Support NeoGAF

[Gr1mLock]

Fox News polls

Whoops.

 

[reilo]

Quick quiz PD: Name one Democratic presidential candidate in the last 40 years to have won the majority of the white male vote.

Obama lost the white male vote in '08 and it didn't matter one bit.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Bad thing for Romney is he literally has no path to 270 without Ohio. None of the main democrat states are flipping and the democrats have added more states to the "Safe dem" list over the last few cycles. Plus states that haven't been in play for decades with democrats like Virginia and North Carolina are toss ups.

It's possible for Romney to lose Ohio and win ... but the sheer number of states he'd have to win that are lean Democrat to make up for it, plus he'd have to flip states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Virginia and North Carolina back to solid Republican territory ... it becomes tough.

Or, long story short, Obama winning in Ohio means Romney would need Virginia AND North Carolina or Pennsylvania by itself to counter that loss. And that's going to be a tough, tough call.

lol, the day he's announced to be on the ticket, most of Ohio will go "oh, so that's who our other Senator is".

Or, "That's not how you spell Voinovich."

 

[Averon]

Obama's massive advantage with women more than makes up any loss of support from white male voters, which Democrats haven't won in many years. And, no, I don't see Romney putting that much of a dent in Obama's lead with women.

 

[gcubed]

Obama lost the white male vote in '08 and it didn't matter one bit.

i believe his point was that no dem candidate wins the white male vote.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I am not arguing either way.

But from what I understand, over time, the idea is to remove the stigma associated in the public at large and media with welfare recipients. It may or may not work, it depends on how widespread these types of laws are and if they last long enough to change the public's perception. I think if they show a hint of working the next step will be similar legislation for all types of aid, including unemployment.

Throw in the Earned Income Tax Credit while you're at it, that'll learn 'em.

The argument--your argument--for drug testing as a stigma remover makes no sense whatsoever. It's not as if there's some finite pool of people who receive benefits and once the drug users are eliminated from the pool that'll be the end of testing. It is the presumption of guilt requiring the proof of innocence, and what introduces that presumption of guilt is the fact that such a person has requested government assistance. How is that not stigmatizing?

 

[reilo]

Since AlteredBeast posted a poll saying the opposite yesterday, it's only fair, right?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Fifty percent of Americans say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in President Obama to do or to recommend the right thing for the economy, more than say the same about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (42%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154007/Obama-Trusted-Romney-Leaders-Economy.aspx

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Bad thing for Romney is he literally has no path to 270 without Ohio. None of the main democrat states are flipping and the democrats have added more states to the "Safe dem" list over the last few cycles. Plus states that haven't been in play for decades with democrats like Virginia and North Carolina are toss ups.

There are some people who believe Romney may have a chance in Michigan. I only see that as a possibility if economy goes to worse. And all the current polling is without Obama campaign on Romney's auto bailout stance starting. Also interestingly, CO looks less of a tossup than Ohio or Florida, which is bad news for Romney. If Obama keeps his gains there (CO, NV, NM).

Given Obama's problems with white male blue collar workers, Ohio will be a toss up. Especially with Portman on the ticket.

Could be the case. Portman also has ties to the Bush admin though, would be interesting to see what would happen if Portman is VP.

Since AlteredBeast posted a poll saying the opposite yesterday, it's only fair, right?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154007/Obama-Trusted-Romney-Leaders-Economy.aspx

Goes against their daily tracking poll. lol

 

[TacticalFox88]

Something something poor civil rights record something.

 

[sc0la]

I am not arguing either way.

But from what I understand, over time, the idea is to remove the stigma associated in the public at large and media with welfare recipients. It may or may not work, it depends on how widespread these types of laws are and if they last long enough to change the public's perception. I think if they show a hint of working the next step will be similar legislation for all types of aid, including unemployment.

BS

The original stated goal was to save money, "millions" even. Now that that seems to not be the case it has changed to some diluted version of "Think of the children!"

The actual reason is very much to continue to ADD stigma and barriers to aid to those who need or qualify. If you sufficiently marginalized and stigmatize the users of a program it becomes much easier to slash budgets or "reform" the program. See welfare reform in the 80s and 90s.

People on welfare or collecting unemployment have no higher rates of drug use than the general population. it's strictly to be a barrier and to stigmatize.

 

[Tim-E]

Obama's massive advantage with women more than makes up any loss of support from white male voters, which Democrats haven't won in man years. And, no, I don't see Romney putting that much of a dent in Obama's lead with women.

But 92% of women are unemployed under Obama! [/mittstatistic]

 

[Tim-E]

There are some people who believe Romney may have a chance in Michigan. I only see that as a possibility if economy goes to worse. And all the current polling is without Obama campaign on Romney's auto bailout stance starting. Also interestingly, CO looks less of a tossup than Ohio or Florida, which is bad news for Romney. If Obama keeps his gains there (CO, NV, NM).

RCP's poll average for MI has Obama up 11.3%. He is not going to lose Michigan. The only reason people want to call it a swing state is because Mitt is from there and they want to paint the race as being as close as possible because that drives up attention.

 

[KingK]

RCP Average for Ohio is Obama +6.7. If Obama can keep up this kind of a lead in Ohio then Romney might as well go home.

Yep. If Romney can't win Ohio, he's finished. He'd have to win Ohio and Florida to even have a good chance of winning, and even then it would be really close.

 

[adamsappel]

The argument--your argument--for drug testing as a stigma remover makes no sense whatsoever. It's not as if there's some finite pool of people who receive benefits and once the drug users are eliminated from the pool that'll be the end of testing. It is the presumption of guilt requiring the proof of innocence, and what introduces that presumption of guilt is the fact that such a person has requested government assistance. How is that not stigmatizing?

BS

The original stated goal was to save money, "millions" even. Now that that seems to not be the case it has changed to some diluted version of "Think of the children!"

The actual reason is very much to continue to ADD stigma and barriers to aid to those who need or qualify. If you sufficiently marginalized and stigmatize the users of a program it becomes much easier to slash budgets or "reform" the program. See welfare reform in the 80s and 90s.

People on welfare or collecting unemployment have no higher rates of drug use than the general population. it's strictly to be a barrier and to stigmatize.

It also assumes that drug users are unrepentant and can't/won't give up drugs. Even for just the purpose of passing the test, how often is the test administered? Don't drug tests also only catch marijuana users, as harder drugs are quickly passed through your system? Can you reapply if you fail?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Something something poor civil rights record something.

I have stated multiple times that Obama has done more the the Gay community than any previous president ever. Has he gone as far as most would like? No, but he has made great strides. That is why I get a little irked when people say they will not vote for him due to his supposed 'inaction' on the issue.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I have stated multiple times that Obama has done more the the Gay community than any previous president ever. Has he gone as far as most would like? No, but he has made great strides. That is why I get a little irked when people say they will not vote for him due to his supposed 'inaction' on the issue.

Or when someone says that Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Kosmo]

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

 

[gcubed]

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

for maximum lulz

 

[AndyD]

Throw in the Earned Income Tax Credit while you're at it, that'll learn 'em.

The argument--your argument--for drug testing as a stigma remover makes no sense whatsoever. It's not as if there's some finite pool of people who receive benefits and once the drug users are eliminated from the pool that'll be the end of testing. It is the presumption of guilt requiring the proof of innocence, and what introduces that presumption of guilt is the fact that such a person has requested government assistance. How is that not stigmatizing?

BS

The original stated goal was to save money, "millions" even. Now that that seems to not be the case it has changed to some diluted version of "Think of the children!"

The actual reason is very much to continue to ADD stigma and barriers to aid to those who need or qualify. If you sufficiently marginalized and stigmatize the users of a program it becomes much easier to slash budgets or "reform" the program. See welfare reform in the 80s and 90s.

People on welfare or collecting unemployment have no higher rates of drug use than the general population. it's strictly to be a barrier and to stigmatize.

I was strictly speaking about the stated goals of the proposed Tennessee version which does not require universal testing, only for those with previous drug related offenses. I completely agree the universal testing is quite different and it makes matters worse.

 

[Tim-E]

Progress on issues like gay marriage is going to take time. The American public is still working on coming around to accepting it. I think if this administration has taught us anything, its that progress in the American political system comes in baby steps. To be disappointed that the US isn't a liberal utopia yet because a democrat was elected to office is silly.

It's like complaining that the Buffet Rule doesn't go far enough and saying it shouldn't be passed on that alone. It's a step in the right direction. Taxes need to go up, but no one wants to hear that, so this is a way to propose a tax increase that most people can accept. It doesn't matter, anyway. A fair tax code is a long ways away considering how hellbent republicans are at ensuring that never happens.

I hate, hate, HATE the argument that "lol both parties are the same." It just tells me you're too lazy to pay attention. Even if things are slow, it DOES matter who is in office despite the limitation of the Presidency. They nominate Supreme Court Justices, a decision that can have an impact on many important legal issues for decades, and who is in office determines what kind of legislation congress attempts to throw at them for signature. Those two things alone mean that it matters who the President is.

 

[markatisu]

OK I know we all knock FOX News for obvious bias, especially in polling. But has anybody noticed how bad it must be for the GOP if FOX News even has Obama over Romney in swing states

 

[Averon]

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

Doesn't the bolded conflict with each other? I don't see how Obama can lose all those states and still win. Especially if MI and PA flips red.

 

[Souldriver]

I have stated multiple times that Obama has done more the the Gay community than any previous president ever. Has he gone as far as most would like? No, but he has made great strides. That is why I get a little irked when people say they will not vote for him due to his supposed 'inaction' on the issue.

Agreed.


And even if you are unhappy because he hasn't done enough, we have to go back to the sad reality that he's still the best President by a mile. A republican president would most probably try to strip the rights from gays away. At least with Obama we're moving forward steadily.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

Luntz is pretty smart but that last point is almost Dick Morris level dumb. Republicans look at minorities as if they're a special interest group that can simply be distracted with a shiny object to win support. A Romney Rubio ticket would certainly win some Hispanics, but not enough to be a game changer - especially if Romney is unwilling to support Rubio's DREAM Act. I think Romney would win Florida with Rubio, but N Mexico looks almost solid blue and Nevada has quite a union/Hispanic machine.

I think PA could swing red under the right conditions, as could Michigan. But if that happens it'll be due to a complete economic disaster, not 8% unemployment.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

So basically he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[markatisu]

Luntz is pretty smart but that last point is almost Dick Morris level dumb. Republicans look at minorities as if they're a special interest group that can simply be distracted with a shiny object to win support. A Romney Rubio ticket would certainly win some Hispanics, but not enough to be a game changer - especially if Romney is unwilling to support Rubio's DREAM Act. I think Romney would win Florida with Rubio, but N Mexico looks almost solid blue and Nevada has quite a union/Hispanic machine.

I think PA could swing red under the right conditions, as could Michigan. But if that happens it'll be due to a complete economic disaster, not 8% unemployment.

We should not be surprised, the GOP thought putting Michael Steele in charge of the RNC would do wonders just because he was black. Same mentality I guess, get a Hispanic and you win ALL Hispanics despite there being 11 or 12 different ideas and 4 dominant regions to the ethnicity (each of which has a different political leaning and motivation)

 

[PhoenixDark]

We should not be surprised, the GOP thought putting Michael Steele in charge of the RNC would do wonders just because he was black. Same mentality I guess, get a Hispanic and you win ALL Hispanics despite there being 11 or 12 different ideas and 4 dominant regions to the ethnicity (each of which has a different political leaning and motivation)

It's also a major reason why some many republicans want Condoleezza Rice (who is not married and pro choice) as Romney's VP. Also the same reason why many thought Hermain Cain was not only a legit candidate, but could split the black vote enough to beat Obama. It highlights a general ignorance on minority issues, and what many conservatives think about black (and Hispanic) democrats; the idea that black people are so dumb that they would be confused over which black candidate to support, as if there are no political/economic issues at stake beyond the color of the candidate's skin.

This mentality was partly behind McCain selecting Palin, who republicans honestly felt would steal large portions of democrat women/"PUMAs."

 

[gcubed]

It's also a major reason why some many republicans want Condoleezza Rice (who is not married and pro choice) as Romney's VP. Also the same reason why many thought Hermain Cain was not only a legit candidate, but could split the black vote enough to beat Obama. It highlights a general ignorance on minority issues, and what many conservatives think about black (and Hispanic) democrats; the idea that black people are so dumb that they would be confused over which black candidate to support, as if there are no political/economic issues at stake beyond the color of the candidate's skin.

This mentality was partly behind McCain selecting Palin, who republicans honestly felt would steal large portions of democrat women/"PUMAs."

i dont even think the whole "put a minority on the ticket and win the minority vote" is as bad as "he'll speak spanish and every native spanish speaker will instantly flock to him"

 

[Diablos]

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

Uhh, point #3 kind of contradicts point #2... derp.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Point three doesn't contradict it at all.

Even a double digit increase in the Hispanic vote would represent a significant swing in the vote.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Luntz is pretty smart but that last point is almost Dick Morris level dumb. Republicans look at minorities as if they're a special interest group that can simply be distracted with a shiny object to win support. A Romney Rubio ticket would certainly win some Hispanics, but not enough to be a game changer - especially if Romney is unwilling to support Rubio's DREAM Act. I think Romney would win Florida with Rubio, but N Mexico looks almost solid blue and Nevada has quite a union/Hispanic machine.

I think PA could swing red under the right conditions, as could Michigan. But if that happens it'll be due to a complete economic disaster, not 8% unemployment.

But if McCain picks a female veep he'll win the women vote!

 

[Effect]

Don't all polls that include Rubio as the VP show that Obama's lead over Romney actually increases in Florida? Not make it more likely for Romney to win it.

 

[Tim-E]

Point three doesn't contradict it at all.

Even a double digit increase in the Hispanic vote would represent a significant swing in the vote.

It does contradict it. If Romney wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida, then Obama doesn't win re-election unless he wins back Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa. If Obama somehow lost PA and MI, he's not going to win traditionally red states like some of those.

 

[Clevinger]

Don't all polls that include Rubio as the VP show that Obama's lead over Romney actually increases in Florida? Not make it more likely for Romney to win it.

I think there was one poll that said the opposite a while ago, but yeah, at least two have said that.

 

[Jackson50]

I was strictly speaking about the stated goals of the proposed Tennessee version which does not require universal testing, only for those with previous drug related offenses. I completely agree the universal testing is quite different and it makes matters worse.

The proposition that targeted testing will reduce the stigma is specious. The stigma is associated with receiving public assistance. It's inherent to the act. The demand for drug testing is a function of the behavioral deficiencies associated with welfare recipients. You could exclude substance abusers, but the stereotype of the indolent, incompetent derelict persists.

Just heard Frank Luntz speak at a conference - for what it's worth, here are his predictions on all things politics:

1 - Supreme Court will throw out the mandate and some other stuff, but not everything.
2 - Obama will win re-election, Republicans hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but Dems still hold that majority.
3 - Rubio gets the VP nod, which will throw Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico into Romney's camp. Michigan and possibly Pennsylvania will swing Red this time. Thinks Rubio, if he speaks Spanish at the Republican convention could be dynamic as fuck and be a game changer for the Latino vote.

I'm feeling munificent today.

I had a "economic major" say to me Obama is a Communist. I asked him to give me a qualitative analysis on why Obama is a Communist, and he just said I was brainwashed.

He probably didn't understand the term.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I wonder if the day will ever come when Republicans pander to the LGBT vote by putting a stereotypical flamboyant gay man on the ticket.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Frank Luntz seems like a dunce like Dick Morris. Dick Morris said that Obama and Romney tying in the polls currently really means that Romney is going to win by like 10%!! LOL

 

[AlteredBeast]

I wonder if the day will ever come when Republicans pander to the LGBT vote by putting a stereotypical flamboyant gay man on the ticket.

Only if that man used to be a woman. Gotta catch em all.

 

[markatisu]

I wonder if the day will ever come when Republicans pander to the LGBT vote by putting a stereotypical flamboyant gay man on the ticket.

Log Cabin Republicans FTW lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Frank Luntz seems like a dunce like Dick Morris. Dick Morris said that Obama and Romney tying in the polls currently really means that Romney is going to win by like 10%!! LOL

I don't get Morris. You can only make so many ridiculous predictions before people stop believing you

 

[Clevinger]

lol

I don't get Morris. You can only make so many ridiculous predictions before people stop believing you

At Fox News?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I don't get Morris. You can only make so many ridiculous predictions before people stop believing you

Ladies and gentlemen, PhoenixDark.

PoliGAF inside baseball aside, I don't think that's true at all. I think it's all but impossible to discredit people in the information age.

 

[Aaron Strife]

lol

Maybe it's a thing where he keeps denying that he'll be Romney's VP pick, but when he accepts the position he'll be like "FJELJWLKE OBAMA'S DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY AND I WANT TO STEP UP 2 THE STREETS AND FIGHT" like it's some sudden transformation. Politics is glorified theater.

I could see Romney picking up FL and NC but Obama would still be over 300 EVs.

Incidentally, Ras just came out with an Ohio poll. Obama's up 46-42.

edit: Speaking of Florida - Charlie Crist might endorse Obama. I don't know where this guy stands on anything, but good for him I guess.

 

[markatisu]

edit: Speaking of Florida - Charlie Crist might endorse Obama. I don't know where this guy stands on anything, but good for him I guess.

Christ is a moderate Republican, which means in 2012 terms he would identify more as a Democrat than a Republican.

 

[Suikoguy]

Christ is a moderate Republican, which means in 2012 terms he would identify more as a Democrat than a Republican.

Yep, the party left him behind when simply being on the same stage with the president (as governor of Florida) is considered treason for one party.

Fun article on the subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/laura-ingraham-jeb-bush-o_n_833683.html

 

[PhoenixDark]

edit: Speaking of Florida - Charlie Crist might endorse Obama. I don't know where this guy stands on anything, but good for him I guess.

Dumbass should have run as a democrat in 2010

 

[markatisu]

Dumbass should have run as a democrat in 2010

I think he realizes that now lol

 

[cartoon_soldier]

But if McCain picks a female veep he'll win the women vote!

And all the Hillary voters

 

[speculawyer]

Ladies and gentlemen, PhoenixDark.

PoliGAF inside baseball aside, I don't think that's true at all. I think it's all but impossible to discredit people in the information age.

This seems to be sadly true. It seems once you win your fame/notoriety, it is pretty hard to get kicked off the stage unless you say something extremely racist.


Bill Kristol is the example I like to use. He said this in 2003 while pushing for war:

On this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.​

After saying something SO COMPLETELY WRONG, NO ONE should have ever listened to him again on any foreign policy. Yet he remains a pundit. Anyone on any panel with him should immediately bring that up.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

lol. Not only do they not get along, but there was ethnic cleansing between Shias (Badr Brigade vs Al Sadr).