Support NeoGAF

[Learn2read]

That's slightly lower % over 70 than in the NYT/Edison exit polls

Age

18-29 (9%)

30-44 (19%)

45-64 (45%)

65 and older (27%)

 

[AlteredBeast]

That's slightly lower % over 70 than in the NYT/Edison exit polls

Age

18-29 (9%)

30-44 (19%)

45-64 (45%)

65 and older (27%)

I said damn, young people, at least republicans, couldn't give a shit this election...we are all screwed.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Speaks to why Paul did so poorly (overall).

 

[Rocket Scientist]

 

[Kusagari]

I really want to see what Romney does if Newt becomes the nominee.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Speaks to why Paul did so poorly (overall).

I would support a third party Paul candidacy over Newt or Obama. There, I said it.

I bet a Paul run could actually draw a pretty impressive amount of votes, possibly doing more to shift the GOP away from combo breaking ideals towards relative sanity as the results might demonstrate how little people want to vote for human piles of deceit. Think about the anti-war types, young libertarian voters, conspiracy nutjobs, and end the fed dudes all coalescing around Paul.

 

[Clevinger]

I really want to see what Romney does if Newt becomes the nominee.

He'd quickly make up for all the years he didn't drink alcohol.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I would support a third party Paul candidacy over Newt or Obama. There, I said it.

I bet a Paul run could actually draw a pretty impressive amount of votes, possibly doing more to shift the GOP away from combo breaking ideals towards relative sanity as the results might demonstrate how little people want to vote for human piles of deceit. Think about the anti-war types, young libertarian voters, conspiracy nutjobs, and end the fed dudes all coalescing around Paul.

Hypothetically, if Ron Paul ran third-party and was polling in a distant third place but Newt and Obama were neck-and-neck, would you still vote for Ron Paul and risk Newt possibly getting into the white house? Because it might be possible that a third-party Ron Paul run gets a decent chunk of independent voters.

 

[jamesinclair]

Hypothetically, if Ron Paul ran third-party and was polling in a distant third place but Newt and Obama were neck-and-neck, would you still vote for Ron Paul and risk Newt possibly getting into the white house? Because it might be possible that a third-party Ron Paul run gets a decent chunk of independent voters.

I would vote, in order of preference:

Ron Paul
Nader
Obama
Sarah Palin
Next

 

[Aaron Strife]

I have to imagine (BARRING SOME MAJOR ECONOMIC COLLAPSE) the worst Obama would do against Gingrich would be like, 52%.

Realistically, it'd probably be more like 56%. Election night would be more about how many seats in Congress the Dems would pick up, and less about Obama - upwards of 50 seats would be possible I think. Independents would break heavily from the GOP, and split-ticket voting has become much less common these days.

 

[Puddles]

The Democrats should really start co-opting civil libertarian ideas.

I believe (and this is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but I've seen A LOT of that anecdotal evidence), that a lot of young people initially become libertarians because they (correctly) see no logic in continuing a drug war, banning gambling or prostitution, or passing any kind of morality/religious-based legislation.

The problem arises when these people start meeting full-blown libertarians who convince them to support a flat tax, removing the minimum wage, etc.

Offer a civil libertarian platform combined with logical (not Republican) economic ideas, and we could probably reduce the number of Ayn Rand assholes in the future.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Hypothetically, if Ron Paul ran third-party and was polling in a distant third place but Newt and Obama were neck-and-neck, would you still vote for Ron Paul and risk Newt possibly getting into the white house? Because it might be possible that a third-party Ron Paul run gets a decent chunk of independent voters.

I hate this retarded logic. "Bu-bu-but voting for anyone else is unrealistic!"

 

[Clevinger]

The Democrats should really start co-opting civil libertarian ideas.

I believe (and this is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but I've seen A LOT of that anecdotal evidence), that a lot of young people initially become libertarians because they (correctly) see no logic in continuing a drug war, banning gambling or prostitution, or passing any kind of morality/religious-based legislation.

The problem arises when these people start meeting full-blown libertarians who convince them to support a flat tax, removing the minimum wage, etc.

Offer a civil libertarian platform combined with logical (not Republican) economic ideas, and we could probably reduce the number of Ayn Rand assholes in the future.

Those issues you mentioned are things liberals already support; that's the small overlap between liberalism and libertarianism. The reason mainstream Democrats don't support most of those things (like ending the drug war) is because centrists/moderates, whose votes they need to win, don't like them. Libertarian influence should stay the fuck away from liberals and Democrats because A, it's not needed because leftists already support those things and B, every other issue in the libertarian ideology is the polar opposite of what a liberal wants, in most cases even worse than Republican ideals.

 

[Oblivion]

Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks To Make Founding Fathers Look Good

 

[Measley]

Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks To Make Founding Fathers Look Good

Wow. These guys are just too much.

The deification of the founding fathers needs to stop.

 

[Open Source]

Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks To Make Founding Fathers Look Good

“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

is the exact quote.

Seems like an exaggeration to say that they want no mention of slavery at all. A more even-handed reading would take it to mean that they don't want the contributions of the founders to be drowned by the criticisms.

Furthermore, I don't see any indication that this is an official Tea Party position, only that a "couple dozen" Tea Party members are advocating for them.

They sound a bit kooky, for sure, but "Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks" is just a lie. Ironic considering that you link from a site that claims: "Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads."

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I hate this retarded logic. "Bu-bu-but voting for anyone else is unrealistic!"

If it becomes a close race, then it's very sound logic. It's not like the results on the night of the election are going to be a total surprise with all the polls leading up to the election.

If before election day, I saw my first choice candidate as having no chance, my second choice as having a 50% chance, and my absolute last choice as also having a 50% chance, I will logically try to not let my last choice get into office.

Now I know that a Gingrich-Obama general election would probably be an easy victory for Obama but I'm just wondering what someone who's already decided to vote for Ron Paul would do in a hypothetical scenario where the polls started to show that it would be a close race.

 

[Salazar]

They sound a bit kooky, for sure

lol at "they don't want the contributions of the founders to be drowned by the criticisms".

They want as immaculate a depiction as they can get. Since when was the representation of the founding fathers dominated in any noticeable degree by the mention of slave-holding ? Huh ? Show me a scrap of validity for their concerns.

 

[Open Source]

What's this about? Do you have a link?

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/pib/Releases/2012/01-20-2012_EdwardsArrest.htm

My mistake - I switched up the parties.

Here's the guy's bio:

Zach Edwards got started in web-based research while based in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2006 . After a stint as a part-time political blogger and local democratic volunteer, he joined the Obama campaign in early 2007 as an intern organizing North-West Las Vegas. In September 2007, Zach joined the Obama New Media department as co-director of the Nevada New Media team and then moved on to direct New Media operations in five other primary states (New Mexico, Texas, North Carolina, and South Dakota).

During the 2008 General Election, Zach was the Iowa Director of New Media. In this capacity, he worked closely with communications, research and field operations to provide cutting-edge organizing tools and new media-based opposition research; which was emulated in battleground states across the country. After the election, Zach began working at Link Strategies as the Director of New Media, where he provides innovative web-based research tools, video analysis and production, and web-based communication tools to assist our clients.

So it's probably not some conspiracy like I was thinking, just one random overeager guy going off the reservation.

 

[Open Source]

lol at "they don't want the contributions of the founders to be drowned by the criticisms".

They want as immaculate a depiction as they can get. Since when was the representation of the founding fathers dominated in any noticeable degree by the mention of slave-holding ? Huh ? Show me a scrap of validity for their concerns.

They aren't my concerns, and I have no desire to back up their validity. Unlike you, I have no special insight into what they actually want and or how that differs what what they say they want. I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies in the original post.

 

[Salazar]

Unlike you, I have no special insight into what they actually want and or how that differs what what they say they want.

I don't claim special insight. Just the power of inference, which no reasonable human being should deny themselves.

 

[The Librarian]

Good to see Romney losing Hispanics hard. Hard-line immigration stance is coming back to haunt him...

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Nuts dude. It is going to be strange to see the forgone conclusion, Mitt Romney, fall from grace, if people keep falling for Newt's pile of shit.

People aren't falling for his pile of shit as much as Republicans prefer to elect the most hateful, transparently vile candidate available. Being the most effective at talking smack about Democrats is the top priority.

 

[Rentahamster]

Hey, so what is up with that Republican political operative getting arrested for stealing a Democratic politician's identity in order to frame him for ethics violations? That sounds like something that would be generating more buzz.

You mean the Democrat who stole the Republican's identity.

http://www.kcci.com/news/30263721/detail.html
Man Accused Of Sec. Of State ID Theft

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.

Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.

The criminal complaint says Edwards fraudulently used or attempted to use the identity of Schultz or Schultz's brother with the intent to obtain a benefit. No other details were given.

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/pib/Releases/2012/01-20-2012_EdwardsArrest.htm

Des Moines, IOWA --- Today, Friday, January 20, 2012, Zachary Edwards, age 29, from Des Moines, Iowa, was arrested and criminally charged with Identity Theft, an Aggravated Misdemeanor (Iowa Code 715A.8(2)). Edwards turned himself in to Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) agents this afternoon at the Polk County Jail. He was then booked into the jail with a set bail of $2,000, cash or surety.

According to the Criminal Complaint, on June 24, 2011, Edwards fraudulently used, or attempted to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz and/or Secretary Schultz’s brother, Thomas Schultz, with the intent to obtain a benefit, in an alleged scheme to falsely implicate Secretary Schultz in perceived illegal or unethical behavior while in office.

PDF of the complaint: http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/pib/Releases/2012/EdwardsComplaint.pdf

This is Matt Shultz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Schultz

He was a member of the Council Bluffs City Council, a position he held from 2005 to 2011. On October 31, 2009, he announced his candidacy for the office of secretary of state and challenged incumbent Democrat Michael Mauro for the position. He won the election with 47% of the vote to Mauro's 45%[1] and took office in 2011.

Edwards worked for a Democratic consulting firm Link Strategies.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100824060425/http://www.linkstrategies.com/bios.html

Wayback Machine used because Link Strategies has since fired Edwards and removed his bio info from their site.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...litical-consultants-quickly-fire-arrested-man

Political consultants quickly fire arrested man
His allegedly fraudulent identity scheme was discovered last June.

A Des Moines man arrested Friday on charges he attempted to illegally use the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz had campaigned for President Barack Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

In addition, Zach Edwards, 29, was employed until Friday by a local political consulting firm well connected to Iowa Democrats.

Edwards was arrested on charges alleging he fraudulently used or attempted to use the identity of Schultz, a Republican, or Schultz’s brother, Thomas, with the intent to obtain a benefit. The alleged scheme was intended to falsely implicate Secretary Schultz in perceived illegal or unethical behavior while in office, according to a news release from the Iowa Department of Public Safety.

...

Edwards had been employed since late 2008 as director of new media for Link Strategies, a Des Moines political consulting firm, with ties to Iowa Democrats, including U.S. Senator Tom Harkin.

Biographical information on Edwards found on the Link Strategies website says that Edwards worked in new media for the Obama campaign beginning in September 2007 after joining the campaign as an intern organizing in the Las Vegas area.

Jeff Link, president of Link Strategies, confirmed Saturday that Edwards no longer works for the company.

“I am greatly disturbed by the charge brought against Zach, and understand the pending legal action will run its course,” Link said.

He added that within hours “of learning of this situation, I met with Zach and notified him he was no longer employed with Link Strategies effective immediately. After gathering further information it is clear the incident involved in the allegation was related to a personal action taken by Zach and unrelated to his work with Link Strategies. “

Link also said his firm “holds itself to a high bar of ethics and professionalism, and this type of activity is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.”

More info at this Iowa conservative blog: http://iowagrounds.com/2012/01/iowa-secretary-of-state-matt-schultz-targeted-for-identity-theft/

As far as I can tell, the liberal blogs haven't picked up the story yet.

 

[The Librarian]

Interesting read based on memos from the Obama White House.

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

 

[Rentahamster]

Interesting read based on memos from the Obama White House.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

“Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.”

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

 

[Volimar]

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

hopscotch?

Or perhaps some amalgam of hopscotch and the hokey pokey.

 

[NewFresh]

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

Inches?

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

I expect the research to read like this: "They were like so conservative man. Like so far right. Just like, 6 times as much, man."

 

[The Librarian]

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

It's in the book that the article cites, so you'll have to look there. Anyway, the sentiment is absolutely correct: Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left.

 

[marrec]

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

They did say roughly!

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

It's in the book that the article cites, so you'll have to look there. Anyway, the sentiment is absolutely correct: Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left.

Have the Dems even moved to the left?

 

[The Librarian]

Have the Dems even moved to the left?

In some ways, yes. Take a look at the balanced budget amendment votes back in the 90s and today. In the 90s it received strong bipartisan support, today it hardly received any Democratic support (if any at all, can't recall the exact numbers).

 

[Krauser Kat]

you can probably set up a really in-depth what is your political stance survey and base it off every vote every senator has made in the past 4 years. Giving a % for each congressmen.

 

[Narpas Sword0]

“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

is the exact quote.

Seems like an exaggeration to say that they want no mention of slavery at all. A more even-handed reading would take it to mean that they don't want the contributions of the founders to be drowned by the criticisms.

Furthermore, I don't see any indication that this is an official Tea Party position, only that a "couple dozen" Tea Party members are advocating for them.

They sound a bit kooky, for sure, but "Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks" is just a lie. Ironic considering that you link from a site that claims: "Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads."

Your quote sounds worse to me lol

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Interesting read based on memos from the Obama White House.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Just thought I'd add that this is in fact a really good read. Thanks.

 

[Barrett2]

Watching more clips of Romney, it's crazy how uncomfortable he manages to look in every interview.

It's like watching a WW2 movie where a spy is being interviewed by Nazi agents as he carefully tries to hide microfiche behind his back. Every question with Mitt feels like it should immediately be followed by a dramatic camera zoom to a bead of sweat rolling down his forehead.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's in the book that the article cites, so you'll have to look there. Anyway, the sentiment is absolutely correct: Republicans have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left.

This is the part of the book that talks about it: http://books.google.com/books?id=wTpA2yrTrPsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

Their source is the ANES: http://electionstudies.org/studypages/download/datacenter_all.htm

It is a good resource for numbers, but given the highly subjective nature of the topic, I find most attempts at quantifying such matters suspect. They attempt to normalize it somewhat by comparing the "activists" with the "middle" but again, given the highly subjective nature it doesn't really mean anything to me.

 

[06nbarnhill]

That's slightly lower % over 70 than in the NYT/Edison exit polls

Age

18-29 (9%)

30-44 (19%)

45-64 (45%)

65 and older (27%)

I hate that pollsters do it like this. 11 year range first bracket, then 14, then 19......and we all know they do this to make the differences look larger than they really are. (not referring to this poll specifically. Just in general)

 

[The Librarian]

This is the part of the book that talks about it: http://books.google.com/books?id=wTpA2yrTrPsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

Their source is the ANES: http://electionstudies.org/studypages/download/datacenter_all.htm

It is a good resource for numbers, but given the highly subjective nature of the topic, I find most attempts at quantifying such matters suspect. They attempt to normalize it somewhat by comparing the "activists" with the "middle" but again, given the highly subjective nature it doesn't really mean anything to me.

Yeah I see what you're saying.

Anyway, the latest RR has Gingrich up by nine.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ction/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I hate that pollsters do it like this. 11 year range first bracket, then 14, then 19......and we all know they do this to make the differences look larger than they really are. (not referring to this poll specifically. Just in general)

There's approximately the same percentage of the population reflected in each age bracket. That's why they do that. There are a lot more 18-29 year-olds hanging around than 65-76 year-olds.

 

[06nbarnhill]

There's approximately the same percentage of the population reflected in each age bracket. That's why they do that. There are a lot more 18-29 year-olds hanging around than 65-76 year-olds.

Firstly. 65-76 isn't a bracket on the poll.

I do see that it could be part of the reason......but I don't believe for a second that 22% of the population disappears between 18-29 and 30-44... and then another 27% would have to die in 45-64....which is what would be the case if your explanation was the true explanation.

Its just poor practices by pollsters.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

is the exact quote.

Seems like an exaggeration to say that they want no mention of slavery at all. A more even-handed reading would take it to mean that they don't want the contributions of the founders to be drowned by the criticisms.

Furthermore, I don't see any indication that this is an official Tea Party position, only that a "couple dozen" Tea Party members are advocating for them.

They sound a bit kooky, for sure, but "Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks" is just a lie. Ironic considering that you link from a site that claims: "Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads."

I'm not really sure how "even-handed" one needs to be with respect to stopping historical revisionism.

How in the world do you even quantify something like that?

DW Nominate.

 

[LosDaddie]

So the next primary is here in FL, right? I saw about 20 Mitt commercials during NFL playoffs yesterday.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Newt really has a gift for the soundbyte:

One or two more defeats and who knows what he's going to say....I think he's been dancing on eggs trying to find a version of Romney that will work."

-- Newt Gingrich, in an interview on Face the Nation, about GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney.

 

[Volimar]

Newt really has a gift for the soundbyte:

He's not wrong, but Gingrich is no stranger to that himself. It feels like you could play buzzword bingo with every Gingrich speech.

 

[planar1280]

 

[06nbarnhill]

If Newt wins Florida its gunna be a fun couple months.

Also. Those ranges in the projected vote range column are absurdly huge.

 

[Tim-E]

Hooooooly fucking shit. Romney had a 90% chance of victory there just a few days ago :lol :lol Florida is winner take all, too, so if Gingrich wins he's going to get 50 delegates just there alone.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

we are officially on Fantasy Island