imply that Mitt's a birther, but it's an interesting Constitutional question since "natural-born citizen" is a pretty vague term, and no one agrees on what it means. However, Mitt addressing it may cause some birther's heads to explode.

For that matter, I'd be interested in Obama's opinion on it, since he actually taught Constitutional law.
 
15% is just LOL. My effective tax rate was about 21% when I was making around $40k. When it comes to taxes, we're really doing it wrong.
 
Immediately after 9/11, when he stood up on top of the rubble of the World Trade Center and heroically declared war.

It's a moment that comes only maybe once every century. How can a President ever live up to that?
kobe.gif
 
I didn't mean to imply that Mitt's a birther, but it's an interesting Constitutional question since "natural-born citizen" is a pretty vague term, and no one agrees on what it means. However, Mitt addressing it may cause some birther's heads to explode.

For that matter, I'd be interested in Obama's opinion on it, since he actually taught Constitutional law.

You realize it's not a big mystery right? Romney, McCain, Obama, and other past us presidents (birtherism isn't new) were all eligible, and it's not some mystery area of the law that nobody knows the answer to. You ought to read up on it, there's plenty of real information out there that's not birther nonsense. Seems like that may be all you've ever read if you think this is an unsettled area of the law.
 
Listening to Newt Gingrich's speech is like listening to constant nails on a chalkboard. He really just makes me frothing mad.

I wish Newt was correct and this will be a battle for America's future and whether we go to his ideas or into, as he puts it, a secular socialist European style government. I wish because I'd pick that second thing every fucking time.
 
15% is just LOL. My effective tax rate was about 21% when I was making around $40k. When it comes to taxes, we're really doing it wrong.

You clearly didn't make enough to earn lower tax rates. Become a "job creator" next time.

Seriously, I can't believs how backward the GOP is when it comes to taxes.
 
let's hope Newt continues his Southern Comfort in Florida and win there

It will be interesting to see how Florida reacts to the SC primary results.

I guess a lot of the Florida voters are old and they'll have memory of Newt in office . . . will that help him or hurt him?

Newt really needs Santorum to drop out to have a chance. But I still think Romney wins by default. It is kinda funny how disliked Romney is and yet wins. That doesn't seem like it would bode well for the general election.
 
I suspect conservative evangelicals hate U.S. government more than they dislike Mormonism.

Gingrich would have no problem putting the proper spin on that.

Why do they hate our men & women in the military?

You clearly didn't make enough to earn lower tax rates. Become a "job creator" next time.

Seriously, I can't believs how backward the GOP is when it comes to taxes.

Someone clever has to be able to frame this into "GOP tax policy discourages work! Look at Mitt Romney, he hasn't had a real job for years because his taxes will go up if he works!"
 
It will be interesting to see how Florida reacts to the SC primary results.

I guess a lot of the Florida voters are old and they'll have memory of Newt in office . . . will that help him or hurt him?

Newt really needs Santorum to drop out to have a chance. But I still think Romney wins by default. It is kinda funny how disliked Romney is and yet wins. That doesn't seem like it would bode well for the general election.

Santorum's speech reminded me a lot of Huntsman's NH speech. Both had funding issues, both hoped to do better, and both had speeches that were all over the place and were "uh..yeah...let's go forth with the other states!"". Huntsman knew that NH was his best shot, and in a way a state like SC was also highly favorable to Santorum. He knows he doesn't have a chance and the prospects of working with Newt probably seem better than continuing the race. I think we'll see him drop out within 2 days.
 
It will be interesting to see how Florida reacts to the SC primary results.

I guess a lot of the Florida voters are old and they'll have memory of Newt in office . . . will that help him or hurt him?

Newt really needs Santorum to drop out to have a chance. But I still think Romney wins by default. It is kinda funny how disliked Romney is and yet wins. That doesn't seem like it would bode well for the general election.

it's gotta be the electability issue that keeps Mitt up float.

while Republican complain that he is not Conservative enough but acknowledge that he has the best chance at defeating Obama

I want Santorum to pack it up and GTFO so that Newt wins and helps Obama get re-elected
 
It's smart. If Obama declines, Newt slams him for it. If he accepts, Newt gets 4 more debates to feed his BS to the public.

I'm just saying it happens every election cycle and it doesn't mean anything. McCain proposed TEN debates in 2008. It gets negotiated down to around three debates and no one cares because nobody wants to watch more than that anyway. It's just posturing.
 
You realize it's not a big mystery right? Romney, McCain, Obama, and other past us presidents (birtherism isn't new) were all eligible, and it's not some mystery area of the law that nobody knows the answer to. You ought to read up on it, there's plenty of real information out there that's not birther nonsense. Seems like that may be all you've ever read if you think this is an unsettled area of the law.

Perhaps this Wikipedia article was written by a birther, but it doesn't sound all that settled to me:

The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time,[66] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency.[67] In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[68] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[69]

These views have been criticized by Professor Chin, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth.[70] The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship.[71] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".[72] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural-born status.[73][74] Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".[75] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".[76]
 
Obama could dance around Romney or Gingrich in a debate all day and twice on Sundays. He's been the fucking President for four years, an election debate is a break for him.

Plus any time he gets into trouble he can just pull out the mounted head of Osama bin Laden he usually keeps in the Oval Office.
 
Santorum's speech reminded me a lot of Huntsman's NH speech. Both had funding issues, both hoped to do better, and both had speeches that were all over the place and were "uh..yeah...let's go forth with the other states!"". Huntsman knew that NH was his best shot, and in a way a state like SC was also highly favorable to Santorum. He knows he doesn't have a chance and the prospects of working with Newt probably seem better than continuing the race. I think we'll see him drop out within 2 days.

Possible but I disagree. Erik Erickson from Red State mentioned Santorum has gotten a decent stream of DC money in the last few hours, which is interesting.

Santorum benefits just by being the next in line guy, as Gingrich WILL implode eventually. I just feel that once that happens, Romney wins; but I can understand the logic behind Santorum's strategy.

Monday's debate will be interesting. Newt tried to be above the fray in his speech tonight, and I think he'll continue that theme in the debate...but Romney will force him back into attack mode
 
Newt Gingrich reminds me of that old character Jon Lovitz used to do – The Liar.
...except instead of saying, "yeah, that's the ticket!", Newt's tell is the word "frankly".

This concludes your yearly flashback to 1986.
 
it's gotta be the electability issue that keeps Mitt up float.

while Republican complain that he is not Conservative enough but acknowledge that he has the best chance at defeating Obama

I want Santorum to pack it up and GTFO so that Newt wins and helps Obama get re-elected

I would rather have a more genuine debate and we get closer to that with a candidate like Romney or Paul (yes, I know Paul ain't happening). For all of his changes of political positions and his seeming inauthentic gestures, at least Romney is willing to address reality from time to time.

For example, he at least doesn't try revisionist history of the economic downturn or it's continual slow growth over the past three years even though the economy is one of his key talking points.

It feels kind of weird to say I admire a candidate for conceding basic indisputable facts, but the is where we are in our politics today.
 
I would rather have a more genuine debate and we get closer to that with a candidate like Romney or Paul (yes, I know Paul ain't happening). For all of his changes of political positions and his seeming inauthentic gestures, at least Romney is willing to address reality from time to time.

For example, he at least doesn't try revisionist history of the economy or it's continual slow growth.

I don't know, a Romney general election campaign could be pretty brutal. He'd have to do or say something to appeal to evangelicals and tea party types as his record and his religion are going to continue to be used against him even after he gets the nomination.
 

man i knew Newt was bad vs Obama in polling but what a contrast there

if Newt wins, it's going to be an apocalypse. i almost wish it to happen if I weren't absolutely paranoid at there being even a 1% chance at that nutcase being elected (if Eurozone collapses and takes the US economy with it, i firmly believe any Repub candidate would win). On the other hand, him being nominated would motivate me to vote for Obama again so I guess if others felt the same it'd lead to the type of landslide that'd make real change possible in the second term.
 
I'm just saying it happens every election cycle and it doesn't mean anything. McCain proposed TEN debates in 2008. It gets negotiated down to around three debates and no one cares because nobody wants to watch more than that anyway. It's just posturing.

Obama could dance around Romney or Gingrich in a debate all day and twice on Sundays. He's been the fucking President for four years, an election debate is a break for him.

Plus any time he gets into trouble he can just pull out the mounted head of Osama bin Laden he usually keeps in the Oval Office.

Newt Gingrich can use the 7 debate thing as good poltical fodder. I have a feeling it wont be 7 lincoln douglas style debates, but he will manage to get it to 4 traditional debates. Newt is a bit of a firebrand and quicker on the fly than Obama. He is much much better than McCain and debating him won't be an easy task for Obama. The whole Osama Bin Laden death thing won't count for all that much, the bounce from it has already dissipated.
 
Possible but I disagree. Erik Erickson from Red State mentioned Santorum has gotten a decent stream of DC money in the last few hours, which is interesting.

Santorum benefits just by being the next in line guy, as Gingrich WILL implode eventually. I just feel that once that happens, Romney wins; but I can understand the logic behind Santorum's strategy.

Monday's debate will be interesting. Newt tried to be above the fray in his speech tonight, and I think he'll continue that theme in the debate...but Romney will force him back into attack mode

Erickson believes that establishment will prop up Santorum to counter Gingrich.

Florida's primary make up is a lot more favorable to Romney too per 2008:
50% were college graduates where he does a lot better. SC has more non graduates.
27% Evangelical vs 36% in SC.

Of course if Newt can keep offering the red meat like he did in the 2 debates this week next week, he will have a good shot.
 
preeetty sure Santorum is staying in this to amass maybe a few more delegates so that when he endorses he can signal his delegates, and maybe secure Secretary of State or VP.
 
Not many, but holy shit you should have heard the interview clip with him shown on Maddow last night about his role in the Colbert rally. It was amazing.

Here is the Cain response from the Colbert Rally:

http://video.app.msn.com/watch/video/cain-responds-to-performance-artist-question/6nh2vdk

Despite what I just said, I would almost forgo genuine debate for more Herman Cain. He is freaking amazing.

I think he thinks he is Samuel Jackson in the clip as he tries to put his "bad mo fo" shtick on.
Oh. My. God.
 
man i knew Newt was bad vs Obama in polling but what a contrast there

if Newt wins, it's going to be an apocalypse. i almost wish it to happen if I weren't absolutely paranoid at there being even a 1% chance at that nutcase being elected (if Eurozone collapses and takes the US economy with it, i firmly believe any Repub candidate would win). On the other hand, him being nominated would motivate me to vote for Obama again so I guess if others felt the same it'd lead to the type of landslide that'd make real change possible in the second term.

The country is in the center but tilts towards the right. Newt can win this election even without a total disaster for the economy. That said I would still prefer Newt over Romney. Newt is more of a daring poltician than Romney, but the negative aspect of that is he is much more likely to fall flat on his face. Plus he will have a much harder time reaching independents.
 
man i knew Newt was bad vs Obama in polling but what a contrast there

if Newt wins, it's going to be an apocalypse. i almost wish it to happen if I weren't absolutely paranoid at there being even a 1% chance at that nutcase being elected (if Eurozone collapses and takes the US economy with it, i firmly believe any Repub candidate would win). On the other hand, him being nominated would motivate me to vote for Obama again so I guess if others felt the same it'd lead to the type of landslide that'd make real change possible in the second term.

I don't want a landslide. All that would do is wake up the blue dogs again.
 
The country is in the center but tilts towards the right. Newt can win this election even without a total disaster for the economy. That said I would still prefer Newt over Romney. Newt is more of a daring poltician than Romney, but the negative aspect of that is he is much more likely to fall flat on his face.

not really. It is essentially impossible for Newt with his unfavorability ratings. He'd instantly chase independents away, galvanize Dems and force massive complacency for the Repub base at large. The numbers currently at serious catastrophic for Newt, and there's no way he could change that - he is a known entity with 100% name recognition. People know his demons and most reject him for the terrible record he has.

Without a continual collapse of the Economy, he's precisely the type of candidate that guarantees an Obama win.

DOO13ER said:
I don't want a landslide. All that would do is wake up the blue dogs again.

Fuck blue dogs. I'm pretty disappointed with Obama's first term, but I do believe if he did win a landslide this time because he's not up for re-election he'd be more aggressive at approaching his agenda. Less of the pussyfooting shit.
 
when i heard newt won with 1% reporting i went back to bed and just woke up, holy fucking shit at the % point spread, PPP poll hit that shit out the park, they always this good?
 
From twitter:


Mike Monteiro (@Mike_FTW)
1/21/12 9:21 PM
Rick Santorum launches Conservatives Unite Moneybomb (CUM). I am not making this up. ricksantorum.com/unite/
 
PPP is still fairly new, but they have a decent track record. It's actually by a Democratic pollster, but they've shown relatively little bias in their results.

sc0la said:
Mike Monteiro (@Mike_FTW)
1/21/12 9:21 PM
Rick Santorum launches Conservatives Unite Moneybomb (CUM). I am not making this up. ricksantorum.com/unite/

Oh. My. God. LOL
 
People like to discount them because their Kos' poster, but they've been doing really well.

Yeah. Check it here

The Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling firm takes a fair amount of partisan flack for the mounds of data it produces in races across the country.

But in 2011, it is building the best defense possible: Getting it right.

In the three campaigns it has polled thus far this cycle, PPP has been within one point in one special House election, within two points in another and within three points of calling a gubernatorial primary.

It's a record that should make it more difficult for outsiders -- in most cases, Republicans -- to take shots at the North Carolina-based pollster when it unloads numbers that don't line up with their own desired outcomes.

PPP's worst forecast was in the West Virginia GOP primary for governor, where Bill Maloney won by a much larger margin than projected -- but even in that race, the pollster showed the insurgent candidate's late movement.

Judge them solely on which candidate they have ahead in their final poll -- and they are a perfect 4 for 4.

Here's a look at how PPP has done; the numbers speak for themselves:

*5/14: West Virginia GOV Primary (D)

Final PPP Poll (5/11-5/12): Tomblin 33% Thompson 20% Tennant 17% Perdue 11% (13 points)

Actual Outcome: Tomblin 40% Thompson 24% Tennant 17% Perdue 13% (16 points)

*5/14: West Virginia GOV Primary (R)

Final PPP Poll (5/11-5/12): Maloney 32% Ireland 31% (1 point)

Actual Outcome: Maloney 45% Ireland 31% (14 points)

*5/24: New York 26 Special

Final PPP (5/21-5/22): Hochul 42% Corwin 36% (6 points)

Actual Outcome: Hochul 47% Corwin 43% (4 points)

*7/12 California 36 Special

Final PPP (7/8-7/10): Hahn 52% Huey 44% (8 points)

Actual Outcome: Hahn 54% Huey 45% (9 points)

And they did a fairly good job during the 2008 elections; they got only a very few races wrong.
 
not really. It is essentially impossible for Newt with his unfavorability ratings. He'd instantly chase independents away, galvanize Dems and force massive complacency for the Repub base at large. The numbers currently at serious catastrophic for Newt, and there's no way he could change that - he is a known entity with 100% name recognition. People know his demons and most reject him for the terrible record he has.

Without a continual collapse of the Economy, he's precisely the type of candidate that guarantees an Obama win.



Fuck blue dogs. I'm pretty disappointed with Obama's first term, but I do believe if he did win a landslide this time because he's not up for re-election he'd be more aggressive at approaching his agenda. Less of the pussyfooting shit.

I don't think it needs to be a collapse, the economy could simply slide back into negative territory for a few months before the election. This nation voted for Bush after Iraq and were even convinced by the swift boating stuff. This nation has conservative insticts and Newt is a crafty guy and knows how to push buttons. I'm not saying he is a great candidate but I don't really see this being a landslide for Obama. Numbers can change given the right conditions, have we really had enough presidential elections that we can read much into these numbers? I'm never convinced by them and it is a political eternity between now and November.
 
You guys hoping for a Newt victory are crazy. For one thing, I think we'll have a far better election with Romney as a nominee. Anyone who wants wealth inequality to be a topic of debate should hope Romney wins. With a Gingrich primary victory we'll have an election of veiled racism and bitterness to look forward to.

More importantly, a GOP victory under Romney is far less troubling to me than a victory under Gingrich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom