• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slightly back on-topic:

These are the primaries scheduled for April. As has been stated before, April is a month that is heavily tailored to Romney's campaign and platform.

.....
.

You forgot Missouri, where the results are in space or something. Who knows.


MD - Who cares, democrat land
DC - Who cares, democrat land. Guam is more important in the general than DC.
WI - Romney
CT - Who cares, democrat land
DE - Who cares, democrat land
NY - Who cares, democrat land
PA - Santorum (because, well, if he doesn't win here, that is pretty damn sad)
RI - Who cares, democrat land
LA - Santorum retains this one, unless Romney actually decides to contend it if it becomes clear that his other states on the same day are already a lock)


So basically....

Romney can and will win, but it wont mean anything. Those states arent up for grabs in the general.

1 real Romney win vs 2 Ricky wins.



Also, poligaf, quick thoughts on this old article? Good idea or bad idea...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
 

Kabouter

Member
What the fuck

I can top that.
Comic that supposedly appeared in the Volkskrant newspaper here in the Netherlands today:
FSe0q.jpg

Man standing there is Surinamese President Desi Bouterse
 

Cheebo

Banned
Conservatives just are not funny. Thats one of the laws of universe, like gravity.

Btw edit: hi besada. Give me my tag back kthxbai

Conservatives don't mix well with the arts. It is why they are so few and far between in creative venues You rarely see that many really good modern conservative novelists, directors, screen writers, actors, comedians, painters, etc for that reason.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Comparing a Democratic president with a split Congress to a Republican president with a split Congress is pointless. Of course it would yield a similar result.
Eh. A republican president with a democratic controlled legislative branch is consistently more likely to produce a more conservative set of laws, appointments, etc because the legislative body is immenitely predisposed to compromising with the other party than the opposite scenario.

It has been shown again and again that conservatives and their constituents don't want to compromise legislatively to the same extent as liberals. It is against their political worldview.
 
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/studentloans.jsp#05

Current Undergraduate Interest Rate is 3.4%. If Congress doesn't extend a 2007 law they will double to 6.8 (hopefully they do)

Graduate interest rate is 6.8%

Perkins interest rate is 5%

Direct PLUS loans are the only ones with the 7.9% interest rate

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/PlusLoansGradProfstudents.jsp

These rates are all entirely too high, and people should organize to demand that they be lowered. There is no reason for the government to be charging this kind of interest rate on student loans. An effective political demand would be 0% interest. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense for a society to tax college education like this. College should be incentivized, not disincentivized.
 
These rates are all entirely too high, and people should organize to demand that they be lowered. There is no reason for the government to be charging this kind of interest rate on student loans. An effective political demand would be 0% interest. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense for a society to tax college education like this. College should be incentivized, not disincentivized.
What a snob.
 

Agnostic

but believes in Chael
Will there be a live audio stream for the Supreme Court oral arguments?

Edit: I know there will be links and C-Span will have later in the day. I was just wondering about a live stream.
 
Will there be a live audio stream for the Supreme Court oral arguments?

Edit: I know there will be links and C-Span will have later in the day. I was just wondering about a live stream.

I haven't been able to locate one. I doubt they stream it live if Cspan doesn't have it. I'll just follow Justice Thomas's tweets.
Will be interesting to see how they rule regarding the anti-injunction act. Maybe they'll punt this until 2015 or later.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
These rates are all entirely too high, and people should organize to demand that they be lowered. There is no reason for the government to be charging this kind of interest rate on student loans. An effective political demand would be 0% interest. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense for a society to tax college education like this. College should be incentivized, not disincentivized.

once in a blue moon, you and I agree on something. Today is that day.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...arack-obama-medvedev_n_1379422.html?ref=world

CONFIDENCE!

SEOUL, March 26 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.


The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama's "reset" in ties between the two former Cold War foes. Obama's Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.

Leaning toward Medvedev, Obama was overheard asking for time - "particularly with missile defense" - until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.

"I understand your message about space," replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence he will win a second term.

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protege and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure.
 
Is "confidence" how you spin this?
Just let's keep all this hush hush until I win, and then I'll make deals with Putin.
Whereas I suppose the entirety of your foreign policy with respect to Putin is to be skeptical of his head-rearing? Putin "won" the election. Obama (or Romney, should it come to that) will have to deal with him. There's no way around it.
 

Tim-E

Member
Thinking about how Fox News is going to spin this.


Is "confidence" how you spin this?
Let's just keep all this hush hush until I win, and then I'll make deals with Putin.
I don't see anything confident about it. He's basically asking them not to bring the subject up during an election year because it may cause him some difficulties.

That's how.
 

Tim-E

Member
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-obama-spending-20120326,0,150629.story

A daunting Obama ground game awaits Romney


By Matea Gold and Melanie Mason, Washington Bureau
Sun Mar 25 2012 8:55 PM
Reporting from Washington-- As he moves unceasingly toward the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has cast himself as the only GOP candidate with an organization hefty enough to take on President Obama's campaign juggernaut.

"The other guys are nice folks, but they haven't organized a campaign with a staff, the organization, the fundraising capacity to actually beat Barack Obama," Romney said this month on Fox News. "I have."

But an examination of how the two campaigns have spent their money in the last year starkly illustrates the huge advantage Obama will have in mounting a ground operation to identify voters and get them to the polls in November.

Spared a primary opponent, the president's reelection campaign by the end of February had pumped nearly $79 million into laying the groundwork for the general election, deploying staff to far-flung corners of the country such as Laramie, Wyo., and Lebanon, N.H., as part of an ambitious, tech-savvy field effort.

Romney, mired for months in a contentious primary, has not yet devoted substantial resources to a national field program. Of the $68 million spent so far by his campaign, $25.4 million went to fundraising and media ads in primary states, elements that — while key to his front-runner standing — may not translate into lasting gains.

He has spent only $5 million on staff, compared with the $20 million Obama has doled out for his campaign workers. For its reach, Romney's campaign plans to lean on the Republican Party, which has yet to set up shop in states long inhabited by Obama operatives.

The spending data and interviews with campaign officials suggest that a Romney-Obama race would be a clash between distinct political philosophies, one that would test the power of an aerial bombardment through television ads against an in-person voter mobilization months in the making.

Both campaigns will employ commercials and ground organizers to make their cases, of course. But media use is the specialty of top Romney campaign officials Matt Rhoades, Eric Fehrnstrom, Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, who have backgrounds in communications and ad production. And Romney is poised to benefit from intense air cover provided by Restore Our Future, a "super PAC" that has already spent $37 million, largely on TV ads attacking his GOP rivals.

Romney campaign strategists acknowledge they have a small field operation, by design. Instead of hiring get-out-the-vote organizers around the country, a lean team has leapfrogged in and out of the various primary states. That has kept costs down, but it also means Romney has a smaller national footprint than Obama.

Campaign political director Rich Beeson said he had kept some staff in states that would be key for the general election. But he said the bulk of the voter registration and mobilization program for the fall would be handled by the Republican National Committee.

"It has the infrastructure in place," he said. "We're taking care of business in the primary, setting up infrastructure in states that make sense in a general. But at the end of the day, I'm not losing sleep over having a general election field operation. I know that's being taken care of."

That's a very different philosophy from that of Obama and his top political aides, David Plouffe and David Axelrod. In 2008, Obama's operation wrested the Democratic nomination on the strength of an unprecedented field operation that — in tandem with massive fundraising — lifted the former community organizer over the establishment candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The campaign appears poised to be even more aggressive this year. Volunteers are registering new voters in an effort to expand the pool of supporters. They are knocking on doors to identify likely voters — an activity that usually occurs in the summer or fall. And the reelection effort has begun blanketing battleground states with field offices, including 18 in Florida, 13 in Pennsylvania and eight in Iowa. In the process, Obama's apparatus has locked up local Democratic operatives across the country much earlier than expected.

"It's made it tougher to find good staff for local campaigns," said Jim Ross, a San Francisco-based Democratic strategist who runs campaigns in California, Oregon and Nevada.

That traditional field work is being buttressed by a massive technological investment aimed at expanding the campaign's voter database, which in turn fuels the organizing efforts. Nearly a fifth of the campaign's spending so far — $15.1 million — went to online advertising, technology consulting and Web hosting. The campaign recently opened a field office in San Francisco for volunteers who want to contribute their high-tech skills to Web development and other projects.

Obama's reelection effort also will draw on the resources of the Democratic National Committee, for which he's helped raise $138 million in the last year.

"You won't be able to compete with the Obama ground game," admitted Doug Gross, a veteran GOP activist and Romney's 2008 Iowa chairman. But he and other Republicans, including Beeson, argue that the president needs a more substantial field effort to offset his drop-off in popularity since 2008.

"For the Republicans, what's going to drive turnout is not going to be Mitt Romney — it's Barack Obama," Gross said.

Still, there's no question that field efforts can make the difference in tight races. Many political strategists attribute President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation designed by Karl Rove. Romney, several GOP strategists said, has opted for a different approach.

"A strong field organization does not appear to have been a priority for the campaign," said one operative in Ohio who did not want to be identified while critiquing the campaign. "I think that is something they are hoping for the party or other organizations to provide."

Romney officials disputed the idea that the campaign had not put a premium on reaching out to voters, pointing to a sophisticated micro-targeting operation it ran in New Hampshire and early voting and absentee ballot programs that gave him an edge in states such as Florida and Michigan.

"Anytime there's been an opportunity to put votes in the bank before election day, we've done that," Beeson said. "You don't just do that with media. There has to be an operation on the ground that's turning out votes."

If and when Romney secures the nomination, the campaign's existing field program would fold into Republican National Committee efforts already underway. That's a marked difference from 2008, when officials said they deferred to the John McCain campaign on hiring staff, delaying the launch of state field offices until June.

This year, the RNC plans to have 50% more field staff than it did in 2008, said political director Rick Wiley. The first offices opened this month in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. Next month, the party will set up shop in six more states, including Ohio — a place where Obama already has 12 offices.

Wiley acknowledged that the RNC can't fully unleash its entire 2012 operation, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, until there is a GOP presidential nominee who can help raise money for the party's efforts.

"When we get that nominee, boom," he said.

I don't think it can be overstated how stupid it is to downplay Obama's ground game. It won him the democratic nomination in 2008 and it helped him win states Democrats rarely win in the general. Hell, a strong ground game is probably what led to Bush being re-elected in 2004. Simply just riding on the coattails of the local republican offices when your opponent is doing so much more than you is kind of ridiculous. Then again, it seems as if Mitt's campaign is dead set on being awful anyway, so it fits in with everything else.
 
Basically imagine Poligaf if empty vessel was considered a moderate leftist. Its why I don't like to post there often.

It's not that bad but yeah it's definitely far left. However you're missing out if you don't hit up the Political Cartoons thread, which is, I think, one of the most consistently fantastic and hilarious threads on the internet.

It's also the worst thread on the internet because it's a constant stream of horrible, horrible political cartoons.
 

Clevinger

Member
It's not that bad but yeah it's definitely far left.

Look at the Elizabeth Warren thread. Yeah, it's that bad. If those people had their way Democrats would never, ever get anything done because they demand a Kucinich or Nader or nothing. Thankfully the whole forum isn't that way, but it's a loud minority with lots of time on its hands.
 
Look at the Elizabeth Warren thread. Yeah, it's that bad. If those people had their way Democrats would never, ever get anything done because they demand a Kucinich or Nader or nothing. Thankfully the whole forum isn't that way, but it's a loud minority with lots of time on its hands.

To the contrary, that would cause the party to actually get things done. A political party that is not put upon has no reason to do anything but service the interests of those whose money gets them reelected.


He said good artists.
 
lol.

BTW, first day of arguments have concluded at SCOTUS. Expect some links soon.

Listening to SCOTUS oral arguments is really interesting. They get right to the point with their questions and with a lot of interruptions. But it's hard to get a feel for how they will rule. My guess is that they will say the anti-injunction act doesn't apply in this case.
 

Clevinger

Member
To the contrary, that would cause the party to actually get things done. A political party that is not put upon has no reason to do anything but service the interests of those whose money gets them reelected.

If Democrats only ran Naders and Kucinichs in our conservative country we'd have a near permanent Republican super majority. And running them at the top of the ticket means you'd have a near perpetual Republican veto pen to strike down all of your great bills. It'd be nice to live in a country where lots of those types of guys/gals can get elected, but we don't. Not right now or for the foreseeable future anyway.

Ideological compromise for liberals is the only way to get things done, as unfortunate as that reality may be.
 
Listening to SCOTUS oral arguments is really interesting. They get right to the point with their questions and with a lot of interruptions. But it's hard to get a feel for how they will rule. My guess is that they will say the anti-injunction act doesn't apply in this case.

I don't have the constitutional understanding that many here do but I'd be shocked if they ruled that it does apply. Many folks have argued that we should have a pretty good idea of how they will rule after these three days. Not sure how valid it is but I can't wait to listen to the arguments tomorrow and Wednesday.
 

Averon

Member
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/national-poll-obama-up-ten-on-romney

National Poll: Obama Up Ten On Romney

A new national poll from Suffolk University shows President Obama up by ten points on likely Republican challenger former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a matchup -- Obama gets 47 to Romney's 37. The two men are heading different directions on their personal favorability numbers in Suffolk's polling, as Obama sees a positive 52 - 43 split on favorability, while Romney has dropped to 38 - 44. Suffolk pollsters identified those numbers as a major factor in the horse race results.

It must frustrate Romney to no end having to spend time, money, and voters' goodwill (by having to go right to win the nom) because he's having trouble putting away Rick freaking Santorum.
 
Summary of today's argument at SCOTUS

At issue in Monday’s argument was whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act prevents anyone from filing suit against the Affordable Care Act’s penalty on those who don’t buy health insurance until that penalty is collected – and that won’t occur until 2015, after the insurance purchase requirement takes effect.

That argument hinged on the justices accepting the argument that the penalty is effectively a tax.

After hearing Monday’s 90 minutes of oral argument, NBC’s Pete Williams reported that “There didn’t seem to be a single member of the Supreme Court that bought that argument.”

“I don’t believe there’s a single justice on the court who believes that it’s a tax. End of that question. So we’re obviously going to go on to the main event which is the individual mandate which will be argued tomorrow.”

“If there were any members of the court who were looking for an off ramp – who did not want to decide this case now during an election year, this would have been the way to go,” he said. But “none of them seem to want to take that,” Williams said.
 

markatisu

Member
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-obama-spending-20120326,0,150629.story

I don't think it can be overstated how stupid it is to downplay Obama's ground game. It won him the democratic nomination in 2008 and it helped him win states Democrats rarely win in the general. Hell, a strong ground game is probably what led to Bush being re-elected in 2004. Simply just riding on the coattails of the local republican offices when your opponent is doing so much more than you is kind of ridiculous. Then again, it seems as if Mitt's campaign is dead set on being awful anyway, so it fits in with everything else.

Yup been saying for a while now, Obama's re-election infrastructure has been building for almost 2 years now. The article I read with the people running it and a tour of their main facility showed its like a command center.

Romney is going to be blown out of the water because even putting away Santorum in April is going to leave him under 6 1/2 months to basically organize a ground game and mobilize voters...the same voters who don't really like him to begin with.

While I did not think Romney stood a chance anyway, Gingrinch and Santorum did more damage to him then they will ever get credit for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom