-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Governor Mitt Romney does not appreciate what is being said about Governor Mitt Romney.
jamesinclair
Banned
People here are only talking about Louisiana, but Missouri also wraps up their caucuses on the 24th. In fact, Missouri has more delegates up for grabs!
Thats two big Santorum wins, with over a week for that to settle in before Romney gets a win in liberal land.
Romney will take 100 delegates on April 3rd, but will it matter? Obama will win DC by 99% anyway.
Thats two big Santorum wins, with over a week for that to settle in before Romney gets a win in liberal land.
Romney will take 100 delegates on April 3rd, but will it matter? Obama will win DC by 99% anyway.
planar1280
Banned
LOL keep shilling for the GOP Greta
The sad thing is Romney probably does not get why he is being hammered, if he did not always through his career pander to what you wanted to hear that comment by his advisors would not have made any waves.
Jobless claims have a natural bottom of around 325,000 per week, so it's encouraging that we're slowly but surely approaching it.
Back at the start of Obama's term I spent a lot of time looking back at weekly jobless claim levels and what kind of monthly employment reports they correlated to. I have long since nuked the file, but my recollection is that ~350k new claims per week generally lined up with employment gains of ~250k per month, and ~325k claims per week with 300k+ new jobs per month.
That lines up with what we've seen so far, with three months of claims in this range and three months of 200k+ gains in employment. So continued improvement is good news.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I thought that Romney was leading in the last poll from Missouri sometime last week?
Yeah, there were several articles over the past couple days about Romney and Paul completely outflanking Santorum in securing delegates.
Missouri Surprise: Rick Gets Rolled
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Interesting. More interesting that people like jamesinclair, who would otherwise be well-informed believe that Santorum has already won the state, despite any polling that shows correlation or to the contrary.
It doesn't help that the primary process in general is convoluted as fuck and no one knows what's going on. It doesn't help that they seemingly change the rules on a whim ("Santorum and Romney tied in Michigan? Our at-large delegates are now assigned to Romney! So now he wins!").
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
true. The whole process is such a mess I am not sure who it even benefits. Sure, you can point to things like Michigan where the at-large delegates were rewarded after-the-fact, but with a dearth of winner-take-all contests as in years past, hangers-on like Santorum and Gingrich have more impetus to carry on, especially if they can prevent Mitt from hitting 1144.
SouthernDragon
Member
My feeling that is after this disaster of a primary they will go back and make the rules more clear regarding caucus delegates and perhaps reinstate some of the earlier winner take all states.
It's not completely the RNC's fault though. There are a lot of states who now go early, even bypassing Republican rules to do so -- and the penalty that is less delegates and a proportional allotment.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Boehner officially backs out of the original deficit deal
here we go again
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/boehner-backs-out-of-debt-limit-deal.php
here we go again
I think this will backfire, badly.
Especially when you consider how badly positioned the GOP is to discuss defense.
But we'll see.
What a coward and liar. Boehner really is an incredibly weak Speaker.
This will backfire, badly.
Blergmeister
Member
So what happens? From what I understand those cuts are law. Would they have to pass a law canceling those cuts? What kind of leverage do they have to get that passed then?
StopMakingSense
Member
He will always be a VH1 VJ to me.
Yeah, and Obama said he would veto it.
He's going to cry and hold his breath until it gets passed.
Pretty much. Reid and Obama will not back out of the deal, so the Senate and House will be in a standoff on the budget for the year. Boehner will back down at some point. I'm anxious to see how far down the rabbit hole they run before doing so.
PhoenixDark
Banned
To be fair, Obama could decide to cave first. Especially as the Washington drama builds while Romney stands on the outside criticizing both sides for typical bickering.
I'm deeply hesitant to say this, but I don't see it happening.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I now know why American media is so obsessed with saying the guy is a Hussein-like Dictator.
Ahh. Has any country been successful with a NOC or any energy company?
I also don't see it happening. Particularly since it can be clearly labeled as "Republicans broke the deal we made a year ago."
PhoenixDark
Banned
The ball is certainly in Obama and Reid's court, considering these cuts mostly impact republican priorities. But as I often say, there are so many potential landmines over the next few months that things could change. If Israel attacks Iran, or if Syria spirals out of control to a point the US intervenes, we'll be hearing a whole lot about Obama cutting military spending during war time. Plus Romney sitting on the sidelines attempting to re-position himself in the middle, calling for both sides to put America's best interest first instead of partisan Washington politics.
But if things play out in Obama's favor (which is certainly likely as well), this becomes another strike against Boehner's leadership or lack thereof. At some point he's going to tell his caucus "enough's enough, let's move on." Will they cave, or take the opportunity to redouble their nonsense.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Yeah, I don't understand. Wouldn't there be ramifications for breaking a deal? How could any deal made between the parties ever be trusted again?
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Holy fuck Fox News has no shame when it comes to how unbalanced they are. They brought in a bunch of morons that oppose the Health Care Law. That was the whole segment.
Why do I work with so many crazy people that watch Fox News and have a distorted picture of reality......
Why do I work with so many crazy people that watch Fox News and have a distorted picture of reality......
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/cut-baby-cut/
In a general sense, we aren't spending much more than we typically have in the past. This is a pretty good way of framing the current budget debate, and makes it much harder to justify continuing the Bush tax cuts and avoiding a Buffet rule / capital gains tax.
Cut, Baby, Cut!
Mar 22, 2012
A number of commenters make good points re spending cuts in the federal budget.
I often argue that we can’t achieve budget sustainability on spending cuts alone. That passes for a bold argument these days, because pretty much everyone agrees that government spends too much, right? So the only point of contention is whether budget sustainability should involve tax increases as well.
But what, specifically, does government spend “too much” on? Defense? Some say so, and there are clear inefficiencies there, but as a share of the economy, it’s not historically high. What about ag subsidies; industry subsidies; all those tax expenditures (spending through the tax code) for kids, research, investment, health care, housing, education?
The historical record, shown below, shows spending by the federal government as a share of GDP wiggling around a pretty narrow range until the Great Recession, where it shoots up, by necessity. But it’s already coming down…too soon, in my view, given the ongoing weakness. But the point is if you adjust for the business cycle and the important countercyclical function of government spending in recession, it’s not jump-out-at-you obvious that there’s a spending problem. (There’s very clearly a revenue shortfall problem.)
More to the point—graphs like the one below are interesting from a macro perspective but they’re of no use in answering questions like “does gov’t spend too much?” Or “where should we cut?”
For that you have to look at each spending function and you have to do some analysis—is this a function gov’t should provide or is it a market function? The sweeping framing we typically employ is far too vague.
If I told you government is spending over $3 trillion per year in recent years, you might well say, “surely there’s money to be saved there.” But where? Without more thought, we should expect to end up right where Rep Ryan’s new budget goes—slashing deeply into spending with no context.
It’s the “cut, baby, cut” version of “drill, baby, drill.” (This piece by my landsman Jonathan does a nice job adding some much needed, granular context to the Ryan plan.)
I’ve often thought it would be smart—though impractical—to undertake some kind of a zero-based budgeting exercise with the federal budget. Maybe we could make this a national project…do it on TV as a PBS series or something…we’d pop some corn, all get together and pore through the books of America, Inc. Maybe not quite fun as American Idol, but I’d watch it, and I’ll bet Ezra Klein would too. And when it was over, perhaps we’d all have a better idea of what we’re talking about.
At any rate, I appreciate the fact that a number of commenters challenged this formulation.
Mar 22, 2012
A number of commenters make good points re spending cuts in the federal budget.
I often argue that we can’t achieve budget sustainability on spending cuts alone. That passes for a bold argument these days, because pretty much everyone agrees that government spends too much, right? So the only point of contention is whether budget sustainability should involve tax increases as well.
But what, specifically, does government spend “too much” on? Defense? Some say so, and there are clear inefficiencies there, but as a share of the economy, it’s not historically high. What about ag subsidies; industry subsidies; all those tax expenditures (spending through the tax code) for kids, research, investment, health care, housing, education?
The historical record, shown below, shows spending by the federal government as a share of GDP wiggling around a pretty narrow range until the Great Recession, where it shoots up, by necessity. But it’s already coming down…too soon, in my view, given the ongoing weakness. But the point is if you adjust for the business cycle and the important countercyclical function of government spending in recession, it’s not jump-out-at-you obvious that there’s a spending problem. (There’s very clearly a revenue shortfall problem.)
More to the point—graphs like the one below are interesting from a macro perspective but they’re of no use in answering questions like “does gov’t spend too much?” Or “where should we cut?”
For that you have to look at each spending function and you have to do some analysis—is this a function gov’t should provide or is it a market function? The sweeping framing we typically employ is far too vague.
If I told you government is spending over $3 trillion per year in recent years, you might well say, “surely there’s money to be saved there.” But where? Without more thought, we should expect to end up right where Rep Ryan’s new budget goes—slashing deeply into spending with no context.
It’s the “cut, baby, cut” version of “drill, baby, drill.” (This piece by my landsman Jonathan does a nice job adding some much needed, granular context to the Ryan plan.)
I’ve often thought it would be smart—though impractical—to undertake some kind of a zero-based budgeting exercise with the federal budget. Maybe we could make this a national project…do it on TV as a PBS series or something…we’d pop some corn, all get together and pore through the books of America, Inc. Maybe not quite fun as American Idol, but I’d watch it, and I’ll bet Ezra Klein would too. And when it was over, perhaps we’d all have a better idea of what we’re talking about.
At any rate, I appreciate the fact that a number of commenters challenged this formulation.
In a general sense, we aren't spending much more than we typically have in the past. This is a pretty good way of framing the current budget debate, and makes it much harder to justify continuing the Bush tax cuts and avoiding a Buffet rule / capital gains tax.
Boehner is more concerned about keeping his Speaker position than honest governing. Look how many times he let the tea party wing lead him by the nose. He knows any action he takes against the tea party wing can only go so long before he knows he has to cave. He's a very weak Speaker, and he knows it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama leads Romney 48-44 in a new PPP poll.
And rasmussen being... rasmussen (consistency?) has him up 51-42 in Virginia over Romney.
Bam boom bibbity bop.
And rasmussen being... rasmussen (consistency?) has him up 51-42 in Virginia over Romney.
Bam boom bibbity bop.
I've been beating that drum for awhile.
There should be zero reason to extend the Bush tax cuts anymore. It's fiscally irresponsible to keep kicking that can down the road. There is no amount of "Buffet Rule" or other taxes on the 1% that can offset these huge amounts of revenues that are being lost every year.
The sad reality is that we have one party that fights any tax "increase" no matter what it is and we have another party that sees them as "easy stimulus" to help keep them elected. (Sorry for the sweeping generalizations. When I say 'party', I am inferring about those with the power to make decisions and influence others)
Invisible_Insane
Member
Me too. How do you give a sad high five?
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I wonder. Looking at his approval rating, is Obama really being saved from the lack of serious contenders of the GOP? Or is it the fact that during a recession nobody looks at any candidate favorably so they'll just stick to Obama just to be safe?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Is it possible to extrapolate the graph with the entirety of the bush tax cuts expiring, and with the plan Obama is pushing. Would be interesting.
If faced with a choice of extending all of them, or none of them. I'll take none of them.
If faced with a choice of extending all of them, or none of them. I'll take none of them.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Invisible_Insane
Member
I swear you just pull things out of your ass sometimes.
Larry Bartels said:
Obama's re-election effort is likely being aided by the improvement of the economy generally, and this is much more important the particular strengths or weaknesses of an admittedly flawed Republican field.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
That like didn't answer my question at all...
By only four points? Pathetic.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's worth mentioning Obama is down a point since the last PPP, and Romney is up 2 points.
Blergmeister
Member
Dear god... there is no way the president can win now!
Invisible_Insane
Member
Your question presented a false dichotomy. You said that either Obama is polling well because the GOP field is weak, or he is polling well because of economically motivated general disdain for all the candidates. I say he is polling well because the economy is improving broadly, and that this is more important than perceived weaknesses in the GOP field. How does that not answer your question?
And the quote I posted was to debunk the baseless assertion that all candidates are disdained equally in times of economic distress. The research indicates that economic distress causes voters to punish incumbents independently of those incumbents' political affiliation.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Things will even up a bit more once the GE gets going. There is no way anyone outside of a narrow field of Republicans can view Romney as overly positive right now, much in part thanks to his odd personality and verbal gaffes, but more in part due to his verbal diarrhea-spewing opponents.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
...What?
My question was that since Obama's approval rating is so low why is he doing so well against other GOP candidates. If you have a low approval rating that means people (in theory) don't approve of the job you are doing in the White House. And while his approval rating has gone up recently, it is still low. So I'm wondering why despite his low approval rating are people not preferring alternatives.
He could also lose, you know!
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
No viable third party ticket = no Obama loss.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked