Byakuya769
Member
He could weigh 150 and he wouldn't stand a chance. A blowhard doing his best Tony Soprano act would not come close to winning a national election.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
He could weigh 150 and he wouldn't stand a chance. A blowhard doing his best Tony Soprano act would not come close to winning a national election.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm starting to believe this. His outburst on the Jersey shore sealed the deal, he doesn't have the self discipline to be prime time. I realize "self discipline" is probably a Skip Bayless/Beltway meaningless projection to a degree, but let's face it: he can't control his weight or his temper. Good luck appealing to female voters as a pure bully. And of course as a Jersey politician I'm sure he has more than a few skeletons in his closet.
Mike Huckabee lost a lot of weight a few years ago, then gained it back during the last few years. If Christie could lose some weight and address his temper...who knows.
He acts like many overweight males: very aggressive and arrogant in an attempt to project confidence. It's like a Napoleon Complex or something, dunno, but I've seen it often in obese men.
Frank the Great
Banned
fuck christie. made his career as a government attorney and went to public school, and decided to shit on government attorneys (my preferred but probably unobtainable career) and public schools once he got into office.
True, but both stem from the same horrible problem we have in our politics -
Pretty much everyone in DC puts winning the election above (almost) anything else, and what worrisome, is that the electorate are starting to mirror that.
Why doesn't anyone ask Mitt Romeny why repealing Obamacare is such a priority for his campaign? It seems like the costs to repeal it and the time spent fighting it would be more damning in Washington than simply letting it exist and giving much needed reform to other parts of our economic system.
Seems like a silly platform to run on, I think.
Seems like a silly platform to run on, I think.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
And apparently you are part of the Obama camp now. Or something. Unless I missed Obama's campaign talking about this
TacticalFox88
Banned
That would be too much work for our corporate controlled media.
He's not running his platform on it. This is election is about the Economy, and we have to focus on the Economy. Economy.
Nobody gives a shit why Romney wants to repeal it because the only legitimate answer is "Because Obama wants it".
empty vessel
Member
This would be a zinger if the federal government's spending capacity was a direct function of its tax revenue. But it isn't. We should tax high income earners more because it's better for the economy and better for democracy. Not that you care about either.
Why? You say that capacity is not a direct function of tax revenue, why would advocate further confiscation of earnings when you can just advocate the government printing trillions of dollars and handing it out to those who are not "rich". Why would you advocate a system of "punishment for the rich" when it's not even required, according to your economic theory to level the playing field between the rich and poor.
Eight and a half fewer furlough days. Glad you've come around!
empty vessel
Member
Because egalitarianism is good for a society and hinders corruption of democratic governance. Anomalously high income earners (people who earn multiple millions of dollars every year) treat their excess money as a slush fund to influence the government, because they have way too much of it to live off of, even extravagantly so. But democratic government is supposed to be based on one vote per person--equal say. When money influences it, it is a corruption of the democratic process.
When taxes on anomalously high income earners are high, you will see that such earners will eventually start to "earn" much less. Funny how the market works in that way. Anomalously high income earners seem to "deserve" a lot less when tax rates are appropriately high.
Things we can do with this money -
- Give every soldier in Afghanistan a half a million dollar bonus (25 billion left to spare).
- Give a $700 refund to every household in the country.
- Double our education budget (think of the kids!!!).
- Go to the moon in two years (I'm basing it on the cost of the Apollo program. Yes, I'm adjusting for inflation, no, I'm not adjusting to the fact that it will be much cheaper to do it with today's technology).
Cutting taxes on people making over 250k a year is seriously one of the stupidest things to do with that money.
makingmusic476
Member
The issue isn't that a significant number of people aren't paying any taxes, but rather that a significant portion of the population are so broke that they don't pay any taxes. We should be focusing on the latter rather than the former, and many believe government investment/infrastructure projects funded by those that DO have a significant income are a way to do that.
We should be helping people move up into the middle class, as opposed to taking what little money they do have. Otherwise we have a continual widening of the gap, in which a smaller and smaller portion of the population can actually afford to pay any taxes.
What, aside from our current institutionalized concept of property ownership, would allow for people to "earn" well over a million dollars?
I would argue that no man works hard enough or contributes enough to society to earn an amount significantly more than 1 or 1.5 million (30-45x that of the median?), and I would have no problem with an 85% income tax for every dollar received over that threshold.
I would argue that the primary problem here is our first past the post voting system, given it leads to a two party system in which a vast majority of the voting populace feel unrepresented and forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. This leads to an apathetic and often frustrated voting base, which leads to a mistrust of government that translates into anger when the government begins doing things certain people feel it shouldn't be doing.
On the other hand, people in, say, France, are much more likely to find a candidate that represents their interests, are more likely to vote for the candidate they like the most as opposed to the candidate they hate the least, and thus are more likely to have a government that properly represents the wants of the people. Democracy in its essence.
Just look at how the Socialist Party was able to take control of the government despite having not won a major election since the 80s. An impossibility here.
Getting rid of FPTP should be the most important issue on the table, in my opinion. Let's chuck the electoral college while we're at it, so that elected officials stop pandering to swing states.
Very well said.
MintLemonade
Banned
The 2012 race is already over. Anyone who still believes otherwise is either stringing together a narrative of denial or lacks the ability to read psephology statistics. Either way, it's simply laughable that some of you seem to be incapable of discussing anything other than generalities and gimmicks.
I'll go into detail why this race is over tomorrow but for now I'll post a snippet with pictures for easy comprehension....
In order for Romney to win this election he needs to more or less thread the needle...
Observe! The coveted swing states!
In order for Romney to win, he needs to take...
- Obama leaning states such as: Colorado, New Mexico, etc.
- Heavily contested states like: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
So let's say he accomplishes these unlikely feats, what happens...
He's still short.
He'll need to win a rust belt state. Ohio is the only place he has a fighter's chance. Like I said before, threading a needle. Start the hype machine for Bush v Clinton 2016.
This show is already over.
Good reading for beginners: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
I'll go into detail why this race is over tomorrow but for now I'll post a snippet with pictures for easy comprehension....
In order for Romney to win this election he needs to more or less thread the needle...
Observe! The coveted swing states!
In order for Romney to win, he needs to take...
- Obama leaning states such as: Colorado, New Mexico, etc.
- Heavily contested states like: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
So let's say he accomplishes these unlikely feats, what happens...
He's still short.
He'll need to win a rust belt state. Ohio is the only place he has a fighter's chance. Like I said before, threading a needle. Start the hype machine for Bush v Clinton 2016.
This show is already over.
Good reading for beginners: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I know we've all kinda alluded to the Obama Campaign's tactics of rolling out something new each week (just after jobs numbers are released, no doubt)...but has anybody noticed that it looks and sounds like they have something ready for every single week? This campaign is tight, focused, and it looks an awful lot like they got this shit scripted down to the finest detail.
Romney's camp? Raising lots of money, no doubt, but holy hell they've been on the defensive for two full months now. They haven't won a single cycle yet, and worse, they're letting the incumbent define him.
Unbelievable how bad they are at this -- and because they have a lot of of the wealthiest people in the history of the world in their corner, they still have a 50/50 shot. LOL
Romney's camp? Raising lots of money, no doubt, but holy hell they've been on the defensive for two full months now. They haven't won a single cycle yet, and worse, they're letting the incumbent define him.
Unbelievable how bad they are at this -- and because they have a lot of of the wealthiest people in the history of the world in their corner, they still have a 50/50 shot. LOL
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's amusing watching liberals, seemingly led by TPM, contorting themselves to turn Obama's middle class tax position into some master stroke that will certainly be a "win" for him and force republicans to the table, how Romney is the worst possible candidate to tackle this issue, etc.
Until democrats/Obama are willing to let the hostage die, this conversation is irrelevant.
Until democrats/Obama are willing to let the hostage die, this conversation is irrelevant.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The 2012 race is already over. Anyone who still believes otherwise either simply stringing together a narrative of denial or lacks the ability to read psephology statistics. Either way, it's laughable how some of you seem to be incapable of discussing anything other than generalities and gimmicks.
I'll go into detail why this race is over tomorrow but for now I'll post a snippet with pictures for easy comprehension....
In order for Romney to win this election he needs to more or less thread the needle...
Observe! The coveted swing states!
In order for Romney to win, he needs to take...
- Obama leaning states such as: Colorado, New Mexico, etc.
- Heavily contested states like: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
So let's say he accomplishes these unlikely feats, what happens...
He still needs to win a rust belt state. The only state he has a fighter's chance is Ohio, but already he is facing a deficit in that state that may make it just out of reach for him.
Like I said threading the needle. Start the hype machine for Bush v Clinton 2016.
This show is already over.
Good reading for beginners: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/july-9-polldrums/
Uh...welcome! This is more or less the conventional wisdom of PoliGAF right now. Those that think Romney has a chance say he'll win Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and maybe Pennsylvania.
On the other side (me) you'll see predictions of Obama getting around 320.
Someone at DK made a good point the other day, repealing Obamacare would result in a tax INCREASE for most people and businesses, because they'd be losing out on the various tax cuts and credits within the legislation.
As we all know, the Norquist rule says that any tax cut enacted shall henceforth be permanent*.
*Granted, this is only insofar as such cuts benefit the rich, but still it'll be funny to see him and his ilk try and rationalize.
As we all know, the Norquist rule says that any tax cut enacted shall henceforth be permanent*.
*Granted, this is only insofar as such cuts benefit the rich, but still it'll be funny to see him and his ilk try and rationalize.
MintLemonade
Banned
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, I saw an editorial and a reader comment promoted to the front page that are suggesting that Romney will be the face of GOP obstructionism this time around, and since he represents exactly what they're fighting for (really fucking rich people that want more tax breaks on money they actually keep in the States), it'll be somewhat harder to defend.
I don't see anything calling this a "master stroke" or anything suggesting that Republicans will actually concede anything, ever. Just that Romney will suffer for their behavior. The argument isn't that the GOP will lose the issue, the argument is that Romney will lose the issue because of who he is and because of what they want.
And I think the onus is on you to explain how any of the above is not true. Of course the Dems aren't willing to let the hostage die. But I'm willing to bet they'd be willing to hang Romney around GOP congressional necks for the next few years.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The 2012 race is already over. Anyone who still believes otherwise is either stringing together a narrative of denial or lacks the ability to read psephology statistics. Either way, it's laughable how some of you seem to be incapable of discussing anything other than generalities and gimmicks.
I'll go into detail why this race is over tomorrow but for now I'll post a snippet with pictures for easy comprehension....
In order for Romney to win this election he needs to more or less thread the needle...
Observe! The coveted swing states!
In order for Romney to win, he needs to take...
- Obama leaning states such as: Colorado, New Mexico, etc.
- Heavily contested states like: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
So let's say he accomplishes these unlikely feats, what happens...
He's still short.
He'll need to win a rust belt state. Ohio is the only place he has a fighter's chance. Like I said before, threading a needle. Start the hype machine for Bush v Clinton 2016.
This show is already over.
Good reading for beginners: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Obama is under performing in Ohio, PA's voter ID law disqualifies nearly a million (likely democrat) voters, large voter purge in Florida, Nevada too close to call...
This is far from over.
How...cute.
Like is said Bush v Clinton 2016. HYPE!
Thanks for the welcome.
For a second, I thought your username was Mittlemonade.
PA is not a swing state 
I think Ohio will be the crucial state this election.
I think Ohio will be the crucial state this election.
Personally, I'd trust PoliGAF over German media. On the surface it would sound like the unemployment rate will lose it for Obama, but it's not so simple.
makingmusic476
Member
Nevermind, I'm dumb.
MintLemonade
Banned
I'll do this back and forth dance with you tomorrow because I'm really tired. You seem to be quite uninformed, so I'll help you out so you can impress your friends....
- Like I said before Ohio is must win for Romney. Regardless of this fact, he'll still lose the state by a small margin. Your general statement about under performing could be patched onto almost half the states in the country.
- Florida isn't the issue. I have no idea why you even posted this, it belongs in a pot with other heavily contested states that Romney must win.
- Nevada is solid blue blood. You're naive to think otherwise. If you were looking for a "too close to call" it would be Virginia.
- With or w/o those laws. Pennsylvania is a Obama win. The math proves it, stop putting so much weight into puff piece journalism.
In the end it comes down to options and statistics. The President simply has more paths and the right amount of support in places he needs it most.
Bush v Clinton 2016.
Good talk....night.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Romney's basic argument is that no one's taxes should go up, especially during a an economic downturn. That's not a losing argument, and I don't believe he'll face any heat on this.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Remember, it's direction, not a specific number. But otherwise there are so many other variables, like:
1. "how unlikable is the challenger?"
2. "is the challenger the worst possible guy to argue against the incumbent's major accomplishment?"
3. "does the challenger's claim to fame somehow play into the incumbent's favor?"
4. "does the challenger have anything remotely in common with his base?"
5. "is the Republican not a born-again Christian, and if not, how weird is his religion?"
1. "how unlikable is the challenger?"
2. "is the challenger the worst possible guy to argue against the incumbent's major accomplishment?"
3. "does the challenger's claim to fame somehow play into the incumbent's favor?"
4. "does the challenger have anything remotely in common with his base?"
5. "is the Republican not a born-again Christian, and if not, how weird is his religion?"
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
you're trying so hard to figure out how this loser can possibly win. I'm with you dude. I don't see it either.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Really? Because I'm pretty sure Romney's already won by 10.
I hate to disagree with you but Obama's going to win every state he won in 2008, except for Indiana and maybe North Carolina. The real battleground is the House and Senate, but Romney's a joke.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Cyan is right. None of us believe PD is anything but an accidentally brilliant poseur who is trying to convince himself that he hasn't made yet another terrible avatar/ban bet or w/e it is.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Here's the GOP's pushback on Obama:
This to me is more relevant:
D+2 would put Democrats on track to picking up 19 seats - close but no cigar. However, this is also coming from an internal GOP pollster.
Somehow I don't see this working out. A retread of the healthcare fight which everyone knows will fail (considering they already tried it last year), trying to get Obama on defense (all Obama has to do is say "I got bin Laden" and he's already won), and more tax cut nonsense, which Obama's already one-upped them on. Same old bullshit. I'm sure on Labor Day, Obama will put out a big plan for reducing the deficit and helping the economy, kicking their ass again.
This to me is more relevant:
Let's pull out Nate Silver's handy chart:
D+2 would put Democrats on track to picking up 19 seats - close but no cigar. However, this is also coming from an internal GOP pollster.
Every state minus Indiana and NC?
Reallllly
I am starting to have doubts about PA. The student + minority vote here cannot be understated. PA GOTV efforts are a fucking joke btw. Obama better have this at the top of his fucking list for the ground game, and he needs to attack it hard, NOW.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I can't wait for his bitter tears come November. I shall taste victory!
TacticalFox88
Banned
HIS bitter tears!? Facebook tears will be GLORIOUS!
PhoenixDark
Banned
The problem is that Ohio is important to both candidates, Romney moreso than Obama. But with Obama struggling to connect with working white voters there despite the state's economy improving, I see red flags. Securing Ohio would offer Romney some interesting paths to 270. Likewise, Iowa is another state close to tipping to Romney.
Obama doesn't need Florida to win. But once again, a Romney win there brings him closer to his goal. Obama has way more paths to 270, but we're already seeing his state leads decrease as more negative jobs news arrives each month. By October we'll likely have an even clearer picture of a faltering economy.
You're assuming the map will essentially stay the same between now and November. That's not going to happen.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
- I hope you pinko liberals will be happy with COMMUNISM!
It's ridiculous! Obama made the economy worse so that more Americans become poor and count on welfare so they vote for him!
It was an election on race!
The next Great Depression is here...
I'm moving to Canada!
Destroys the economy, wastes trillions, socializes health care, tries to ban guns by supplying them to drug cartels, and gets reelected.
First the economy, then Bin Laden, now America.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Iowa, Ohio, Florida, NC, and Indiana range from certain flips to possible ones right now.
The map favor Obama sure. But my argument remains that considering the economy continues to be shitty with no relief in site, Obama is likely fucked
Again, Romney is not winning Ohio. He won't win it for several reasons, but the basic ones are that he supported Senate Bill 5 last year, the Auto bailouts are ridiculously popular in this state, and the Unemployment rate is dropping rapidly. Romney literally has nothing here except the usual conservative voters who will vote for anything with an "R" after the name. He might not get them either if Ohio's economy keeps improving. With the casinos opening up later this year, I'd be shocked if we weren't well below 7% unemployment by November.
The Republican party in this state has pretty much abandoned the Romney campaign. Romney is going around the state talking about how terrible the economy is while Kasich is going around the state boasting about how many jobs are available, pretty much contradicting everything Romney is saying.
A doctor who was under government control has access to things like scalpels, drills, vials full of various diseases that would help suppress the average tax paying American.
What do the police have? Pepper spray and bean bag bazookas?
The real threat seems pretty dang clear.
maximum360
Member
I was thinking about this today. It shows that they took the time to really plan things out and are playing offense on a weekly basis. The administration comes out with a new policy or talking point and then we're all waiting for the Romney response.
cartoon_soldier
Member
We will have to see how badly it affects Obama. We have now had 3 months of bad job numbers, but the polls didn't move away from Obama too much (and I don't think they will unless Romney offers a vision)
Right now, Obama campaign and Republican SuperPACs are drowning out each other on the air.
This makes no sense. If you are seeking egalitarianism (in this case, in wealth distribution), why do you prefer to get to that end by taking money from the "rich" when you freely admit that the government can print all the money they want, meaning we can get to the same egalitarian end by simply printing money and giving it to people to put them on "egalitarian" footing with the rich.
Why must schadenfreude be a part of your solution?
You have no idea. And of course it would be followed up with every excuse for why Democrats should do all they can to obstruct Romney, even though they vilified Republicans for allegedly doing the same thing.
I think I have come to the realization why all my IRL discussion about tax always end in frustration. Whenever I exclaim that we are not being taxed enough and actually are paying lower taxes than we ever have, I get a lot of puzzled looks and people thinking I am lying. Unfortunately, I don't have charts, diagrams, spreadsheets to show people when having these discussions.
But, their confusion makes sense to me now. Most people's income varies wildly over the course of their lives and the total amount of tax they pay changes along with it. So, even though the rate may change, they only think of tax as a lump sum of money. Over a 20 year period, this lump sum of money can change dramatically as the fortunes of the person goes.
Also, the way they think of tax may change as they get older. When you are first starting out in your life, you think of tax in the micro. You are essentially living week to week and month to month and tax is just another weekly bill you to pay. It's not until you get older, with more responsibilities and money that you begin to approach taxes in an annual/semi-annual manner. So, the numbers are bigger and the burden feels bigger.
Also, there's the problem of people not factoring their returns as less tax they had to pay. They see it as 'their money' and never the governments to begin with. But that's not true, it's just that they qualified for tax to be returned in exchange for behaviors they exhibited during the year.
--- // ---
tl;dr: Keep tax discussion on the internet
But, their confusion makes sense to me now. Most people's income varies wildly over the course of their lives and the total amount of tax they pay changes along with it. So, even though the rate may change, they only think of tax as a lump sum of money. Over a 20 year period, this lump sum of money can change dramatically as the fortunes of the person goes.
Also, the way they think of tax may change as they get older. When you are first starting out in your life, you think of tax in the micro. You are essentially living week to week and month to month and tax is just another weekly bill you to pay. It's not until you get older, with more responsibilities and money that you begin to approach taxes in an annual/semi-annual manner. So, the numbers are bigger and the burden feels bigger.
Also, there's the problem of people not factoring their returns as less tax they had to pay. They see it as 'their money' and never the governments to begin with. But that's not true, it's just that they qualified for tax to be returned in exchange for behaviors they exhibited during the year.
--- // ---
tl;dr: Keep tax discussion on the internet
The point is the campaign is doing a great job at changing the conversation from a bad jobs report. Horrible numbers were released on Friday, now the conversation has turned to a tax plan that further reinforces the idea that Romney explicitly wants tax cuts for wealthy people while he is consistently shady about releasing own tax returns.
The conversation isn't irrelevant because it dominated evening news coverage of the election for the day. Obama took a bad jobs number and smothered it. Romney should've been able to take this report and run with it, but his campaign has failed at setting a narrative once again. The Obama camp has been incredibly focused and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a "Monday after jobs report" story planned to unveil for every month after a mediocre jobs report. This campaign is constantly on the offensive.
No one is claiming this is some brilliant policy. The Bush tax cuts need to expire. There's no way the republicans would go along with it, and the Obama camp knows it. They're just playing politics and it's working.
Your argument is solely: I made a bet and I'm fucked
- Status