Support NeoGAF

[Flying_Phoenix]

Obviously doesnt mean much now considering its spring, but still interesting:

First Gallup General Election daily poll shows Romney 47% & Obama 45% with national registered voters. Independents Romney 45 Obama 39:




More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/R...com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T4xkaQidRkI.twitter

2.8% by Obama on RCP.

 

[DasRaven]

Well, do you agree that was a foolish statement considering how little tax money this will bring in? And from any estimate I've seen, it does little to address the deficit. It's political stunt 101 level nonsense.

No, because of math.
Revenue of Current code + Buffett Rule > Revenue of Current code.

Now, in post-election bipartisan dreamland:
Revenue from comprehensive reform (including Buffett Rule, eliminating AMT+fix) >> Current code.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

No, because of math.
Revenue of Current code + Buffett Rule > Revenue of Current code.

Now, in post-election bipartisan dreamland:
Revenue from comprehensive reform (including Buffett Rule, eliminating AMT+fix) >> Current code.

"post-election bipartisan dreamland"
I don't know if we will ever see such a thing in our lifetimes.

 

[DasRaven]

"post-election bipartisan dreamland"
I don't know if we will ever see such a thing in our lifetimes.

Exactly, so adding the Buffett rule to offset some of the many egregious loopholes and giveaways in the tax code is better than nothing.

 

[RDreamer]

I like how the big right criticism of the Buffet Rule is that it won't do much for the deficit, thus we shouldn't do it. Weren't these the same people trying to push the idea of "widening the base," which would have done jack shit (and fucked over people who need it right now), and wanted to defund tons of small stuff like NPR and all that "because we can't afford it."

Seems like the deficit is just a bludgeon that people on the right can use when it's politically convenient, but then they cry foul when those on the left use it (when it's politically convenient).

I personally think the Buffet Rule doesn't go far enough. We need bigger measures and bigger policies to reduce income equality and actually get this economy going again.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I like how the big right criticism of the Buffet Rule is that it won't do much for the deficit, thus we shouldn't do it. .

Seems like a similar argument I've heard before ... can't put my finger on it.

 

[gcubed]

Seems like a similar argument I've heard before ... can't put my finger on it.

you are going to pull a muscle stretching as much as you are trying to for the keystone pipeline.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I like how the big right criticism of the Buffet Rule is that it won't do much for the deficit, thus we shouldn't do it. Weren't these the same people trying to push the idea of "widening the base," which would have done jack shit (and fucked over people who need it right now), and wanted to defund tons of small stuff like NPR and all that "because we can't afford it."

Seems like the deficit is just a bludgeon that people on the right can use when it's politically convenient, but then they cry foul when those on the left use it (when it's politically convenient).

I personally think the Buffet Rule doesn't go far enough. We need bigger measures and bigger policies to reduce income equality and actually get this economy going again.

No shit it isn't far enough. Someone making more than $1 million a year should pay much, much more than 30% tax rate

People like me who are solidly middle class should be paying 30%. (College educated, little or no debt aside from maybe car and mortgage, decent amounts of discretionary income). At least.


We've gone so far right that there's an invisible ceiling of 30% on an "acceptable" tax rate.

 

[Officerrob]

Obviously doesnt mean much now considering its spring, but still interesting:

First Gallup General Election daily poll shows Romney 47% & Obama 45% with national registered voters. Independents Romney 45 Obama 39:




More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/R...com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T4xkaQidRkI.twitter

CNN just announced that Obama is up 52% to 43% in their new national poll. Obama leads among women 55%-39%. Like I said though, national polls really are almost worthless.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

We have to see the internals of the polls to know one way or the other.

 

[Officerrob]

We have to see the internals of the polls to know one way or the other.

Here ya go:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/16/rel4a.pdf

 

[Hawkian]

This was the most interesting part of CNN's numbers:

The poll also found that 7 in 10 Americans favor Obama's proposed change to the federal income tax rate for people who make more than $1 million a year -- the so-called Buffett Rule. The proposal is particularly popular among Democrats and independents, but a small majority of Republicans also supported it.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Here ya go:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/16/rel4a.pdf

Romney leading by just 7 points among whites and just 5 points in the South.

Partisan splits: D 91-6 for Obama, R 85-11 for Romney, I 48-43 for Obama.

Among the "candidate qualities" questions: Obama wins "stands up for what he believes in" by just a 50-29 margin.

