-
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
Black Mamba
Member
From PPP. Something tells me they did it too quickly, though.
edit: was beaten, whoops.
el retorno
Member
Studies don't work. She "instinctually" knows anything the government touches is more expensive. They can't in her opinion work in hypothetical because the government will screw it up like they've done everything else. I mean besides, Social Security, Military, Medicare, etc.
I think she'd be open to that type of argument. And it is my preferred solution (a french or german type). She's just not at least going to admit it to her grandson.
I just thought it was interesting to see how deep the GOP's anti-government/the government is the problem has infiltrated the broader american psyche rather than just conservatives.
She is a liberal and always votes democratic, hated bush and all that though. She's not a closet tea partier.
PhoenixDark
Banned
McCaskil will probably get a slight lead eventually; imo snap polls are rarely useful. I expect her to lose in November though; Obama is still at the top of the ticket in MO, afterall
Aaron Strife
Banned
SurveyUSA also did a snap poll. Oddly though it doesn't include a match-up, but most of Missouri wants Akin to drop out:
el retorno
Member
I thought this was worth a post in Poligaf.
Newsweek doesn't have a fact check department
Newsweek doesn't have a fact check department
https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/237589163174658048
cartoon_soldier
Member
Made a separate thread in light of the Akin stuff. GOP set to adopt abortion platform without exceptions for rape or incest. Calling for human life constitutional amendment
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487818
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487818
Has Romney's fundraising been discussed? Looks like they will have a huge cash advantage headed into the general election proper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/u...p-huge-cash-advantage-over-obama.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/u...p-huge-cash-advantage-over-obama.html?_r=1&hp
Yeah that has been known for some time, he has not been able to use any of it till he is officially nominated
But with all the damage he has done to himself and the GOP is doing to him I am not sure any of that matters. They can't stick to a message without contradicting themselves.
cartoon_soldier
Member
He hasn't done that much damage to anything. It is not like Obama is leading by 6 points in polls everywhere.
He is leading where it counts despite endless amounts of cash thrown into ads against him, so what does that tell you
Oh yeah thats right you are obsessed the sky is falling, the media fix is in, and Obama will lose because this massive advertising is going to do something it has yet to do
I think its worrying. Money can flat out overwhelm a message. The Romney campaign hasn't been run well so far but a huge cash deficit can undercut the Obama campaign's effectiveness as well.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I don't share some of the optimism of fellow GAFers when it comes to the Ryan pick for Obama. And we will see how the PPP WI poll numbers are here.
I don't believe the Media is doing its job well when it comes to explaining the impossible math behind Romney or Ryan's budget.
I think Obama is a slight favorite right now, not the overwhelming favorite that GAF thinks he is.
And I think it is better to have a big money advantage than disadvantage compared to your rival.
Aaron Strife
Banned
So McCaskill's approval rating is 41-53.
Akin's favorability is 24-58.
Talk about lesser of two evils...
Akin's favorability is 24-58.
Talk about lesser of two evils...
The Romney carpetbombing in the back end of October will be nuts.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I always assumed the individual campaign's fundraising served as a better gauge of things, since each campaign is limited to around $21.7 million when it comes to access to Victory funds/DNC/RNC fundraising money with the rest of it relegated down ticket.
Or did I completely misread the FEC page on it?
http://www.fec.gov/info/charts_441ad_2012.shtml
Or did I completely misread the FEC page on it?
http://www.fec.gov/info/charts_441ad_2012.shtml
I don't disagree. Just stating that regardless, the airwaves will be filled with political ads. Must be painful for you guys.
I choose to read this post in the sardonic way.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Someone (I think Quinnipac) said something like, only 5% of voters aren't committed to their candidate. They also had Obama doing really well in the swing states but that was before the Ryan announcement.
If I had to guess, I'd say everything will normalize by the end of the DNC, with Obama maybe getting a slight boost in North Carolina.
You get used to it, by October you learn to just ignore them or look for the lols in them because they really do get insane
And Romney can have all the money in the world, only reason he won the GOP Nomination was because of how awful the field was.
If Santorum had any kind of organization as a real candidate Romney would have had a much tougher fight.
In the end the GOP will vote for Romney and Ryan, but in the process I firmly believe they will antagonize enough in the middle to go with Obama and the lesser of two evils.
No amount of money is going to change that, its not he middle or the dissatisfied left that Romney and his money are targeting. He is spending money and will be spending money just to reassure his own voters he won't sell them out.
There's nothing wrong about it.
It's the appropriate response.
I don't see how Ryan really changes that. WI is the only state, I think, that will show a strong Ryan bounce for Romney. Ryan does excite the GOP, but then again, the base was going to hold their noses at vote for Romney anyway.
el retorno
Member
Everybody is. A lot of people are screaming at Harvard to fire him.
The effect is probably diminished at the presidential level. Even with a disadvantage, the Obama Campaign's not impecunious. They have over $100 million in cash on hand. Consequently, neither presidential campaign will be overwhelmed. Where the effect would be more pronounced is on down-ticket contests.
The limit only applies to the amount of expenditures a party committee may expend on behalf of a campaign. So the point regarding national committees is valid. But the limit does not apply to joint fundraising committees, the Victory Fund, which are apparatuses for fundraising. That is, they only apportion funds rather than expend funds. Moreover, there are no limits to the amount of funds a joint fundraising committee can apportion to an individual campaign permitted the donor has not already contributed the maximum amount to said campaign.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Usually the VP pick is an across-the-board bounce, but not by much. It just diverts more media attention to the candidate giving them a small boost.
WI's bounce will be more long-term though because of the favorite son effect.
adamsappel
Member
Please, no. I'm tired of people getting fired for incompetency, verbal recklessness, flat-out lying, etc., yet becoming right-wing political martyrs for being "punished" for criticizing Democrats or being "politically incorrect."
el retorno
Member
So Harvard should employee people who use their credentials to lie? Just to appease republicans who aren't going to back down from their liberal news elite BS.
Let them scream and moan all they want.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
They hired a guy who claimed to be Kenyan when he was clearly born in Hawaii...sounds like they don't have fact checkers either.
He's in the history department.
And generally, such purges never lead to good things, and yeah, I think it's the best interest of everyone to just let that shit slide.
Ridicule him to no end, I think that's the smart way to go about it.
Black Mamba
Member
the worst was the slight of hand with the job numbers. Using a starting point of 2008 to make the job numbers negative rather than 2009 when he earlier used inauguration as the start date for another topic.
People don't stop when reading, generally, to say "wait, didn't Obama come into power in 2009." No, they keep reading and then see the negative job number and assume it's all under Obama. It was an intentional deceit of ridiculous proportions.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's amazing that Newsweek greenlit that. I heard they don't have a fact checking department but even that doesn't justify some of the basic problems - like blaming Obama for 2008 job numbers.
I'm glad my job doesn't subscribe to Newsweek, I'd probably take that issue out of the lobby and hide it
I'm glad my job doesn't subscribe to Newsweek, I'd probably take that issue out of the lobby and hide it
Black Mamba
Member
It's scary to me how much disinformation is out there. Remember before the internet when we really no way of fact-checking. We actually had to rely on the media. And when they lied, they would often get called out for it and lost their job, so their integrity mattered.
Now, it's about who can lie quick enough so that it sticks...then again, maybe we just never could fact check and thus were always lied to.
I really have no clue how you fix this broken system. And I'm not accusing this as a solely Right phenomena. Both sides do it, just during cycles one side more than another.
Man, I have to fact correct people all the times when politics come up to the point I often just stay quiet. The disinformation is highly effective. And not just on stupid people. It takes a lot of effort to verify all the claims and people will just accept face-value reports.
RustyNails
Member
Newsweek reminds me of Fareed Zakaria and how he has fallen 
Newsweek reminds me of Fareed Zakaria and how he has fallen
Speaking of which:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/16/cnn-statement-on-fareed-zakaria-2/
http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/27/120827fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
Good article About the world of campaign donations. Makes Obama look very good, even if he's acting against his own short term interests.
Good article About the world of campaign donations. Makes Obama look very good, even if he's acting against his own short term interests.
RustyNails
Member
That is great to hear. Nothing is better than GPS on sundays, fuck all the talking-point dissemination talk shows. I also wonder what will FZ say during his opening monologue about the whole debacle.
He should get Jonah Lehrer on for his comeback episode. They can compare fake notes.
Black Republican
Member
tick tock tick tock
talisayNon
Member
So do we have a Legitimate Rape Time meme yet?
Rocket Scientist
Member
One of the most fascinating articles I've read in a while. While I understand donor's might be unhappy that they can't even get a picture with Obama, the guy faced a serious economic problem and major opposition to any and every thing he wanted to get done to try and fix the country. Dude needs his golfing time too, man.
CharlieDigital
Banned
So Niall Ferguson is the Harold Camping of our Debt Apocalypse?
Almost since the crisis began, Ferguson has pushed a very specific theory with a very specific prediction: The bond markets, he has said, are going to revolt against American debt. And if that doesn’t happen, inflation is going to run amok.
As Joe Weisenthal details, back in September 2009, Ferguson was warning that “long-term rates have risen by 167 basis points in the space of five months,” which “settled a rather public argument” Ferguson had been conducting with Paul Krugman, in which Ferguson argued the markets were turning on our debt and Krugman argued that they were not. So who was right? Well, the interest rate on 10-year Treasuries was 3.73 percent when Ferguson wrote that column. Today, they’re 1.81 percent. Point, Krugman.
Having been rebuffed by the bond market, Ferguson then predicted that we were entering a period that would come to be known as “the great inflation of the 2010s”. We were not. On Sunday, Bloomberg News published an article that began with the sentence, “So much for the inflation warnings.”
These predictions — and others, like when Ferguson warned that ”the Chinese clearly feel they have enough U.S. government bonds” — were the testable hypotheses generated by Ferguson’s worldview. That worldview, in essence, was that the United States was under imminent threat from its debt, and that the result would either be a crisis as the U.S. proved unable to pay its creditors or runaway inflation as the Fed printed money in excess of what the economy could handle.
As Joe Weisenthal details, back in September 2009, Ferguson was warning that “long-term rates have risen by 167 basis points in the space of five months,” which “settled a rather public argument” Ferguson had been conducting with Paul Krugman, in which Ferguson argued the markets were turning on our debt and Krugman argued that they were not. So who was right? Well, the interest rate on 10-year Treasuries was 3.73 percent when Ferguson wrote that column. Today, they’re 1.81 percent. Point, Krugman.
Having been rebuffed by the bond market, Ferguson then predicted that we were entering a period that would come to be known as “the great inflation of the 2010s”. We were not. On Sunday, Bloomberg News published an article that began with the sentence, “So much for the inflation warnings.”
These predictions — and others, like when Ferguson warned that ”the Chinese clearly feel they have enough U.S. government bonds” — were the testable hypotheses generated by Ferguson’s worldview. That worldview, in essence, was that the United States was under imminent threat from its debt, and that the result would either be a crisis as the U.S. proved unable to pay its creditors or runaway inflation as the Fed printed money in excess of what the economy could handle.
Delicious
Whatever you believe about Obama’s policies, the Ferguson/WSJ/Ryan theory has clearly failed in its main predictions, and it’s worrying to see that this hasn’t led to a more serious effort to rethink its premises. After all, Romney and Ryan might well win this election, and it would be nice if the people they were listening to were pushing them to fix what’s actually gone wrong rather than what they wish had gone wrong.
DELICIOUS
slidewinder
Banned
What's so delicious about it? They lied and people believe them. They fucking won.
"You won but you were wrong (and you won)!". Liberal ring-around-the-rosie. Fucking shit. Fuck you fuckers.
"You won but you were wrong (and you won)!". Liberal ring-around-the-rosie. Fucking shit. Fuck you fuckers.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Yes, it worries me that we have individuals who are so "faithful" in their worldviews that they are unwilling to re-align based on the evidence of history and easily verifiable facts (this is a common theme among many on the far Right of our political spectrum).
But nonetheless, I find it extremely satisfying when the facts and reality disprove this silly worldview of theirs -- especially when it comes to Keynesian economic theories (which we have decades of economic data and reality to back up). Of course, it's not as satisfying and absolute as the passing of May 21 in the Harold Camping End-of-the-World fiasco (I mean, I feel bad for many of the folks who wasted their life savings on this movement), but still satisfying nonetheless.
Perhaps you're right, though, too few Americans will actually see the facts here
and those nutters will just continue to push their agenda without consequence. Man it's so much easier to be a Republican candidate in our political system. You can pretty much get away with anything and never have to worry about pesky facts or reality and your voting base doesn't give a fuck as long as you don't touch other men with your penis.- Status