Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

See . . . I think we had the opposite problem. There was too much money flowing around as people invested in all sorts of crazy internet start-ups. I was there, I had my own. A lack of money was not a problem, a lack of good businesses was the problem. But it sounds like you approve of Bush's moves to fix the economy . . . he massively cut taxes and thus "put money back into the economy". I find it quite amusing to see you on the same side of George Bush in economic matters!!

I'm pretty sure even you agreed with George Bush in the sense that in a recession the government must put money in the economy (stimulus). The government can put money back in the economy either by cutting taxes or spending, which are equivalent activities. Bush correctly moved to increase aggregate demand, but he exploited the situation on behalf of the wealthy by spending mostly on rich people (inequitable tax cuts that increased income inequality). Were it me, I wouldn't have cut taxes of high income earners but would have spent more on poor people instead. This would have (1) increased aggregate demand most efficiently; (2) reduced income inequality; and (3) substantively helped raise the living standards among Americans. Win-win-win.

You say that a lack of money was not the problem, but the data show otherwise. The domestic private sector was literally operating in the red as soon as the government started running surpluses in 1998. Indeed, this is an accounting truism (provided that the trade balance is zero or negative, as it was). That is precisely what the chart I posted reflects. In short: Domestic Private Balance + Domestic Government Balance + Foreign Balance = 0

To help understand why the private sector must run a deficit when the government runs a surplus (assuming a zero or negative foreign balance), see: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/mmp-blog-2-basics-of-macro-accounting.html

See also: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=961

 

[RustyNails]

not to mention just recently obama's 2013 budget would add 6 trillion to the debt

As opposed to not passing Obama's budget, which will double the deficit?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

not to mention just recently obama's 2013 budget would add 6 trillion to the debt

You read the full article on this right?

Just continuing with current budget and policies would add 11 trillion dollars to the decficit by 2022.

Obama's budget would bring deficit below economic growth rate, it would fall to 2.5% of GDP as opposed the current one of 8.1% of GDP (Annual growth).

 

[adamsappel]

I can't be the only person wondering if all this alcohol drinking is meant to further make Romney look out of touch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/obama-st-patricks-day_n_1355563.html

And I am actually going to the Dubliner tonight while visiting DC. Dangit so close to meeting the President.

I believe the Dubliner is the bar in this classic scene from The Last Detail (NSFW language - I had this clip playing and my daughter walked into the room!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1pdy4MFlq4#t=28s

Movie has such great Robert Towne dialog. "I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker!"

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So Santorum doubles down on Porn

Romney can't take a stand on Afghanistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/18/mitt-romney-afghanistan_n_1356730.html

 

[Jackson50]

Romney can't take a stand on Afghanistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/18/mitt-romney-afghanistan_n_1356730.html

The former Massachusetts governor called the ongoing U.S. departure from Afghanistan a "failed withdrawal."

Said Romney: "He likewise failed in the way we left Iraq, and this is a president who simply does not have experience in tough situations, no negotiating or leadership experience. And it is showing with the result that one might have expected with the lack of leadership."

Fox News host Bret Baier asked Romney what he would do differently.

"First of all, I would exercise leadership," Romney offered, suggesting he would talk to President Hamid Karzei every day.

The withdrawal is failing, sure. But the failure stems from it being maddeningly dilatory. Moreover, with whom would you negotiate after you foolishly denounced negotiations with the Taliban? And it's laughable how frequently Mitt invokes his inherent brilliance as his trump. Okay, Mitt. We have converted. Our country's principal problem has been a lack of you.

despite the infighting, is a Romney/Santorum ticket still possible?

No. Santorum's a toxic entity. Contraception, man on dog, and his war on pornography would encumber the ticket.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Wait, wait, wait.

They're still using the "lack of experience" card?

His four years of experience as President apparently do not count for the next four.

 

[Jackson50]

Wait, wait, wait.

They're still using the "lack of experience" card?

His four years of experience as President apparently do not count for the next four.

Obama's just not a leader. He's a good guy. But he's the most feckless president since Jimmy Carter. America can't afford four more years of Jimmy Carter.

 

[Snake]

At the end of the day, foreign policy is the #1 job of the President (in terms of his/her actual powers, effectiveness, etc). I see many people get led astray from this fact due to the economy, but I think it remains an unassailable truth.

And thus it is amazing to me how poor Gov. Romney is in this regard. He would be better off just keeping his mouth shut. Rank and file Republicans like to play dumb on these issues when there's a Democrat in office, but I have no doubt that Barack Obama will win some moderate Republican votes purely on the basis of having a rational FP record vs. returning to the worst of the Bush FP team with Romney. Call me an optimist.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

At the end of the day, foreign policy is the #1 job of the President (in terms of his/her actual powers, effectiveness, etc). I see many people get led astray from this fact due to the economy, but I think it remains an unassailable truth.

And thus it is amazing to me how poor Gov. Romney is in this regard. He would be better off just keeping his mouth shut. Rank and file Republicans like to play dumb on these issues when there's a Democrat in office, but I have no doubt that Barack Obama will win some moderate Republican votes purely on the basis of having a rational FP record vs. returning to the worst of the Bush FP team with Romney. Call me an optimist.

I think rational is an understatement. The President has been downright unparalleled in foreign policy successes for the last decade or so. He's waging a successful covert war with Iran, attacking nuclear facilities and assassinating scientists while imposing far reaching sanctions on their economy, and increasing the already enormous military presence in the area (there are now multiple aircraft carriers deployed in the persian gulf/ arabian sea). These are EXACTLY the steps I would expect a smart person to take against a country like Iran, and as a result, they are now almost completely cut off from the rest of the world and are practically begging for a permanent human inspector presence.

He's assisted in removing Ghaddafi from power, killed Osama Bin Laden, killed more Al Qaeda operatives than anyone else, clamped down on piracy in the area - including 2 different successful hostage rescue operations; He's withdrawn the troops from Iraq, and our presence in Afghanistan is coming to an end. This was all after he made he made an unprecedented effort to reach out to the muslim world and make it clear that they are not our enemy, and that we (the United States) are not infallible.

Obama has been nothing but a leader in the foreign policy arena, but because he prefers to quietly execute on his goals, instead of talking tough and grandstanding about following people to the gates of hell, people have come to think he's somehow "weak" on FP. They couldn't be more ignorant.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Obama's just not a leader. He's a good guy. But he's the most feckless president since Jimmy Carter. America can't afford four more years of Jimmy Carter.

Stay trollin', Jack.

At the end of the day, foreign policy is the #1 job of the President (in terms of his/her actual powers, effectiveness, etc). I see many people get led astray from this fact due to the economy, but I think it remains an unassailable truth.

And thus it is amazing to me how poor Gov. Romney is in this regard. He would be better off just keeping his mouth shut. Rank and file Republicans like to play dumb on these issues when there's a Democrat in office, but I have no doubt that Barack Obama will win some moderate Republican votes purely on the basis of having a rational FP record vs. returning to the worst of the Bush FP team with Romney. Call me an optimist.

Foreign policy is certainly the area where the president exercises the most unilateral authority, but largely because Congress has abdicated/the President has usurped (you can argue about which of those is more true) its power. Relatedly: I would love nothing more than for Americans to be disabused of the notion that the president has any real power with respect to the economy.

I think rational is an understatement. The President has been downright unparalleled in foreign policy successes for the last decade or so. He's waging a successful covert war with Iran, attacking nuclear facilities and assassinating scientists while imposing far reaching sanctions on their economy, and increasing the already enormous military presence in the area (there are now multiple aircraft carriers deployed in the persian gulf/ arabian sea). These are EXACTLY the steps I would expect a smart person to take against a country like Iran, and as a result, they are now almost completely cut off from the rest of the world and are practically begging for a permanent human inspector presence.

He's assisted in removing Ghaddafi from power, killed Osama Bin Laden, killed more Al Qaeda operatives than anyone else, clamped down on piracy in the area - including 2 different successful hostage rescue operations; He's withdrawn the troops from Iraq, and our presence in Afghanistan is coming to an end. This was all after he made he made an unprecedented effort to reach out to the muslim world and make it clear that they are not our enemy, and that we (the United States) are not infallible.

Obama has been nothing but a leader in the foreign policy arena, but because he prefers to quietly execute on his goals, instead of talking tough and grandstanding about following people to the gates of hell, people have come to think he's somehow "weak" on FP. They couldn't be more ignorant.

I find it really funny that Obama takes credit for ending the Iraq war when it was exactly the opposite of what his administration wanted to accomplish.

 

[empty vessel]

Relatedly: I would love nothing more than for Americans to be disabused of the notion that the president has any real power with respect to the economy.

Well, no more or less than in any other context. I mean, there is some real power there (proposing/vetoing spending and tax bills). But in general I agree it would be nice for Americans to pay more attention to Congress.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Well, no more or less than in any other context. I mean, there is some real power there (proposing/vetoing spending and tax bills). But in general I agree it would be nice for Americans to pay more attention to Congress.

They should pay more attention to Congress, but in general I don't think it's clear that the government exercises the degree of control over the economy that some people suggest it does. And in many cases we probably don't want it to.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

I find it really funny that Obama takes credit for ending the Iraq war when it was exactly the opposite of what his administration wanted to accomplish.

Why? It was the fulfillment of a major campaign promise and something he was opposed to from the beginning. The fact that the administration wanted to to stay longer to reduce the violence a bit further doesn't change his goal, or promise. It's a personal and political success for him.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Why? It was the fulfillment of a major campaign promise and something he was opposed to from the beginning. The fact that the administration wanted to to stay longer to reduce the violence a bit further doesn't change his goal, or promise. It's a personal and political success for him.

I guess it just depends on your perspective. "I intended to break this promise, but forces beyond my control forced me to keep it." In my mind that's not a terribly compelling argument.

 

[empty vessel]

They should pay more attention to Congress, but in general I don't think it's clear that the government exercises the degree of control over the economy that some people suggest it does. And in many cases we probably don't want it to.

I think it exercises more control than anything. The government regulates the fuel that the economy relies upon to grow (or shrink). Whatever your thoughts about MMT, it can't be denied that (1) money is critical to a modern economy; and (2) the government controls money. If anything, I think the detachment that has been created (manufactured?) between the government and economy has been disastrous. We need to take greater democratic control over it, not less.

http://heteconomist.com/?p=622

 

[cartoon_soldier]

The withdrawal is failing, sure. But the failure stems from it being maddeningly dilatory. Moreover, with whom would you negotiate after you foolishly denounced negotiations with the Taliban? And it's laughable how frequently Mitt invokes his inherent brilliance as his trump. Okay, Mitt. We have converted. Our country's principal problem has been a lack of you.

The problem now mainly is Pakistan and not Afghanistan. Having more troops or not withdrawing troops from Afghanistan will accomplish nothing. And Romney has no strategy for Afghanistan except, criticize whatever Obama is doing.

I find it really funny that Obama takes credit for ending the Iraq war when it was exactly the opposite of what his administration wanted to accomplish.

Happened on his watch, so he takes credit for it. In the end its a campaign promise fulfilled. Even if the 6000 forces had remained back for training, they would have put it as promise fulfilled. If a Republican President has accomplished in FP what Obama has accomplished they would be clamoring for a new addition to Mt. Rushmore.

 

[Plinko]

So Santorum doubles down on Porn

Romney can't take a stand on Afghanistan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/18/mitt-romney-afghanistan_n_1356730.html

Fox News host Bret Baier asked Romney what he would do differently.

"First of all, I would exercise leadership," Romney offered, suggesting he would talk to President Hamid Karzei every day.

This guy. This guy. Oh, Mitt.

Also, in GOP candidate news:

Santorum yet again calls Puerto Rico a "Spanish-speaking country."

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

I guess it just depends on your perspective. "I intended to break this promise, but forces beyond my control forced me to keep it." In my mind that's not a terribly compelling argument.

Well when you invent the argument you want criticize, I guess your conclusion would have to depend on your perspective. The administration originally intended to leave troops in Iraq for a few months longer (into early/mid 2012) but ended up leaving early because they couldn't nail down a deal to extend immunity for the troops beyond 2011. Stop pretending that this somehow means that Obama really never intended to bring the troops home, was forced to vindicate a personal position he's held for nearly a decade, and forced to fulfill one of the biggest promises he made during the campaign. That's ridiculous.

You sound like a member of the goddamn Fox and Friends crew.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Well when you invent the argument you want criticize, I guess your conclusion would have to depend on your perspective. The administration originally intended to leave troops in Iraq for a few months longer (into early/mid 2012) but ended up leaving early because they couldn't nail down a deal to extend immunity for the troops beyond 2011. Stop pretending that this somehow means that Obama really never intended to bring the troops home, was forced to vindicate a personal position he's held for nearly a decade, and forced to fulfill one of the biggest promises he made during the campaign. That's ridiculous.

You sound like a member of the goddamn Fox and Friends crew.

No, I'm just not an Obama partisan. I don't think it's unfair or reductive to state that the Obama Administration wanted to keep US forces in Iraq for longer and that the reason they are not there now is because they did not get what they wanted.

It also bears pointing out that the terms under which forces were withdrawn from Iraq were set by President Bush, so again, the fact that we no longer have a military presence in Iraq has little to do with President Obama or his administration's expressed preferences.

I think it exercises more control than anything. The government regulates the fuel that the economy relies upon to grow (or shrink). Whatever your thoughts about MMT, it can't be denied that (1) money is critical to a modern economy; and (2) the government controls money. If anything, I think the detachment that has been created (manufactured?) between the government and economy has been disastrous. We need to take greater democratic control over it, not less.

http://heteconomist.com/?p=622

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that we want more democratic control over monetary policy. I'm not saying the Fed is perfect or anything close to it, but I think there is a level of complexity about monetary policy such that I think it's better off being managed by insulated technocrats--and shifting the technocratic consensus about what constitutes good monetary policy is probably an easier feat than trying to explain it to voters.

Relatedly: Chartalism is a terrible name; it's so visually close to charlatanism.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Also, in GOP candidate news:

Santorum yet again calls Puerto Rico a "Spanish-speaking country."

Hearts and minds.


I randomly looked at where the cumulative jobs picture was for Obama's term; I was curious how close to reversing the losses from the freefall of 2009 he was. We're still -864k jobs in the hole (starting from February 2009). Not a really meaningful stat, but if current trends hold he'll be looking at ~1m more jobs in the economy than when his term started come election time. Last year at this time I assumed he'd still be in the hole.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that we want more democratic control over monetary policy.

I'm talking less about the Fed and more about fiscal policy. The Fed doesn't control the money supply, just interest rates.

Actually, it occurred to me that, if you have any interest, this is the perfect thing to read to understand where I come from on this:

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/the-public-money-monopoly-pt-i.html

Relatedly: Chartalism is a terrible name; it's so visually close to charlatanism.

Seriously. I refuse to use that term for that reason, even though it's a stupid reason not to use a word. It just annoys me.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Obama's just not a leader. He's a good guy. But he's the most feckless president since Jimmy Carter. America can't afford four more years of Jimmy Carter.

feckless |ˈfekləs|
adjective
(of a person) lacking in efficiency or vitality : a feckless mama's boy.
• unthinking and irresponsible : the feckless exploitation of the world's natural resources.

?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

feckless |ˈfekləs|
adjective
(of a person) lacking in efficiency or vitality : a feckless mama's boy.
• unthinking and irresponsible : the feckless exploitation of the world's natural resources.

?

I just assumed he was being sarcastic

 

[worldrunover]

feckless |ˈfekləs|
adjective
(of a person) lacking in efficiency or vitality : a feckless mama's boy.
• unthinking and irresponsible : the feckless exploitation of the world's natural resources.

?

He's quoting Mitt Romney. So you'll have to ask Mittens what he meant by that.

 

[Oblivion]

Anybody interested in the United States' oil/gas issues needs to watch this interview/debate with Fareed Zakaria and Stephen Moore, the senior economics writer on the Wall Street Journal. A lot of good points discussed.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...licans-are-pandering-on-oil-prices/?hpt=hp_t3

1. Fuck CNN for uploading these shitty clips that end at awkward moments.
2. Stephen Moore's a tremendous douche.

Moore actually tried to argue that despite the fact that we're drilling more than ever before (which even he admitted), it doesn't matter cause Obama's not willingly doing so? What the hell difference does that make?

 

[Measley]

1. Fuck CNN for uploading these shitty clips that end at awkward moments.
2. Stephen Moore's a tremendous douche.

Moore actually tried to argue that despite the fact that we're drilling more than ever before (which even he admitted), it doesn't matter cause Obama's not willingly doing so? What the hell difference does that make?

Yeah, that was a ridiculous interview. How the hell are you going to argue that oil prices would go down by drilling for more oil, when you just admitted that prices haven't gone down from us drilling more oil?

Then that nimrod goes on to say that he actually believes that Gringrich can bring oil down to 2.50 a gallon. What a lying sack of shit.

 

[Mortrialus]

Yeah, that was a ridiculous interview. How the hell are you going to argue that oil prices would go down by drilling for more oil, when you just admitted that prices haven't gone down from us drilling more oil?

Then that nimrod goes on to say that he actually believes that Gringrich can bring oil down to 2.50 a gallon. What a lying sack of shit.

He's the perfect example of a complete and total republican shill.

 

[Chumly]

Romney's criticism on Obama's foreign policy is just downright embarrassing. He has zero plan for what he would do other than it should be the opposite of what Obama does. Frankly I feel that the republicans are extremely detrimental to our foreign policy by being constant war mongerers. How do they expect to ever get peace if the strategy is to just be at war for the next 100 years. Criticizing Obama for apologizing for stuff like burning the Koran's and killing innocent civilians. You would think that apologizing for stuff like that would just be natural.

 

[Plinko]

1. Fuck CNN for uploading these shitty clips that end at awkward moments.
2. Stephen Moore's a tremendous douche.

Moore actually tried to argue that despite the fact that we're drilling more than ever before (which even he admitted), it doesn't matter cause Obama's not willingly doing so? What the hell difference does that make?

None. It makes no difference. One of the reasons I posted it was to show how ridiculous he was in some of his points.

 

[elrechazado]

Wow, so santorum was deeeeeestroyed in PR. Guess they don't like him in that Spanish speaking country....

 

[Aaron Strife]

1. Fuck CNN for uploading these shitty clips that end at awkward moments.
2. Stephen Moore's a tremendous douche.

Moore actually tried to argue that despite the fact that we're drilling more than ever before (which even he admitted), it doesn't matter cause Obama's not willingly doing so? What the hell difference does that make?

The oil can sense it. It won't come up unless you want it to.

Like the killing curse in Harry Potter.

 

[gutter_trash]

Wow, so santorum was deeeeeestroyed in PR. Guess they don't like him in that Spanish speaking country....

Santorum is a complete moran concerning PR, from trashing them then vacationing there and losing bad

 

[jamesinclair]

Wow, so santorum was deeeeeestroyed in PR. Guess they don't like him in that Spanish speaking country....

I wonder why

"During the trip, he stirred up controversy by telling a local newspaper that if Puerto Rico votes in favor of U.S. statehood—an issue that will be on the ballot in November—the territory would have to adopt English as its official language. Santorum later said his remarks were misinterpreted."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/puerto-rico-republican-caucus-results-2012-201823184.html

To be fair, thats the entire GOP platform. English as the official language, even though the official language of PR is Spanish, and all schooling and government business is done in Spanish.

Of course, there are 3-4 other officially bilingual states (Hawaii and NM for example)


Reality doesnt always work in GOP land.

With 52 percent of precincts reporting, Romney led with 83 percent of the vote, compared to Santorum's 8 percent. Newt Gingrich trailed with just 2 percent, followed by Ron Paul at 1 percent.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, that was a ridiculous interview. How the hell are you going to argue that oil prices would go down by drilling for more oil, when you just admitted that prices haven't gone down from us drilling more oil?

Then that nimrod goes on to say that he actually believes that Gringrich can bring oil down to 2.50 a gallon. What a lying sack of shit.

Yeah, he is full of shit. The price of oil came down in the 80's because the North sea came on line heavily:

And the Alaskan North slope oil came on line heavily:

But those were both rich fields of conventional crude. The North Dakotan Bakken oil is patches of oil found in tight shale formations. It just won't EVER flow as fast & freely. If it did, we would have drilled it many years ago. The reason why we are drilling it now is because prices are so high that they make it economic. But if oil prices go down, they'll stop drilling it because it won't be profitable. Thus, you'll never drive gas down to $2.50/gallon with that oil.

 

[GaimeGuy]

No, I'm just not an Obama partisan. I don't think it's unfair or reductive to state that the Obama Administration wanted to keep US forces in Iraq for longer and that the reason they are not there now is because they did not get what they wanted.

It also bears pointing out that the terms under which forces were withdrawn from Iraq were set by President Bush, so again, the fact that we no longer have a military presence in Iraq has little to do with President Obama or his administration's expressed preferences.

Those terms were not what the bush administration wanted, though . They wanted a longer, indefinite presence of support forces. It's the same thing you're criticizing the obama administration for (actually worse).

Plus, regardless of what the bush administration set, obama could have thrown those out the window had he wanted once he came in office. See: reagan and his dismantling of the Carter administration's long-term energy policies and proposals.

 

[speculawyer]

Wow, so santorum was deeeeeestroyed in PR. Guess they don't like him in that Spanish speaking country....

Ricky tells Rick, sorry . . . we like living La Vida Loca.

 

[GaimeGuy]

actually as I recall, what happened was the terms the bush administration agreed to were essentially shuffling the negotiations off to Obama. The Bush admin wanted to maintain an indefinite presence in iraq with some combat troops and a few thousand support forces. Iraq did not want that, but since the bush administration could not get something worked out before the administration switch, they got an extension of existing us presence until 2012, pending further talks between the obama administration and Iraq's leadershipp.

It wasn't really the bush administration deciding to pull out as much at it was them running out of time to establish a long-term presence.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

actually as I recall, what happened was the terms the bush administration agreed to were essentially shuffling the negotiations off to Obama. The Bush admin wanted to maintain an indefinite presence in iraq with some combat troops and a few thousand support forces. Iraq did not want that, but since the bush administration could not get something worked out before the administration switch, they got an extension of existing us presence until 2012, pending further talks between the obama administration and Iraq's leadershipp.

It wasn't really the bush administration deciding to pull out as much at it was them running out of time to establish a long-term presence.

All I'm saying is if anyone should get credit for us leaving Iraq, it's Iraq. Both administrations wanted to spend more time there, and we left Iraq despite those administrations, not because of them.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Apropos to yesterday's debate on Obama and gay rights, Greg Sargent posted on the looming battle at the Democratic Convention over the inclusion of gay marriage in the Party's platform. I'm inclined to think they'll include it, but I wonder if they'll push Obama. If the Party were to include marriage equality in its platform, it would be a fairly momentous decision. I pray it doesn't happen as it would hasten the demise of American families. I think he meant win the Republican nomination. And if that is the intended context, I'd agree with him. 'm certain Romney understands that's a losing issue in the general election.

Wtf is this shit?

 

[sc0la]

Wtf is this shit?

Jackson50's sarcasm is so dry they pack it in with new tennis shoes as a desiccant. He is also trying out this AstroLad thing lately.

Edit: you must not stop by this thread much if you thought he was serious?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wtf is this shit?

Typical black homophobia

 

[RustyNails]

Moore actually tried to argue that despite the fact that we're drilling more than ever before (which even he admitted), it doesn't matter cause Obama's not willingly doing so? What the hell difference does that make?

I think it was apparent to everyone that he was caught contradicting himself. Fareed's show isn't about grilling politicians/pundits. Actually there's no News program on TV today that is even remotely close to asking hard questions to big politicians, except maybe 60 minutes.

 

[Black Republican]

pft not even close

PPP:Final Illinois numbers: Romney 45, Santorum 30, Gingrich 12, Paul 10”

 

[Officerrob]

pft not even close

PPP:Final Illinois numbers: Romney 45, Santorum 30, Gingrich 12, Paul 10”

So, tomorrow night we will go back to "Romney is on his way to wrapping this up" which will last a few days until he loses Louisiana and we revert back to "Why can't he close the deal?". This is starting to feel like Groundhog Day

 

[Averon]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-campaign-raises-45-million-in-february

Obama Campaign Raises $45 Million In February

President Obama's campaign has pulled in $45 million for his re-election bid in February, his campaign announced in a web video on Monday.
The average donation was $59.04. 97.7% of donations were $250 or less, the campaign said.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I am more interested in the Cash on Hand number. Obama campaign has also been spending a lot of money on fundraising.

 

[Tim-E]

I, for one, welcome Jackson's new troll mode.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So...pretty important week for HCR

Americans still hate the mandate.

I think if HCR or the Mandate is struck down it will be as if the SC was the Death Panel for Obama's Presidency.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Mar. 17-18

PPP

Survey of 506 likely voters
538 poll weight:

Mitt Romney 45 %
Rick Santorum 30
Newt Gingrich 13
Ron Paul 10


Santorum is slip-sliding away