-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
toadster101
Banned
When will politicians learn that they as individuals are incapable of creating jobs?
yes, but Nate already takes into account the RV to LV swing for the republicans in all of his numbers.
Because they know that the rapture isn't actually coming. But the money and geopolitical support is. Win-win.
Nate's already adjusting polls to take in account the likely versus registered voter thing, so that's worked in.
I dunno, Tomasky had an article about this this week. Once you count up all the electoral votes that just aren't competitive, Obama already has 260. He really only needs one toss up state to break his way -- and he's leading in every single one. He might not win them all, but he probably won't lose them all either.
I agree that a euro explosion could kill him. And let's not forget that he isn't leading by MUCH in the battlegrounds. But the reality is...he's probably going to win.
When people stop buying it hook, line, and sinker.
It's not really politicians that need to learn that, but the electorate.
speculawyer
Member
Because this is all controversial stuff that is best handled with dog whistle coded language.
Well because they don't believe Jesus is going to show up. For them it is like having this weird group of people that worship them so why help them organize and send money & support to Israel?
Black Republican
Member
if, and only if Romney too called for more gun control laws would that pretty much end his chance of winning the WH no matter little change he asks for?
surely SOME GOP voters in rural areas wouldnt mind?
surely SOME GOP voters in rural areas wouldnt mind?
If he called for gun control he'd be sunk. Dead in the water.
Black Republican
Member
maybe some hard righters in the gop would be mad, but i refuse to believe his core voters would dump him for this.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I don't think it would sink his campaign. It is like him being Mormon. They'll go for him instead of the Kenyan Muslim. Never mind that Obama has done nothing about guns except make them legal in national parks. The mythology is 'Obummer wants to take your gunz' so they'll vote Romney.
Mitt has core voters?
My understanding is, the model already accounts for the LV/RV difference, and factors that in based on the historical spread.
As for polling this far out, I think it's starting to matter. I've largely disregarded polling so far this year, because of how far away from the election we were. But we're to the three month mark - that's not far. So while not indicative of the final result, I think it's safe to start paying attention.
I think it would depend on how far he's go with it, if he supported an assault weapons ban then I doubt the NRA would continue to fund him. I was looking at it through more of a funding thing. It won't make people go to Obama, but it will cost him funding and just make certain voters more apathetic and he can't afford to have anyone who might support him stay home.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
More like "Anti-Obama" voters. I think many are probably voting against Obama instead of for Mitt.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Its a Scott Walker/John Kerry situation.
You keep talking about the national head-to-head polls like they matter fuck-all. Romney can't even convince the states that were hit the worst by the recession -- Ohio, Michigan, et al -- as to why he would be better for them economically. Romney doesn't win without those states.
You can keep talking about the economy, but I am not convinced that the public believes Romney is better for the economy on a meaningful scale.
From Rasmussen, of all pollsters:
July 26 said:
Those are terrible numbers for Romney. And if the economy keeps adding jobs, the closer that gets to even, the worst Romney will perform.
Yes. We have debated the proposition, and I think most agreed expanding the size of the House would be beneficial. However, I take issue with his rationales and motivations. First, the evidence correlating constituency size with government spending is inconclusive. Fortunately, I don't normatively value a restraint on spending. Additionally, the premise that smaller districts would increase competitiveness is dubious. If the premise were valid, then House elections would be more competitive than Senate elections. Yet the incumbency advantage for both chambers is nearly indistinguishable. Instead of the questionable arguments posited in the article, increasing the size of the House might engender two desirable outcomes.
Notionally, it would enhance the link between the representative and their constituency. Not only would that increase satisfaction, it would accentuate accountability. I find this assumption plausible, although I think the effect is exaggerated. Rather, my principal motivation regards oversight. Congressional oversight is terribly deficient. Members often serve on multiple committees and subcommittees which, in addition to their other responsibilities, encumbers their attention. Further, Newt Gingrich compounded the problem when he reduced the size and budget of committee staffs to consolidate power in the speakership. In addition to committee reform, an increase in the size of the House would enhance oversight by permitting committee specialization.
Regarding the Senate, no. I do not support repeal of the 17th Amendment. Moreover, I doubt it would prove effective as I expect most states would be pressured to implement direct elections.
We've reached the juncture were polls have become usefully predictive. It's been a protracted campaign, but we're only three months from the election. The predictive power of polls increases substantially in mid-summer.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I think it would be fascinating to see Romney lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote. I can only imagine the right-wing radio/TV outcry the day after, and it would be so amazing to compare their statements with the ones they made after Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
It's not about them voting for Obama instead. If he called for gun control, huge swaths of GOP voters just wouldn't vote at all. Republican turnout would be pitiful, 350+ EVs for Obama.
Hobbestetrician
Member
They would bitch about it being a disgrace to American democracy and the will of the American people since it doesn't work in their advantage but it was all 'tough shit' when it was to their benefit.
Edit:
Absolutely, my statement is ambiguous about party because it certainly would hold true both ways.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And, lets be honest, the exact reverse would probably be happening among people who were angry about the 2000 situation.
PhoenixDark
Banned
8% lead on the economy=terrible numbers for Romney? Yea ok
I think the implication is that, given "the economy" is the only thing he is really running on, he should be posting a wider margin.
Officerrob
Banned
Considering unemployment is at 8.3% and that poll is from Rasmussen, absolutely.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Given the economy, Romney should be knocking Obama off the ballot. The fact that he isn't should worry them. And the fact that the economy still sucks and it is possible should worry Obama.
If the numbers are so bad, then why isn't he beating Obama right now?
Obama made it through summer, which you said would be the beginning of the end for him. That doesn't look to be the case now.
It is quite the reverse actually. Silver has Obama at his highest chance of winning and EV count ever right now.
empty vessel
Member
Of course politicians can create jobs. Someone light the ev signal!
Ha. Yes, the government can create jobs. It can create them directly, in fact, by offering jobs to people who don't have them. I'd love to get some fucking potholes filled, some better maintained parks, etc.
el retorno
Member
No. It's still pretty early.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Being a VP Pick can never be that bad. Even if you lose, you are in good position to launch a Presidential campaign next time.
Unless you are Palin of course.
Nah, it's just the Olympics lull. Palin wasn't announced until August 28.
Just wondering, I've never really payed attention before when it comes to the time VP picks are announced.
el retorno
Member
It's usually around the convention
cartoon_soldier
Member
Olympics end August 12, 2012. I would expect announcement that week.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
But wouldn't this lead the chance for a very corrupt public sector? South American countries as well as Eastern European have shown how government jobs getting involved in certain industries can lead to corruption. Whos to say that those who are in charge of the public construction workers will forcably try to eat away at the private businesses share of the pie?
He can't even convince a plurality of voters, so yes. The fact that Obama is within shouting distance, and if the economy keeps adding jobs within the next three months? All bets are off.
The way you are talking about it, you make it sound like it's a 20% ass-kicking by Romney. It clearly isn't, and the voters don't see it that way, either.
dot dot dot
Aaron Strife
Banned
Bad news for Obama.A week or so ago I looked at Nate Silver's forecast status and saw a notable tick of improvement for Obama, and wondered here whether it was a blip or a more sustained movement.
It appears to be the latter.
Obama got a bump in July that has remained, and it looks like Romney's position is deteriorating further over the past week against him. I'm expecting Romney to announced the veep pick the week or so after the Olympics are over, but it won't alter his fundamental position. Dude is in deep trouble.
empty vessel
Member
An actual employer of last resort (ELR) program would be set up to hire people at a minimum wage only. (Obviously, government workers who were not part of such a program but hired in the normal course would make higher wages commensurate with the work they are doing). Also, the private sector is not in the pothole filling business, except at the direction of the government. Privatization engenders far more corruption than the straightforward provision of public services anyway. I don't care about eating away at private business's share of the pie. (Almost none of those "private" business aren't actually private, anyway; they are state-created corporate entities.) That's not to say that we ought to have a command economy. It's just to say if there is something we want the government to do, there is no reason to wring hands about the private sector (most of which is actually a for-profit public sector anyway).
One odd thing about Silver's model is that his Now-cast tab (if the election was held today) has Obama doing worse than the Nov. 6th forecast. In fact, his numbers have dropped the past couple weeks on that compared to how it's been rising in the November tab. It's pretty weird.
Also, during the primaries what I noticed was how quickly his model changed with just a few polls in a different direction, so it's not worth getting too hopeful or hyped about.
Also, during the primaries what I noticed was how quickly his model changed with just a few polls in a different direction, so it's not worth getting too hopeful or hyped about.
cartoon_soldier
Member
One thing we have seen through the GOP Primaries is a few ads and moments change the primary completely. We haven't seen the same with Presidential race.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think it factors in current economic growth as being better for Obama.
Also, if you give Obama every state he has a 70% chance of winning in or higher, he has 275 electoral votes. That gives Romney Colorado, Iowa, Florida, and Virginia and he still loses.
I am also pretty confused about the now-cast thing. I'm hoping he does a blog post about it, actually.
The primary model was pretty wacky, but that's because primary elections are almost unpollable because of the extremely small group of people who actually vote in primaries and the limited set of correlations between them. He basically said, at one point, that he can't really model the primaries very well because they're so weird and badly polled.
The Senate race here in Wisconsin is kind of odd. All 3 of them are driving far to the right trying to be the most conservative candidate ever. Actually one of the commercials says straight out Neumann is one of the most conservative candidates in Wisconsin in a long time. Seems really strange to play that all up like that and run completely and utterly almost only against Obamacare. Wisconsin's going to go to Obama, and I have a hard time envisioning so many Obama supporters coming out to vote for one of the guys on the GOP side, especially if they keep up with only running on repealing Obamacare.
I realize they're driving to the right for the primary, but I think that's really going to hurt them come general election, especially with how many negative ads they're all throwing at each other.
I realize they're driving to the right for the primary, but I think that's really going to hurt them come general election, especially with how many negative ads they're all throwing at each other.
Reince Priebus: Obama has a problem with the American dream.
It's probably cause he never achieved it.
It's probably cause he never achieved it.
speculawyer
Member
Reince Priebus: Obama has a problem with the American dream.
It's probably cause he never achieved it.
The text:
What the fuck does any of that have to do with the tax returns?
- Status