Support NeoGAF

[Ether_Snake]

The more Obama is successful against Romney during the campaign, the more the media will try to make it sound like it's even.

They'll start asking things like "Are Obama's attack ads going too far?" and that kind of hypocritical bullshit.

 

[fallagin]

lol. you are joking, right?

Now it says 302.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Now it says 302.

Youtube view count updates only hours later.

 

[Diablos]

When I watch that Obama ad with Romney singing all I think is Obama not putting his hand on his heart during the national anthem. I'd imagine many white, blue collar workers in Ohio will think the same

The fuck is you talkin' bout.

W-W-W-W-WHEN I SEE THAT AD I THINK ABOUT THE TIME THAT GUY SAID "LIAR" WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT HEALTH CARE. I IMAGINE MOST AMERICANS WILL DO THE SAME~~~~

 

[leroidys]

Hi Poligaf, been lurking and following for years and have learned a shit ton along the way, but just to take a sidestep from the presidential elections for a bit, how is the house and senate elections looking for the dems. It would be nice for Obama to be able to pass something in his last term without the republicans blocking everything.

Basically 0% chance of retaking the house. There is just too much money flowing to Republicans and House races are easy to influence.

Dems have a chance of keeping the senate.

 

[thekad]

When I watch that Obama ad with Romney singing all I think is Obama not putting his hand on his heart during the national anthem. I'd imagine many white, blue collar workers in Ohio will think the same

i think of death panels

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Basically 0% chance of retaking the house. There is just too much money flowing to Republicans and House races are easy to influence.

Dems have a chance of keeping the senate.

I think it's the opposite, they have a good chance of taking the house back, but a pretty big uphill battle to keep the senate.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Don't worry, there's only 301 views.

2,023 likes, 127 dislikes

something does not compute

Youtube view count updates only hours later.

Here's an explanation of that. Best Youtube series ever.

Why Youtube views stop at 301

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Basically 0% chance of retaking the house. There is just too much money flowing to Republicans and House races are easy to influence.

Dems have a chance of keeping the senate.

So the best case scenario for democrats is that the next two years end up like the last two years?

 

[PhoenixDark]

So the best case scenario for democrats is that the next two years end up like the last two years?

Pretty much. Nothing passes, economy is slowly strangled

 

[werks]

Pretty much. Nothing passes, economy is slowly strangled

Might as well sit this one out and stop trying, right?

 

[teiresias]

Hearing Romney sing all by itself wasn't too awful - actually kind of funny at the time, but the minute you put images over it in the context of that ad, the overall flat (as in literally acoustically flat on the pitch) rendition suddenly sounds sinister and takes on a creepy, almost malign quality.

 

[pigeon]

So the best case scenario for democrats is that the next two years end up like the last two years?

It depends. The Republican caucus is pretty fractured right now, as became evident during the debt ceiling crisis, for example -- Boehner and the older Republicans would prefer to compromise and pass bills, but the Tea Party caucus are perfectly happy blowing everything up -- which means the eventual bills that do pass, requiring more Democratic votes, end up with less meaningful compromises from a Republican point of view (cf. sequestration). This hasn't been great for anybody, politically or economically, but it has been significantly worse for the Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party in terms of approval ratings.

Remember that the whole goal here was to make Obama a one-term president, and the eventual outcome of all the games was Mitt Romney. Every Republican should be able to see the writing on the wall here -- if they don't turn the boat around, they're going to continue to drop in approval, shrink in registered voters, and nominate Mormons. So I think it's possible that we might see more compromise in Congress after the election. Obama doesn't have much left to lose at that point, after all.

I might be being a little too optimistic, though.

 

[Averon]

That Obama ad is brutal. I liked how the only audio was Mitten's singing. Are their anything comparable by the GOP's SuperPACs?

 

[VanMardigan]

So there doesn't seem to be any good, recent, empirical evidence of voter fraud. Not that I could find in my brief search. I did find some interesting things. For example , a significant amount of people think that there is some sort of voter fraud. The states that want to impose voter ID laws claim the fears of voter fraud will lead to voter disengagement. This is absolutely false, though, based on the data:

Not only did the dictum in Purcell posit that fears of vote fraud will lower citizen engagement, but the Court appeared to assume that voter identification laws, at least to some degree, will lessen those fears and bolster voter confidence in elections.^' Even if such fears do not reduce people's likelihood of voting, one might still say that voter ID laws are worth supporting if they bolster public confidence. However, the data that exist on the relationship between voter ID laws and fears of fraud do not support even this more modest argument.

The data demonstrate no relationship between either individual level or aggregate rates of voter identification and perception of fraud. The correlations between beliefs about Voter Fraud and Vote Theft and the incidence of voter identification are very small and statistically indistinguishable from zero in both samples.

But here's the most damning data against stringent voter ID laws based on the argument that it enhances voter confidence and therefore voter participation:

We find no relationship between the stringency of a state's voter identification requirement in 2006 and the share of its population reporting that fraud occurs frequently............In the four states with the strictest identification requirements, the beliefs in fraud are nearly identical to the national average: 14% think Voter Fraud is very common and 10% think Impersonation occurs very often. In the seven states with the least restrictive identification requirements,'*^ 11% say Voter Fraud is very common and 8% say Impersonation occurs very often. In short, states differ in the share of the population that thinks fraud occurs frequently, but the stringency of their identification requirements is not responsible for those differences.

Ansolahehere, S., & Persiiy, N. (2008). VOTE FRAUD IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER: THE ROLE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN THE CHALLENGE TO VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. Harvard Law Review, 121(7), 1738-1774.

And while there are no recent peer-reviewed empirical studies on voter fraud (these things take time and money), there is a good non-peer reviewed breakdown here: http://www.tnr.com/article/the-great-voter-fraud-myth

Its sourced by another journal article I read, so that lends a lot of credibility to the piece and the author. I wish I had found something more definitive either way.

 

[Jackson50]

Not directly, but he has the bully pulpit. He could've done a whole lot more than he did to push for further stimulus/gov't spending.

Perhaps, but would pushing for additional stimulus have been successful? The power of the bully pulpit, at least on domestic policy, is often exaggerated. Moreover, the only realistic opportunity available was prior to the midterms. And they actually passed additional economic measures beyond the ARRA.

I think it's the opposite, they have a good chance of taking the house back, but a pretty big uphill battle to keep the senate.

You overestimate the Democrats' prospects of winning the House. The latest generic Congressional polls are a push. So given that the incumbent typically has an advantage, the Republicans have a moderate buffer. Further, although the benefits are often exaggerated, they gained a slight advantage from redistricting.

Any interesting policy stuff recently? That's when I tend to learn stuff from NeoGAF. How is it that some of you guys know so much? Blows my mind.

Yes. After a year of efforts to normalize bilateral relations, the Obama Administration eased sanctions on Burma Wednesday shortly after the arrival of the first ambassador in over twenty years. The new policy permits American companies to invest in Burma's burgeoning energy sector while simultaneously tightening pressure on officials accused of imperiling their nascent political reforms. I supported the new policy as it benefits the new leadership which has partially staked its reputation on engagement.

 

[bananas]

Bams ain't fucking around. Imagine if they have an ad as powerful as that every two weeks till the election.

 

[Incognito]

Romney campaign sez that the Obama ad "mocks 'America the Beautiful'" and will backfire. :lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney campaign sez that the Obama ad "mocks 'America the Beautiful'" and will backfire. :lol

Pretty much

 

[kehs]

That ad is straight ether.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Bams ain't fucking around. Imagine if they have an ad as powerful as that every two weeks till the election.

That ad is nearly on the level as "Daisy" in brutality. I doubt even Bams has that capability

 

[Byakuya769]

Romney campaign sez that the Obama ad "mocks 'America the Beautiful'" and will backfire. :lol

Romney didn't sing it that badly.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Bams ain't fucking around. Imagine if they have an ad as powerful as that every two weeks till the election.

Doubtful. I'd imagine that will be The ad of this election. Everything else will follow the typical "narrator/"facts"/music/etc" blueprint, which is of course effective but not memorable like today's ad

 

[iamshadowlark]

dat ad

 

[fallagin]

Here's an explanation of that. Best Youtube series ever.

Why Youtube views stop at 301

This video explains alot, thanks!

 

[TomServo]

Bams ain't fucking around!

New campaign ad on Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk

""Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the problem" Just brilliant. That's the tagline.

Great ad with solid messaging. Silently, acknowledges unemployment is a problem, beats on Romney's history of sending jobs overseas.

I'm not likely to vote for Obame (his economic policy is as big a disaster as W's), but I have to give him credit for that ad.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Great ad with solid messaging. Silently, acknowledges unemployment is a problem, beats on Romney's history of sending jobs overseas.

I'm not likely to vote for Obame (his economic policy is as big a disaster as W's), but I have to give him credit for that ad.

You should have only posted your first two sentences. Your third acknowledges that there may be a realistic candidate better than Obama. Unless you plan on throwing your vote behind a third party candidate, then ignore this post and pat yourself on the back.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Great ad with solid messaging. Silently, acknowledges unemployment is a problem, beats on Romney's history of sending jobs overseas.

I'm not likely to vote for Obame (his economic policy is as big a disaster as W's), but I have to give him credit for that ad.

What is Romney's economic policy and in what ways is it better than Obama?

 

[Big Baybee]

That ad was insane. Wow. lol

 

[TacticalFox88]

Great ad with solid messaging. Silently, acknowledges unemployment is a problem, beats on Romney's history of sending jobs overseas.

I'm not likely to vote for Obame (his economic policy is as big a disaster as W's), but I have to give him credit for that ad.

Economic policy as big as a disaster as Bush?! The same one that's added four million jobs?! Thank you for letting us know not to take you seriously.

 

[XMonkey]

What is Romney's economic policy and in what ways is it better than Obama?

To be fair, he never said anything about voting for Romney or said that Romney's policies (lol) are better than Obama's.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

What is Romney's economic policy and in what ways is it better than Obama?

He didn't say anything to that effect.

 

[RDreamer]

Some idiot on my Facebook keeps sharing Crossroads Generation's pictures... I feel bad for everyone duped by that stupid crap. I can't go off on him or anything because he's really a nice guy and a customer at the place I work. Pretty genius plan with Crossroads Generation, though. They basically just push further disillusionment on the youth. There's no actual alternatives shown or anything like that. It's just "This stuff sucks, right!" and "Obama is in charge and you're totally not working!" sort of stuff. They just never mention Romney isn't going to do jack about it either, or possibly do worse.

I did go off on someone I knew yesterday for sharing one of those stupid pictures that thanks Florida and Missouri and those states that drug test welfare recipients, etc. I can't help myself when that one comes up...

 

[Clevinger]

You should have only posted your first two sentences. Your third acknowledges that there may be a realistic candidate better than Obama. Unless you plan on throwing your vote behind a third party candidate, then ignore this post and pat yourself on the back.

Aren't you writing in your vote?

 

[kehs]

So let’s at least agree to do what we all agree on. That’s what compromise is all about. Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and our entire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy

I love this guy.

 

[ezekial45]

The Firms video is already over 150k views.

 

[adamsappel]

Didn't see this story mentioned.

WASHINGTON (AP) — If your job is protecting the first lady's motorcade, mouthing off about the boss can lead to more than a citation in a personnel file.

A District of Columbia police officer found that out this week when he came under investigation for threatening comments he was accused of making about first lady Michelle Obama, though there are conflicting reports about what was said, Police Chief Cathy Lanier said in an email Friday. She did not elaborate.

...

The Washington Post cited anonymous police officials in reporting that the officer told colleagues he would shoot the first lady and then showed a photo on his phone of a gun he would use, and that another officer reported the comment to a lieutenant.

D.C. police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump has declined to discuss the comments beyond saying they're under investigation.

Full story at the link. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=156728510

Another story from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...says/2012/07/13/gJQA0nM2hW_story.html?hpid=z3

D.C. police have stripped an officer of his police powers and gun as they investigate his alleged threat against Michelle Obama, the District’s police chief said Friday.

Police and the Secret Service have not determined precisely what was said by the officer or his intent, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said Friday. During a Wednesday breakfast with other officers, police officials have said, the officer threatened to shoot the first lady.

A genuine threat would be a crime and referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution, Lanier said. A comment made in jest would be disciplined as conduct unbecoming an officer, she said.

“If it was a threat, it was criminal,” Lanier said.

The officer under investigation, whom authorities have not named, works on motorcycle escorts and has been with the force for about 17 years, Lanier said. She said that he was put on paid desk duty and that his badge and gun were revoked after the alleged threat was reported to a supervisor by another officer.

White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters traveling to Virginia with President Obama on Friday morning that he was “aware” of the alleged threat.

The comments were said to have been made over breakfast at a downtown restaurant with at least five officers present. They allegedly involved shooting the first lady, according to police officials.

A group of officers from the Special Operations Division were at the restaurant when the conversation turned to the first lady, the police officials said.

Several police officials said they had received initial reports that the officer used his mobile phone to display a picture of the firearm he intended to use. Those officials later said he may have used an application on his phone that makes the sound of gunfire.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Optics this weekend

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-at-leisure-12-pictures-from-his-day-o

http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/30-pictures-of-president-obamas-rain-soaked-c

 

[GaimeGuy]

Shock: Painting the POTUS and his family as foreign saboteurs who hate America correlates with increased threats against the President.

 

[FyreWulff]

You know, Bush was at least smart to keep up his average guy persona from his run up until the end of his presidency.

Romney, if you're trying to hide your tax returns, it's probably a good idea to not go around personally driving a boat that could probably be sold to fund the purchase of every house I've lived in as a kid.

 

[TomServo]

Economic policy as big as a disaster as Bush?! The same one that's added four million jobs?! Thank you for letting us know not to take you seriously.

LOL, added four million jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-chart-tears-apart-stimulus-package

And no, at this point I don't plan on voting for either Romney or Obama. They're both the same thing on core economic issues.

 

[Fox318]

Hi Poligaf, been lurking and following for years and have learned a shit ton along the way, but just to take a sidestep from the presidential elections for a bit, how is the house and senate elections looking for the dems. It would be nice for Obama to be able to pass something in his last term without the republicans blocking everything.

As long as there are Dixiecrats no Democratic president will ever have an easy time with the house.

 

[johnsmith]

LOL, added four million jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-chart-tears-apart-stimulus-package

And no, at this point I don't plan on voting for either Romney or Obama. They're both the same thing on core economic issues.

Are they?

 

[XMonkey]

And no, at this point I don't plan on voting for either Romney or Obama. They're both the same thing on core economic issues.

You know, it's fine if you don't plan to vote for either of them, but don't try to pass them off as having the same economic plans for the country because that's completely wrong.

 

[Clevinger]

LOL, added four million jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-chart-tears-apart-stimulus-package

And no, at this point I don't plan on voting for either Romney or Obama. They're both the same thing on core economic issues.

I hate to add to the pile-on, but they both view taxes and regulation very differently. And keep in mind that Mitt's current tax plan is his second plan because his first one was so derided for raising taxes on the lower classes. His old tax plan is probably more likely what he'll do when he's president with a Republican Congress.

 

[TomServo]

You know, it's fine if you don't plan to vote for either of them, but don't try to pass them off as having the same economic plans for the country because that's completely wrong.

No, it's not.

Look, you guys are caught up in the political sport. Frankly, that's all noise. The bottom line is that the economic systems practiced in the western world for the past 30 years are unsustainable. Neither candidate is proposing to change that.

I'm not talking crazy let's-go-back-to-the-gold-standard stuff here, I'm talking about the fact that in the past 30 years wages for everyone but the top have stagnated. That's three decades of both Republican and Democrat control of the Executive, Congress, and Senate in various combinations, all with the same trajectory.

Those three decades have seen people with stagnating wages replace income with debt. Bubbles occur when the folks at the top figure out how to expand debt dramitically, and the burst when risk catches up to them and debt expansion stagnates.

The way out of this is a massive writedown of debt. A reset. That should have happened last during the financial crisis, but "too big to fail" trumped moral hazard. The bottom line there? A combination of massive campaign funding from the financial industry and the revolving door between major financial institutions, the Fed, and the Treasury made sure those that actually cause these bubbles and pops didn't feel any pain.

Have things improved on the financial side of the world? MF Global, Liborgate, JP Morgan Chase... all in the past year. You tell me.

Like I said, you guys are caught up in the sport of it all. You read a government report on unemployment, job creation, etc, turn it into a talking point, and move on. By the time these supposedly impartial reports are all revised away from their initial rosy numbers you've moved on. The reality is that this economy is fucked.

Anyway, I've ranted enough. Going out to have some drinks with my friends and soon to be fiance (shh... she doesn't know yet).

Peace to all of you!

 

[SouthernDragon]

Good luck with your fiance!

But, that said, as someone who doesn't enjoy all this political jockeying, I disagree partially with your assessment. To put it concisely, wages have stagnated due to a variety of factors that are largely propagated by the more corporatist elements in government. Unfortunately this has permeated through both parties, though one more thoroughly than the other.

Stating that both are equivalent is... lazy? Dangerous? While neither is a great option, there's one that will at least be willing to move in the right direction.

 

[Chumly]

Whenever I see someone try and argue the parties are the same I just imagine the ostrich with its head stuck in the sand.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

When I watch that Obama ad with Romney singing all I think is Obama not putting his hand on his heart during the national anthem. I'd imagine many white, blue collar workers in Ohio will think the same

You for real?

 

[RDreamer]

I get what he's saying. It makes some sense. Really, he's not saying they're the same, necessarily. His problem may be that they're not quite different enough in certain ways. And really, he's right in that. The other thing is that though they are very different people and parties, they're just metaphorically the beginning of a trajectory. You'd have to carry that out fully to get that big difference. If we keep electing them back and forth then yeah you're going to get kind of the same path when looked at over a long period of time. What I mean to say is that going republican > democrat > democrat > republican > republican > democrat > and so on isn't going to ever give you some nebulous liberal idea put into practice. On the other hand it isn't going to give you some huge conservative idea put into practice, either. Really, it just rules out any extreme scenario, especially a sort of reset like he was talking about. That's not even talking about the other checks and balances to the system, either. To get something truly radically different done you'd have to elect a president, the house, and the senate all to one party. But even then it likely couldn't, because of the looming elections.

So, really, the problem is with the entire system. Our entire system isn't build around two STARKLY different parties, from the government down to our political system.