 

[Plinko]

Mitt's at it again. From his book:



LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-parents-raise-indolent-and-unproductive-kids

As a teacher at a private school where students also work on campus, I have to say the exact opposite is true.

 

[gcubed]

The For Romney/Against Obama numbers among republicans is hilarious

 

[eBay Huckster]

The For Romney/Against Obama numbers among republicans is hilarious

The best thing about those numbers is the fact that they imply Walter fucking Mondale looked stronger.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obviously doesnt mean much now considering its spring, but still interesting:

First Gallup General Election daily poll shows Romney 47% & Obama 45% with national registered voters. Independents Romney 45 Obama 39:




More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/R...com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T4xkaQidRkI.twitter

Bad news for Obama. If Romney is already leading, imagine how far ahead he'll be when he picks his VP

 

[gcubed]

Bad news for Obama. If Romney is already leading, imagine how far ahead he'll be when he picks his VP

predictable

 

[Aaron Strife]

Gallup's tracking polls are bunk. They're the only pollster in 2008 that showed both McCain and Obama leading by double digits. They even released two polls on the same day where both McCain and Obama led.

And then in 2010 that out-rasmussened Rasmussen by claiming the Republicans led Democrats by 15 points on the generic House ballot. They ended up winning by 7.

Bad news for Obama. If Romney is already leading, imagine how far ahead he'll be when he picks his VP

Rob Portman is sure gonna energize that GOP base.

 

[The Librarian]

So does that czk guy in the RP thread just have no experience with American policies or life at all?

I don't think so. He's a foreigner.

Bad news for Obama. If Romney is already leading, imagine how far ahead he'll be when he picks his VP

It's good news IMO because if Romney is in the lead now some of his supporters will stay at home believing he'll win giving Obama a chance.

 

[SouthernDragon]

The For Romney/Against Obama numbers among republicans is hilarious

The best thing about those numbers is the fact that they imply Walter fucking Mondale looked stronger.

When I saw the numbers I actually went "ooooooooohhhhhhh"

 

[PhoenixDark]

Gallup first daily tracking poll of the presidential race has Mitt Romney up over President Obama by 2 points. That puts the TPM PollTracker Average at Romney 47.7% to Obama 44.1%.

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12?ref=fpblg

Looks like the CNN poll is an outlier

 

[eBay Huckster]

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12?ref=fpblg

Looks like the CNN poll is an outlier

I like how more than half the polls in that tracker are from Rasmussen (who's using a voter filter to produce a sample similar to the 2010 electorate rather than 2008 or even 2004... and he still can't get a lead outside the MOE)

(e: On a complete side note, should I not be a junior as of right now?)

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12?ref=fpblg

Looks like the CNN poll is an outlier

uh

you might want to check your link there

honestly I'm kind of wondering when PD is going to start calling him Obozo and posting NRA chain e-mail

 

[Officerrob]

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12?ref=fpblg

Looks like the CNN poll is an outlier

90% of those are the bullshit Rasmussen daily tracking polls. Also, that Fox News poll is known to have messed-up metrics.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Incidentally, removing Rasmussen, FOX and Gallup from that tracker... seems to indicate that the race inexplicably gets closer in the middle of every month before Obama pulls back away.

 

[GhaleonEB]

90% of those are the bullshit Rasmussen daily tracking polls. Also, that Fox News poll is known to have messed-up metrics.

TPM's polling average is good, but they don't weight the tracking polls correctly. They are overlapping trackers with one new day added, and one dropped off, in each day's results. They weight each one as a new poll, when they should be taking the poll in their average only as often as it recieves new results; that is the method Pollster used (or at least, did until they were subsumed by HuffPo never to be seen by me again). As a result TPM's tracker really overweights the daily tracking polls like Gallup and Rasmussen.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, do you agree that was a foolish statement considering how little tax money this will bring in? And from any estimate I've seen, it does little to address the deficit. It's political stunt 101 level nonsense.

"Addressing the deficit" is itself political stunt 101 level nonsense. It's a completely irrational issue on those terms, because the deficit per se contains no meaningful information about the world. It tells you only whether the government is positively net spending and how much, but it does not tell you whether the government ought to be positively net spending, and if so, how much ought it be. To answer those questions, you have to look at the real economy. You cannot just look at two numbers.

Translated in real terms, asserting a need to "address the deficit" is just an assertion that the government should net spend less than it currently does. But what is the evidence for that assertion? Why should the government net spend less?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

(e: On a complete side note, should I not be a junior as of right now?)

300 posts, I believe.

 

[SouthernDragon]

"Addressing the deficit" is itself political stunt 101 level nonsense. It's a completely irrational issue on those terms, because the deficit per se contains no meaningful information about the world. It tells you only whether the government is positively net spending and how much, but it does not tell you whether the government ought to be positively net spending, and if so, how much ought it be. To answer those questions, you have to look at the real economy. You cannot just look at two numbers.

Translated in real terms, asserting a need to "address the deficit" is just an assertion that the government should net spend less than it currently does. But what is the evidence for that assertion? Why should the government net spend less?

Because it just does.

 

[Officerrob]

I got sent this Washington Post opinion piece from a Republican friend bragging about how Romney has this in the bag.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ral-landscape/2012/04/15/gIQA9jcsJT_blog.html

To get 100 more and seize the presidency, Romney only needs some states that routinely went Republican before the 2008 race (Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia) and needs to hold on to a few that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) managed to win (Arizona, Missouri). This gets Romney to 273.

I couldn't help but laugh. I guess some people consider it a good thing that Romney pretty much needs to win every swing state to squeeze out a win?

 

[Chichikov]

It is an improvement, but it is also just a way that the Obama admin can attack his opponent and get his base riled up. If it were really about improving the tax code, millions of people would have their taxes raised, not merely thousands.

It's all true, but that isn't reason enough to oppose it.
Especially as it can be used to move the GOP from its irrational position that any increase in tax revenue is unacceptable.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I got sent this Washington Post opinion piece from a Republican friend bragging about how Romney has this in the bag.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ral-landscape/2012/04/15/gIQA9jcsJT_blog.html

I couldn't help but laugh. I guess some people consider it a good thing that Romney pretty much needs to win every swing state to squeeze out a win?

"Obama's in serious trouble if Romney's leading in Texas." - probably a quote from that article

 

[speculawyer]

CNN just announced that Obama is up 52% to 43% in their new national poll. Obama leads among women 55%-39%. Like I said though, national polls really are almost worthless.

They help make the story more interesting by making it look closer.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I got sent this Washington Post opinion piece from a Republican friend bragging about how Romney has this in the bag.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ral-landscape/2012/04/15/gIQA9jcsJT_blog.html



I couldn't help but laugh. I guess some people consider it a good thing that Romney pretty much needs to win every swing state to squeeze out a win?

It's Jennifer Rubin, what do you expect. She's been a Romney slappy for years.

While it's true Romney has a clear path to 270, Obama's path could be easier assuming the economy doesn't crash. Rubin seems to completely ignore the fact that Obama is actually sitting on around 246 near sure EVs (MI, Wis, NH and Pa are NOT swing states). Romney's best case scenario: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jcT

He basically has to win nearly every swing state to get there. Which would be possible if the economy begins to decline over the summer/fall

I used to think Bob McDonnell was the obvious VP choice but after the ultrasound fiasco he has to be toxic on a national scale. Rob Portman seems to make the most sense. Obama would certainly attack him for being Bush's budget guy but I doubt that will work; this is officially Obama's economy, there's no one left to blame but himself.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

It's Jennifer Rubin, what do you expect. She's been a Romney slappy for years.

While it's true Romney has a clear path to 270, Obama's path could be easier assuming the economy doesn't crash. Rubin seems to completely ignore the fact that Obama is actually sitting on around 246 near sure EVs (MI, Wis, NH and Pa are NOT swing states). Romney's best case scenario: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jcT

He basically has to win nearly every swing state to get there. Which would be possible if the economy begins to decline over the summer/fall

I used to think Bob McDonnell was the obvious VP choice but after the ultrasound fiasco he has to be toxic on a national scale. Rob Portman seems to make the most sense. Obama would certainly attack him for being Bush's budget guy but I doubt that will work; this is officially Obama's economy, there's no one left to blame but himself.

Basically if Romney can't win OH, its done and dusted.

 

[Particle Physicist]

"I believe it's... Mitt's time... It's our turn now," she said.

Yeah, that is exactly the attitude Mitt has been exuding from the beginning. Thanks Ann for letting us all know that you feel like the presidency is owed to Mitt.

 

[Clevinger]

I imagine every candidate's wife/husband says something to that effect. *shrug*

 

[Particle Physicist]

I imagine every candidate's wife/husband says something to that effect. *shrug*

I dunno, most say something like how they feel they are the best candidate for the job, or that they can enact the best changes, head the nation in the right direction. Deserving the presidency because it's just their time? I don't think I ever heard a candidate or their partner say something like that. I may be wrong though.

 

[Tim-E]

I dunno, most say something like how they feel they are the best candidate for the job, or that they can enact the best changes, head the nation in the right direction. Deserving the presidency because it's just their time? I don't think I ever heard a candidate or their partner say something like that. I may be wrong though.

That's pretty much the reason Romney was the frontrunner in the primary. He was the next "in line" for the nomination, basically.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

And I am sure Ann Romney feels its his time now considering he has been running for this job for 4 years now.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Was there some kind of new addendum to the student loan reform that allows students who took out loans to be able to get back 40% of the amount they took out? Supposedly my mother spoke to someone about the issue, and the IRS owes me 40% of the money I took out in loans.

 

[Clevinger]

I dunno, most say something like how they feel they are the best candidate for the job, or that they can enact the best changes, head the nation in the right direction. Deserving the presidency because it's just their time? I don't think I ever heard a candidate or their partner say something like that. I may be wrong though.

I think focusing on what spouses say, unless they're nasty people, is kinda silly. This feels a lot like the Michelle Obama thing when she said it was the first time she was really proud of her country or whatever and people freaked out over it. "Oh, so you only feel proud of your country when your husband gets to be president, huh?"

 

[Particle Physicist]

I think focusing on what spouses say, unless they're nasty people, is kinda silly. This feels a lot like the Michelle Obama thing when she said it was the first time she was really proud of her country or whatever and people freaked out over it. "Oh, so you only feel proud of your country when your husband gets to be president, huh?"

Oh, I agree... I just found the comment pretty funny considering it was almost word for word what people were saying Mitt has been acting like.

 

[Chichikov]

In a shocking turn of events, the GOP filibuster The Buffet rule.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/16/pf/taxes/buffett-rule/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Officerrob]

It's Jennifer Rubin, what do you expect. She's been a Romney slappy for years.

While it's true Romney has a clear path to 270, Obama's path could be easier assuming the economy doesn't crash. Rubin seems to completely ignore the fact that Obama is actually sitting on around 246 near sure EVs (MI, Wis, NH and Pa are NOT swing states). Romney's best case scenario: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jcT

He basically has to win nearly every swing state to get there. Which would be possible if the economy begins to decline over the summer/fall

I used to think Bob McDonnell was the obvious VP choice but after the ultrasound fiasco he has to be toxic on a national scale. Rob Portman seems to make the most sense. Obama would certainly attack him for being Bush's budget guy but I doubt that will work; this is officially Obama's economy, there's no one left to blame but himself.

When your "best case scenario" has you win by 8, your in deep trouble

 

[Chumly]

Basically if Romney can't win OH, its done and dusted.

If he can't win OH, FL, NC, VA its done and dusted. Obama just needs to win one of those states. Unless Obama could pick up an Arizona or Iowa+something else.

 

[Clevinger]

lol

OK, OK. I know I just said focusing on what candidates' spouses say is silly, but as a dog lover this is pretty annoying.

Romney's dog Seamus ‘Loved’ Trips Atop Family Car, Says Ann Romney

 

[bananas]

Their dog's name is Seamus?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

this is officially Obama's economy, there's no one left to blame but himself.

Wasn't there a poll just a few weeks ago that showed the vast majority of people still blamed Bush for the economy?

And Mitt has a steep, steep, STEEP uphill climb in the electoral votes, especially if Obama has a floor of 246 as you suggest. Needing to win every single swing state is quite an undertaking and Mitt's campaign, at the moment, does not seem capable of doing this, especially after their mediocre primary showing. It was easy to go against Santorum and Gingrich in Ohio and Florida when he could outspend them 6 to 1 but that will definitely not be the case against Obama. Sure, his Super PAC is going to get some enormous donations but it won't be nearly the divide he rode in the primary. Obama's campaign has been preparing for this for 4 years and has a ground game that we have never seen before and I don't think Mitt can match.

Yeah, something major can happen economically but anything short of that and Mitt is screwed. I know that doesn't fit with your, or the media's narrative that this is going to be a nail-biter as it is easier to get people more interested by showing a national poll with only a few point difference either way than Mitt currently being at a large disadvantage electorally with only one real path to (a very narrow) victory where Obama has many more paths.