• 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.
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Well, Kosmo's correct if for the wrong reasons. The President's job is to campaign, primarily because that's exactly how the position was designed.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
PantherLotus said:
That's not a prediction, those are plausible scenarios.
Click to expand...

Aside from Israel actually attacking Iran at this point, because both sides have actually behaved as rational actors in practice thus far (and the only framework in which an attack would make any kind of sense is one in which one or both are irrational actors).
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
eBay Huckster said:
Aside from Israel actually attacking Iran at this point, because both sides have actually behaved as rational actors in practice thus far (and the only framework in which an attack would make any kind of sense is one in which one or both are irrational actors).
Click to expand...

Fine, fine. I meant "plausible" in the broadest sense possible. Like, asteroids, plagues, nuclear war. Stuff like that. What he's discussing, unless I missed it, are perfectly plausible ways Obama might lose.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PantherLotus said:
Fine, fine. I meant "plausible" in the broadest sense possible. Like, asteroids, plagues, nuclear war. Stuff like that. What he's discussing, unless I missed it, are perfectly plausible ways Obama might lose.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there's no way any of that could happen, but it's ludicrous to make a firm prediction based on unforeseen circumstances. The economy could also start adding 500,000 jobs a month and Obama would win in a bigger landslide than Reagan 84.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
PantherLotus said:
Fine, fine. I meant "plausible" in the broadest sense possible. Like, asteroids, plagues, nuclear war. Stuff like that. What he's discussing, unless I missed it, are perfectly plausible ways Obama might lose.
Click to expand...

In that case, we should start talking about the plausibility of every possible scandal simultaneously hitting Romney in addition to the economy inexplicably gaining 1 million jobs in October. :p
 
A

Averon

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
I don't know why some of you guys feel like the media is going to do its job and call each side out on fabrications. They want the race to be close. They are not going to be very demanding on either campaign. Their job has been regulated to a he said she said type of position. There is no more analysis, especially on television. And if you wanted analysis then you can go anywhere on the net to find something that backs up your already established position. The only way the media will make the campaigns talk if there is some other outside force that will compel them. Think the financial crisis or any other random event. Our fourth estate is meaningless.
Click to expand...

This. The media's handling of the Obama/Clinton race showed me how shitty they truly were. They were desperately coming up with some out-there scenarios to keep Hillary in the race as long as possible. And it was pretty obvious they didn't want the primary race to end. It's all about ratings and profit.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
empty vessel said:
One can conceptualize the system we have, right now, in the fashion that I described. Every dollar spent is created at the moment of spending, and every dollar taxed is destroyed at the moment it is paid. So, in this conceptualization, the government doesn't spend money it collects. The government is constantly creating and destroying money. Yes, it can create more than it destroys over time, and usually does. But the economy and population are growing, so why shouldn't it? Money is a tool that the population uses to exchange goods and services (economic activity). More economic activity and more population requires more money. That means the government on average will be creating (spending) more than it destroys (taxes).
Click to expand...

To say the government creates and destroys money, in your system, while can be technically true, doesn't convey what is really going on, which is a reallocation of resources.

Our gov't taxes and borrows to spend. That's what it does. It isn't creating or destroying money through fiscal policy in final effect.


Yes, we are ignoring foreign stuff for this discussion (assuming a 0 trade balance). I don't understand what you mean when you say that when the government sells bonds, it "reallocates" money. When anybody gives money to the government (and I think it is appropriate to consider the Fed part of the government), one can conceive of this process as money destruction. This is because the government never needs to collect money to spend it. Let's say I were to pay my taxes in cash. The government conceivably can take my cash and throw it in the trash bin without a second's thought. If it wants to spend, it can just create the money anew, despite having thrown my money in the trash. That's why one can conceive of government spending/taxation as creation/destruction at every instance. It is a conceptual equivalent to what actually happens, and in some cases (e.g., non-cash transactions), is even an empirically accurate description of what happens. (Although even in some cash transactions it is also empirically accurate, because the government routinely literally destroys cash that is paid to it and that it deems no longer fit for circulation.)
Click to expand...


I understand that. And you're not incorrect in conceptualization. It's just that isn't what our current system is trying to do. Sure, our gov't can put the money in the trash and then create new money to spend (and the effect would be the same). But the point is that the government is reallocating resources or shifting where the money in the economy is going.

That is to say, it's taking money away from Consumer spending and Private Investment and shifting it to Government Expenditures (which it decides on). The same amount of money is in the economy as without the gov't spending and taxing (let's keep this simple, ignore any potential multiplier effects, etc); the only change by the gov't taxing and spending is where the money goes (building missiles instead of consumers buying HDTVs).

I mean, you can totally say it's creating and destroying in technicality I guess, but this doesn't really explain what really happening with taxes and spending and borrowing.


But it's our democratically elected government that would be making net spending decisions, so, again, this reduces to an argument against democracy. Which is fine if you hold that opinion, but I personally am not of the opinion that democracy is bad. (I do think the current political atmosphere is a bit nuts for democracy, but I consider the current political atmosphere to be distorted by, i.e., a product of, economic imbalances.)
Click to expand...

I'm not against democracy.

What I'm arguing is that by designing the system to be one where we force ourselves to tax and borrow the equivalent of every dollar we spend, we built in a so-called check against the desire to indulge ourselves in spending to the point that we have too much money chasing too few goods/services.

There's at least some accountability.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Black Mamba said:
What I'm arguing is that by designing the system to be one where we force ourselves to tax and borrow the equivalent of every dollar we spend, we built in a so-called check against the desire to indulge ourselves in spending to the point that we have too much money chasing too few goods/services.

There's at least some accountability.
Click to expand...

That "check" makes no sense, because it acts as a throttle on the economy. It causes unemployment, which costs magnitudes more economically speaking than inflation (to which there is a ready solution). Moreover, given that the government will deficit spend (and will have to deficit spend in order to grow the economy), the effect of such a "check" is only to increase spending even further. That is because all this "check" really does is require that the government run a national bank (spending program) that grows in size anytime the government deficit spends by the amount of the deficit spending. So not only is the government spending the deficit amount directly, it is on top of that paying interest on that exact amount to people who deposit in the national bank it is required to maintain. So this "check" is a pretty shit check on spending, given that it is a rule requiring the government to increase spending.

Moreover, if politicians, economists, and economic elites wish to talk about the national bank in these terms, I welcome them doing so. At least they would be being honest instead of pretending that the government's debt is financially problematic and they would be exposed for people whose position ultimately boils down to limiting government spending for the purpose of increasing employer bargaining power and suppressing wages.
 
E

electricpirate

Member
I think it's both stupid to say there won't be any major political black swans, and stupid to think that they will be a major deciding factor in the race. The exception to that beeing a major economic crash, that could seriously doom Obama. But I think that's the least likely of all, we have some headroom in terms of credit now, bond markets still love us, and will continue to love us for some time, the economy is going okay despite gas price woes, etc etc. It'd take BOA or something going down without warning. At that point we are pushing well into the realm of "An outside chance" of it happening.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
Anything's possible!



*crickets*
Click to expand...


I think it's possible for him to win Ohio, but the chips are stacked against him there as of right now. Kasich has done a wonderful job at energizing the union/democrat base there. Romney's million gaffes that paint him as a person who is completely out of touch and one that doesn't care about working class people will do him no favors, either. On top of that, Obama is doing solid in polls there. I'm not going to say he can't win it, but he's going to have to fight for it. If Obama wins Ohio, there's pretty much no way that he can lose re-election.


RDreamer said:
I don't usually do or really know general electoral strategy, but I found this analysis interesting from politico:
Click to expand...


So good.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Tim-E said:
I think it's possible for him to win Ohio, but the chips are stacked against him there as of right now. Kasich has done a wonderful job at energizing the union/democrat base there. Romney's million gaffes that paint him as a person who is completely out of touch and one that doesn't care about working class people will do him no favors, either. On top of that, Obama is doing solid in polls there. I'm not going to say he can't win it, but he's going to have to fight for it. If Obama wins Ohio, there's pretty much no way that he can lose re-election.
Click to expand...

I wonder how anyone can believe that Romney is likely to win due to some unlikely yet possible unforeseen event(s). If we're talking seriously about Romney's chances, why not just focus on Ohio instead of spinning wheels with useless speculation? And if someone believes that Romney can win Ohio, back it up with a few indicators as to why.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
The bad thing for Romney is that Obama can still win without Florida and Ohio while Romney pretty much can't win without both of them + some other state. All Obama needs to do to do squeek out a victory is win Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa + what Kerry won and he's re-elected. I think all of those states are safe Obama wins, as well.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Tim-E said:
The bad thing for Romney is that Obama can still win without Florida and Ohio while Romney pretty much can't win without both of them + some other state. All Obama needs to do to do squeek out a victory is win Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa + what Kerry won and he's re-elected. I think all of those states are safe Obama wins, as well.
Click to expand...

Romney will possibly win Iowa, but I would be pretty shocked if he won Ohio. A republican has never lost Ohio and won the election...
 
T

Tim-E

Member
AlteredBeast said:
Romney will possibly win Iowa, but I would be pretty shocked if he won Ohio. A republican has never lost Ohio and won the election...
Click to expand...

I could see that playing out. I think Obama is going to win Ohio, too. Obama is firing all cylinders there. He already has 20 field offices there, more than any other state, and the GE is just beginning.

Of course Obama has many other states in play, but I'm talking about just the bare minimum he needs to win.
 
G

Gr1mLock

Passing metallic gas
Dax01 said:
It must speak wonders about Romney's chances if we have to rely on "unforeseen circumstances" in order for him to win.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Best part is that he hasn't even taken a real shot yet. His track record of dealing with pressure aint too hot either.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/four-recent-national-polls-inc.php

But the Gallup track, which is conducted among registered voters, has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012: only 22 percent of the Gallup survey was non-white, according to figures the organization provided to Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz. That was close to the non-white share of the vote in 2010 (23 percent), but in 2008, minorities comprised 26 percent of all voters, according to exit polls; the Obama campaign, and other analysts, project the minority share of the vote will increase to 28 percent in 2012. In its survey, Pew, for instance, puts the non-white share at 25 percent.
Click to expand...

I would expect Minority turnout to be at least match 2008 nationally, should actually be higher than it.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Dax01 said:
It must speak wonders about Romney's chances if we have to rely on "unforeseen circumstances" in order for him to win.
Click to expand...

The funny part isn't that these 'what if' scenarios would merely improve Romney's chances- of course they would. It's that they are the basis for his conclusion that Romney will win.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
gcubed said:
If i'm not mistaken non-white turnout has being going up steadily for each presidential election... to think it would regress is... poor planning
Click to expand...

poor planning indeed. When are legit polls going to come out? Whether it is Fox News balancing demographics equally, or Rasmussen being Rasmussen, or Gallup under reporting Minority voting. This is silly.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Officerrob said:
Ahhh, now that wacky Gallup number makes sense. Gallup is out of their minds thinking minority turnout for a presidential election will be lower then an off year election
Click to expand...

Not only that, but they are forgetting that there is a black president in the white house, further upping the amount of minorities that will vote. They also don't poll people through cell phones, I believe. Maybe they have changed that practice, though.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
Black Mamba said:
What I'm arguing is that by designing the system to be one where we force ourselves to tax and borrow the equivalent of every dollar we spend, we built in a so-called check against the desire to indulge ourselves in spending to the point that we have too much money chasing too few goods/services.

There's at least some accountability.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you'd like a Balanced Budget Amendment. All that would result in is a draconian cutting of social services. Nobody would be voting for increased taxes or slashing the military budget.
 
S

SuperBonk

Member
Hey guys, I don't post in this thread but I lurk here a lot. I was just in DC lobbying for ASDA (American Student Dental Association) as a part of National Dental Student Lobby Day so I thought I'd just share my experiences.

We lobbied for two bills:

1) Breaking Barriers to Oral Health Act (HR 1666) - basically provides funding at the state/local level for oral health programs and preventive care

2) Student Loan Forgiveness Act (HR 4170) - sets up several ways to forgive outstanding federal student loans while capping interest rates on new federal student loans at 3.4%

We made appointments with 3 representatives (Gary Ackerman D-NY, Caroline Maloney D-NY, Jim Gerlach R-PA). Unfortunately we didn't actually get to meet with any of them in person, though I did get to walk past Maloney and Kucinich, for what it's worth. I think there was a vote on the House floor at the time of the latter two appointments.

Their staffers seemed nice enough, but I kind of got the feeling that they were just trying to humor us at times. Ackerman's office was the most receptive, while Gerlach's seemed the least (as expected - I really tried the push the "this is beneficial for small businesses" talking point).

It was my 2nd visit to DC and it seems like a very nice place, though I hear the outskirts get much worse.

I was probably most disappointed with ASDA itself in the sense that its members seemed a lot more conservative than I would have thought. I guess it's understandable but it was still a stark contrast from the generally progressive atmosphere at my dental school (NYU), along with the entire university itself (which I attended for undergrad).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom