• 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.
Clinton added 23 million over 8 years, GWB added 3 million in 8 years, and I think Bush 41 had like 2.5 or something in 4 years. Reagan put in 16 million, and the worst president to ever grace the White House (yes, worse than Andrew Johnson) added 10.5 million.

"Job Creators"

It looks like "punishing" job creators actually makes them hire more people. Shock and awe.
Yeah, for all the bitching & moaning people do about policy, much of what happens is outside of the control of our policy choices. The rise of Japan and Europe after rebuilding after WW2. The Globalization of world trade. The rise of China due to reforms and opening up. Wars. Technology shifts . . . Clinton benefited from the PC & internet booms. Etc.

And as my avatar suggests, oil politics is a huge thing. The 73' oil embargo hurt Nixon badly. The Iranian revolution and '79 oil crisis killed Carter. Reagan benefited massively from Alaska oil coming online, North Sea oil coming online, and then Saudi Arabia flooding the market with cheap oil. That boosted our economy and helped bring down the USSR since oil exports were one of their biggest hard currency generators.


So any look jobs created during an administration can be very misleading. The numbers are often more affected by things outside of their control. I think Obama has done fine with the economy given the current (shitty) situation. It is not like Japan, Korea, or Europe has done much better than us in the past few years.


I think it is just a shitty time for western industrialized nations. The price of oil that we all depend on has doubled TWICE since 2000. Developing nations now compete fiercely against each other at who can offer the cheapest manufacturing. Our populations are aging.

Whether it is Obama or Romney, there are just no magic bullets to make things better. Romney criticizes Obama's record but he doesn't provide any convincing policy prescriptions to make things better.
 

RDreamer

Member
Two things really, really, really throw me off of those charts.

One, it's the implication that Democrats have low voter turn out.

Two, Republicans use the internet more.

wut

The first shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone at all. Democrats skew younger and young people just don't vote that much. We're too busy worrying about stupid shit like partying and Halo or something. Who knows. Also, if you're poor and working 2 jobs and all that it's kind of hard to A) be informed on anything and B) get the time to actually go vote in between working a shift and possibly picking up your kid and all that.

The 2nd is kind of surprising at first, but if you think about it it's not quite that out there. Richer office jobs have plenty of time to dink about the internet. And middle class families that are doing pretty well and don't need to work 2 jobs have a lot of time after work, too. My dad can screw around on the internet (his usual stuff is Drudge and Ebay and looking up people's police records) quite a bit because he's doing well. Also, where my dad works the office people are mostly republican. The people out in the plant are democrat. Guess who has access to a computer more? And young people, while we think they sit around on the internet doing nothing, I think tend to go out more and socialize. They're out every night drinking and doing things with friends when they come of voting age. Except for nerds, college isn't exactly known for isolated computer time. It's known for partying.
 
Poor Orin Hatch, so close to avoiding the UT primary:

UPDATE (3:11PM): In the second round of voting for U.S. Senate, Sen. Hatch received 59.19% of delegate votes while Dan Liljenquist recived 40.81%. Having been unable to secure 60%, Sen. Hatch and Dan Liljenquist will be in a June 26 primary to determine the GOP nominee.

——–

UPDATE (2:40pm): The results from the race for U.S. Senate are in. Hatch received 57.2% of the vote, Liljenquist followed with 28.8%. This means that the two will face off in a primary this June for the nomination. (*Correction: There will now be a second round of voting between Hatch and Liljenquist, will post results when they come in). All other candidates failed to secure the requisite amount of votes to advance to the second round.

http://networkedblogs.com/wI5LE
 

Jackson50

Member
The NYTimes had an informative article on the evolution of the insurgency in Afghanistan. They underscore the implications of last weekend's audacious attacks. If even ISAF intelligence fails to identify an attack on multiple targets within regions heavily protected by coalition forces, the Afghans are acutely vulnerable. Moreover, the complexity of the attack, and their ability to elude detection, suggests an unexpectedly robust operational capacity.
Republicans seem to be painting this analogy to Carter with the economy and unemployment. If anything Obama's first term is ending more like Reagan's first term. At the end of 1983, unemployment was around 8.5% and was over 10% a couple of years earlier. Obama should reverse this tactic by asking "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
As historical analogues, I find both unsound. Obama's situation does not correspond with either. The economy is not retracting as with Carter, nor is it expanding briskly as with Reagan. The most apt comparison is Bush 43's reelection where moderate growth was sufficient to deliver a close victory. Although, as I have iterated, there is reason to estimate Obama may slightly outperform expectations. Primarily, his campaign organization is a tremendous asset.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
His opponent is also the most unlikable guy in politics this side of Rod Blagojevich.

The fact that Obama is now the (relatively) popular incombent, plus his organization's inherent strength maybe a calculation we can't do until after the election. It may be slightly additive, it may be geometric, I doubt it will be deleterous.
 
I think it is just a shitty time for western industrialized nations. The price of oil that we all depend on has doubled TWICE since 2000. Developing nations now compete fiercely against each other at who can offer the cheapest manufacturing. Our populations are aging.

What is the solution to all this in your opinion?

0416edsall-chart3-blog480.jpg

I'd imagine if Red Robin was on there it would be pretty right wing. I came across a notable amount of Randites when I worked there.
 
Jesus Christ

Ann Romney said:
“Why should women be paid equal to men? Men have been in the working world a lot longer and deserve to be paid at a higher rate. Heck, I’m a working mom and I’m not paid a dime. I depend on my husband to provide for me and my family, as should most women… and if a woman does work, she should be happy just to be out there in the working world and quit complaining that she’s not making as much as her male counterparts. I mean really, all this wanting to be equal nonsense is going to be detrimental to the future of women everywhere. Who’s going to want to hire a woman, or for that matter, even marry a woman who thinks she is the same, if not better than a man at any job. It’s almost laughable. C’mon now ladies, are you with me on this?”
Edit: It's actually a spoof. I'm silly.
 

Dram

Member
I think that was taken from a fake news site.

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/04/18/ann-romney-why-should-women-be-paid-equal-to-men/

Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.

Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience.
 
Flip through the channels last night and see that Hannity's replacement host says Obama's budget will cause over $3 trillion in deficits in 10 years. She didn't say anything else and that was the end of whatever asinine segment that usually goes on his program.

So I'm assuming that $3 trillion deficit is based on current laws, like the Bush tax cuts.

Seriously, gotta love Fox News and their logical reasons. Or, they know the truth, and would rather spin the story.
 
Flip through the channels last night and see that Hannity's replacement host says Obama's budget will cause over $3 trillion in deficits in 10 years. She didn't say anything else and that was the end of whatever asinine segment that usually goes on his program.

So I'm assuming that $3 trillion deficit is based on current laws, like the Bush tax cuts.

Seriously, gotta love Fox News and their logical reasons. Or, they know the truth, and would rather spin the story.

Romney's tax plan would add 480 billion - 900 billion IN 2015 alone. Do the math over 10 years...you won't hear it on Fox News. Only because Romney said it will be Revenue neutral, without ever telling us how.
 
The quest for revenue neutrality currently plaguing both parties is ridiculously disastrous. You couldn't pick a stupider objective to strive for. Let's disregard the economy, but make sure that we never increase the overall quantity of money that government spends. That is like saying the length of a bridge must be X feet in length without regard to how wide the river is over which it is to be built. Just like a river's width is necessary information for calculating the optimal length of a bridge, so, too, is the state of the economy--and specifically the level of aggregate demand relative to the economy's capacity--necessary information to calculating whether government spending ought to be increased or decreased.
 
RNC members already seem to have a favorite, also would help Romney in Ohio:


SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — There is no doubt in the minds of Republican National Committee members that Mitt Romney will be their standard bearer in the fall, and already consensus is building behind one likely GOP nominee — Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

In an informal survey of more than half of the Republican State Chairmen and national committee people at this weekend’s State Chairman meeting at a resort here, two-thirds said they believe Portman is the most-likely and best-qualified running-mate for Mitt Romney. The committee members spoke to BuzzFeed only on the condition of anonymity.

“He’s from Ohio, and we need to win Ohio, it’s that simple,” said one state chair.

Portman, a former Congressman from the Cincinnati area who was director of the Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush administration, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010. And the warmth Republican elites express for him stems much from a desire to avoid another risky, flamboyant pick like Sarah Palin as it does for his ability to help carry an important swing state.

“Romney needs to make a safe pick, and keep talking about the economy — and that’s Rob Portman,” said one committeewoman from the West.

Portman’s seeming inability to overshadow the vanilla Romney gives him a rare qualification — and potentially a leg up over the rest of the field.

“He’s not going to be Palin — he’s not going to be fighting to get in front of cameras, [Portman] knows his place,” he one Midwestern committeeman.

“He was born to be the guy standing next to the guy,” said another member. “He’s the type of guy who ran for vice president of his high school student council.

BuzzFeed interviewed a random group of 45 members at the RNC State Chairman meeting, of whom 30 expressed a preference for Portman.

John McCain's decision to nominate Sarah Palin was a high-risk, high-reward calculation intended to electrify his party and to reach out to a key demographic group, women. But if McCain was a gambler by nature, Romney has demonstrated nothing but caution. And for the no-drama Romney team, Portman would be the cautious choice unlikely to upset any of the party establishment — no one interviewed had a bad word to say about him, other than that he’s occasionally dull — but it could leave the grassroots cold. Portman, who also served as U.S. Trade Representative, would deepen Romney's own core credentials of competence and economic experience, rather than "balancing" the ticket in any important way.

Indeed the establishment support for Portman would involve an expectation that dislike of Obama is enough to excite the Party's conservative base, who may be more interested in seeing former Senator Rick Santorum, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, or Florida Senator Marco Rubio on the ticket, according to a CNN/ORC poll released last week. Portman was also the least-known among Republicans of those surveyed. A separate poll from Quinnipiac University found that 79 percent of Americans have no opinion of Portman as a Vice Presidential pick.

Rubio was the second most-popular name offered by the RNC members — particularly those from more conservative states. Most saw the appeal for Romney of running with a historic first Hispanic on a national ticket, but many expressed concern that he won’t stand up to scrutiny.

“He has some ethics things in his background, he has never been involved in a national campaign, and he’s a risk that’s probably not worth taking,” said a committeeman from the Northeast.

The Portman backers, by contrast, say his experience will underscore Romney's message.

“He just fits into Romney’s message of competence,” said a Southern GOP state chairman, who added, “he’s a respected conservative.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/republican-insiders-have-a-favorite-for-veep-sena
 
The quest for revenue neutrality currently plaguing both parties is ridiculously disastrous. You couldn't pick a stupider objective to strive for. Let's disregard the economy, but make sure that we never increase the overall quantity of money that government spends. That is like saying the length of a bridge must be X feet in length without regard to how wide the river is over which it is to be built. Just like a river's width is necessary information for calculating the optimal length of a bridge, so, too, is the state of the economy--and specifically the level of aggregate demand relative to the economy's capacity--necessary information to calculating whether government spending ought to be increased or decreased.

Are there any empirical facts that when the deficits are too high, the government issues more bonds, therefore sucking up private capital to finance the debt and reducing funds for businesses in which they could hire more people?
 
Are there any empirical facts that when the deficits are too high, the government issues more bonds, therefore sucking up private capital to finance the debt and reducing funds for businesses in which they could hire more people?

I'm looking to see what I can find on this as far as empirical evidence goes. Based on what I know theoretically, however, bond issuance can be conceptualized as current money destruction (somebody has to pay money to the government to obtain the bond). Money destruction typically reduces aggregate demand. The reduction in aggregate demand would in turn reduce investment and economic activity, because those are responses to aggregate demand. Bond issuance, however, is accompanied by increased net government spending in the same amount. So one might think it ends up being a wash as far as aggregate demand goes, right?

If it's a wash, why is government spending (money creation) accompanied by (not financed by) the equivalent in bond issuance (money destruction) still stimulating? This is because the money that people use to buy bonds affects aggregate demand much less than the money the government spends, e.g., on infrastructure. The money that people use to buy bonds was already intended to be saved by the bond purchaser, and saved money reduces aggregate demand (it is considered demand leakage) because it is not being spent in the economy. So the money spent on bonds that was intended to be saved does not really affect aggregate demand, because if it had not been used to buy bonds, it would have just been saved in some other manner. So the money was already, before the bond sale, marked for reduced aggregate demand.

By contrast, the money that the government spends on things like infrastructure gets into the hands of people (e.g. construction workers) who aren't saving it. They spend it. So the government spending increases aggregate demand and the bond purchasing does not decrease aggregate demand, or at least does not decrease it anywhere near the amount it is increased by government spending. (Of course, if the government just spent money by giving it to rich people, then that, too, wouldn't increase aggregate demand very much, because they would just save it. So it very much matters how the government spends money, just as it matters how the government taxes money: taxing rich people reduces aggregate demand much less than taxing working people.)

It's important to keep in mind, too, if one is thinking that the (even marginally) reduced aggregate demand that occurs from bond issuance is an argument against deficit spending (positive net spending), consider that bond issuance is not at all necessary to deficit spend. It's a choice. So if one is worried about the prospect of bond issuance reducing aggregate demand (and thereby slowing investment and economic activity), one could address this by simply stopping bond issuance, since that is not necessary for a government like the US to spend more.
 

Clevinger

Member
I live in ohio and my unscientific feedback on portman is that he's the most boring, non descript boring candidate you could find. Anti palin.

The most interesting thing about him (besides maybe helping in Ohio) is he was one of Bush's budget directors, which is, uh, maybe not the biggest plus.
 
Christian Conservatives At Florida Revival Are Lukewarm For Mitt Romney

WINTER PARK, Fla. -- Few if any of the Christian conservatives here at The Awakening conference said they would name Mitt Romney as their first choice for president. But whether they are worried about his politics or his Mormon religion, many said the former Massachusetts governor is a better choice than President Barack Obama.

"This is the most important election in our lifetime," said Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, whose organization is a co-sponsor of the two-day conference aimed at jump-starting a religious revival to help defeat Obama.
When asked if he was enthusiastic about Romney, though, Barber laughed. "That's a good question. I will work with every fiber of my being to see that Barack Obama is not re-elected, and to the extent there is a collateral benefit to Mitt Romney, so be it."
"I would have preferred someone else," said John Porta, 55, a realtor from Titusville, Fla., "but I'm going to back him 120 percent."
Asked what he thought about Romney being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ken Brooks said he teaches that Mormonism isn't Christianity. "He don't believe in the same Jesus that we do," Brooks said. "But he's better than voting for a Muslim."
 

Clevinger

Member
"Asked what he thought about Romney being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ken Brooks said he teaches that Mormonism isn't Christianity. "He don't believe in the same Jesus that we do," Brooks said. "But he's better than voting for a Muslim."

That whole thing is just... ugh


The anti-obama sentiment will out do the whatever its Romney sentiment

Yup.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Collateral benefit lol.

That's the reason Romney shouldn't have gotten the nomination, now the crazies in the party will get even more extreme in 2016 rather then realizing that the rest of the country doesn't share their extreme views and toning it down.

Who do the Democrats have for 2016 though besides Hillary?

The evangelical turnout, I suspect, will be lower then normal this election.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Collateral benefit lol.

That's the reason Romney shouldn't have gotten the nomination, now the crazies in the party will get even more extreme in 2016 rather then realizing that the rest of the country doesn't share their extreme views and toning it down.

Who do the Democrats have for 2016 though besides Hillary?

In my dreams its Feingold. Seriously, I have dreams about voting for a Feingold ticket. They also involve lots of candy.
 
RNC members already seem to have a favorite, also would help Romney in Ohio:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/republican-insiders-have-a-favorite-for-veep-sena

He was Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for W Bush. Yeah, the GOP is constantly showing how much they really do NOT give a shit about the deficit.

Asked what he thought about Romney being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ken Brooks said he teaches that Mormonism isn't Christianity. "He don't believe in the same Jesus that we do," Brooks said. "But he's better than voting for a Muslim."

FFS, I've been using that as a joke for months now. And these nuts Poe's law'ed it on me.
 

jaxword

Member
The evangelical turnout, I suspect, will be lower then normal this election.

"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, President Obama -- with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path."

— Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky
 
Rob Portman would do as much for Romney to win Ohio as Biden did for Obama to win Delaware.

Of course, DE is a much bluer state than OH is red (or blue), but the point is, if Romney wins Ohio, it won't be because of Rob Portman's immense popularity. He was just elected little over a year ago.
 
Rob Portman would do as much for Romney to win Ohio as Biden did for Obama to win Delaware.

Of course, DE is a much bluer state than OH is red (or blue), but the point is, if Romney wins Ohio, it won't be because of Rob Portman's immense popularity. He was just elected little over a year ago.

He's the safest pick they can think of. That's pretty much it.
 
"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, President Obama -- with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path."

— Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky

What the fuck?

What does 'extreme secularist' even mean? That's like 'extreme average' or 'extreme normal'.
 
Mia Love wins UT 4th district gop nom:

Mia Love pulled a major upset on Saturday, winning the Republican Party nomination in Utah’s 4th District, advancing to face U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson in November.

“Jim Matheson should be pretty frightened right now. He should be pretty scared,” she said after clinching the nomination. “He’s never gone against a candidate like me.”

Love who won 70.4 percent of the vote, said she was hoping for the outcome, but wasn’t making any bold predictions. Wimmer captured 29.6 percent of the vote.

Wimmer, a co-founder of the Patrick Henry Caucus, focused on states rights, had campaign for the office for more than a year, resigning his legislative seat to make his bid. He had broad legislative backing, the endorsement of Sen. Mike Lee, and the backing of legislators and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

But Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, had said coming into the convention that she was the front-runner.

“Today we have an opportunity to do something very special. Today we can start breaking a pattern,” Love exhorted delegates before the final vote. “Today we can start bringing Jim Matheson home. Elect one nominee today, so we can take this fight to Jim Matheson tomorrow.”

With the endorsement of her competitors — former Rep. Stephen Sandstrom and attorney Jay Cobb — and the backing of Mitt Romney’s son, Josh Romney, she managed to muster the 60 percent threshold needed to avoid a primary.

If elected to Congress, Love, the daughter of Haitian immigrants, would be the only black Republican woman in Congress.

Shurtleff, endorsing Wimmer before the final round of voting, urged delegates to back proven conservative.

“You have to please pick a person with a proven record who can beat Jim Matheson this fall. Not a novelty,” Shurtleff said.

The reference to Love as a “novelty” drew boos from many in the audience. A tearful Shurtleff said later that he apologized to Love for what he said was “a terrible choice of words.”

He said he was trying to draw a contrast between the the record of the newcomer Love and the more seasoned Wimmer.

“It breaks my heart,” said Shurtleff, who wrote a book about the life of Dred Scott. “I think anyone who knows me knows it hurts.”

Love declined to address the comment. Privately, a number of Republican insiders were fuming over the slight.

Wimmer said he will be back in politics, and later took to the stage in a show of support to endorse Love.

“I am surprised. We expected to do very well, but no regrets at all,” Wimmer said after the vote. “We ran a good race. I’m very proud of the people who supported me.”

Love has already won support from Republican House leaders. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.; and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the leading Republican budget hawk all gave money to Love early in her campaign.

Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Love would be a strong advocate for the “failed status quo in Washington.”

“Jim Matheson has changed and does not reflect the values of Utah families. He’s Obama’s biggest supporter in Utah, voted for his failed stimulus and opposes the repeal of ObamaCare,” Sessions said in a statement.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/53962059-64/love-jim-matheson-republican.html.csp
 
Did anybody watch Real-Time two nights ago?

What does Bill Maher mean that Obama and Romeney are "neck and neck"?

Obama's leading Romeney in the polls by more than 3 perecentage points and this is his low note.

Damn, democrats have such low voter turnout judging by those graphs. Not really surprising though.

Just think of how much less crazy our government could be if more of those Dem voters actually showed up on election day.

This is one of the huge issues with politics in the US. The left is very apathetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom