• 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.
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
AlteredBeast said:
I would love for there to be a Politifact for talk radio hosts.

If I had unlimited time, money, and resources, that is all I would do.

I absolutely detest Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, and this new chick I heard on the last couple weekends, Monica Crowley, is possibly the worst. The amount of misinformation, outright lies, and fear that they spread is so utterly detestable. It would be nice to inform their audiences, through some clever hacking courtesy of Anonymous or some other hacking group to gain email distribution lists, about how much absolute garbage they preach.

I get angry listening to most of them, while still enjoying a couple others, because of how inane and hostile they are, especially as a real conservative. They are making all conservatives look like dirt bags.
Click to expand...

Making 'Real Conservatives' look like dirt bags? Those lying right wing entertainers who make you angry are the ones responsible for the dissemination of the course of right wing politics, and it's not by accident. They are not there to inform you. They are trained and directed by the various right wing think tanks (Heritage, AEI, etc), who are the real power players in right wing politics. Rush, Hannity, Ingraham etc. are the ones with the influence, without having to worry about re-election. Conservative politicians are beholden to them, and they fall in line.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
Making 'Real Conservatives' look like dirt bags? Those lying right wing entertainers who make you angry are the ones responsible for the dissemination of the course of right wing politics, and it's not by accident. They are not there to inform you. They are trained and directed by the various right wing think tanks (Heritage, AEI, etc), who are the real power players in right wing politics. Rush, Hannity, Ingraham etc. are the ones with the influence, without having to worry about re-election. Conservative politicians are beholden to them, and they fall in line.
Click to expand...

This is new information.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
It certainly seemed like it would be to you, from reading your post. Indignation over how they make Real Conservatives look? LOL
Click to expand...

There are good ones, or even ones that don't spread fear and lies 24/7 (although some of that might be part of their shtick, as it is most people who try to persuade the masses), but these three are the worst I have ever heard, especially Levin and Crowley. Down right lies and retardation.
 
M

mcgruber

Member
Plinko said:
That's going to be my favorite part of a Romney victory in the GOP primaries.

As for the Romney/Obama polling, I wouldn't trust a poll like that yet. Romney is still winning over his base in the primaries.

As always, the GOP candidate will start to come toward the center a bit during the general election and that usually changes the public's view of him a touch.
Click to expand...

LOL. i hope this is poorly worded. candidates of both parties drift towards the center for general election.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
AlteredBeast said:
There are good ones, or even ones that don't spread fear and lies 24/7 (although some of that might be part of their shtick, as it is most people who try to persuade the masses), but these three are the worst I have ever heard, especially Levin and Crowley. Down right lies and retardation.
Click to expand...

Which are the good ones?
 
M

mcgruber

Member
Opiate said:
I still believe the economy will be Romney's only line of attack. What other grounds would he attack Obama on? Foreign policy is clearly a non-starter, in my opinion. Keep in mind that I'm only talking politically; I don't mean that Obama hasn't made any mistakes militarily, just that very few of those can be capitalized on for political gain unless you want to take a libertarian angle (which, again, would not be politically successful).

His economic mistakes, however, can be capitalized on. At least, they can right now. But if unemployment is below 8% in October? And the trend is clearly downward? Whatever mistakes he's made will be much more difficult to sieze upon.

It's much easier to say, "Look at how bad the economy is!" than it is to say, "Well, the economy is doing pretty well now, but it could be doing even better if it weren't for Obama!"
Click to expand...

natural rate of unemployment is around 5%, 7-8% is still pretty bad. those first 3 years of unemployment numbers won't be erased and, depending on how the GOP pushes the majority of the numbers, it couldn't be too hard to seize upon those 10% numbers
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
mcgruber said:
natural rate of unemployment is around 5%, 7-8% is still pretty bad. those first 3 years of unemployment numbers won't be erased and, depending on how the GOP pushes the majority of the numbers, it couldn't be too hard to seize upon those 10% numbers
Click to expand...

Direction matters far more than the actual state of the economy.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
mcgruber said:
natural rate of unemployment is around 5%, 7-8% is still pretty bad. those first 3 years of unemployment numbers won't be erased and, depending on how the GOP pushes the majority of the numbers, it couldn't be too hard to seize upon those 10% numbers
Click to expand...

The rate of change historically has more impact than the actual rate.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
I really don't see how Romney drifts to the center after the loops he jumped through to win the nomination

-Embracing the Ryan budget
-Suggesting illegal immigrants in the US go back to their country and apply for citizenship
-Opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan withdrawals
etc

Good luck with Hispanics, Mitt
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
mcgruber said:
LOL. i hope this is poorly worded. candidates of both parties drift towards the center for general election.
Click to expand...

That was worded correctly, as we were talking about ONLY the GOP candidate being in the primaries at the time. Of course both candidates move toward the center.

Why would I need to mention Obama if we were only talking about Romney?

"LOL," indeed.
 
M

mcgruber

Member
Plinko said:
That was worded correctly, as we were talking about ONLY the GOP candidate being in the primaries at the time. Of course both candidates move toward the center.

Why would I need to mention Obama if we were only talking about Romney?

"LOL," indeed.
Click to expand...

you said as always, which gave it a certain tone that only the gop drifts center.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Romney is already going to get HAMMERED on flip-flopping. If he attempts to move from any more of his positions now he will never hear the end of it.

But then again, the guy doesn't seem like he's capable of being a decent candidate, so I fully expect him to try and "move to the center." lol
 
M

Measley

Junior Member
mcgruber said:
natural rate of unemployment is around 5%, 7-8% is still pretty bad. those first 3 years of unemployment numbers won't be erased and, depending on how the GOP pushes the majority of the numbers, it couldn't be too hard to seize upon those 10% numbers
Click to expand...

The problem for the GOP is that the majority of Americans acknowledge that the economy was a disaster before the president took office, and don't blame him (completely) for it.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
mcgruber said:
you said as always, which gave it a certain tone that only the gop drifts center.
Click to expand...

The GOP is a lot more prone to it, and the reasons should be obvious.

The tea party and far (religious) right tend to vote in numbers out of proportion to their actual percentage of the republican party in the primary. This has been the case for a long time now, so GOP candidates find themselves running as far right as possible to placate them, THEN having to backtrack in the general to appeal to independents and moderates. Remember how fast Rick Perry got torn apart for stating what was essentially a reasonable position on immigrant benefits in his state? even though it's something he obviously believed in, he was forced to back off or see his candidacy go down in flames even faster than it eventually did.

Democrats do not have a "far left" dominating their primaries- a far left exists (OWS) but is nowhere near as organized and doesn't vote in large numbers. So there's less need to "run far left then move to the center". Obama in 08 campaigned as a moderate democrat in the primaries and (surprise!) ran as a moderate democrat in the general. The same could be said of Hillary, Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. None of them had anything resembling a platform catering to the far left- the only candidate I can think of that bothered was MAYBE dennis kucinich.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
In light of Congressional Republicans’ abandonment of a key part of the debt limit agreement, two senior administration officials briefing reporters at the White House Monday said automatic, across the board cuts to defense programs will happen as scheduled unless Republicans relent on their refusal to raise revenues.

The officials conducted the briefing under the condition that they not be quoted directly, but their position was unambiguous — the White House will not support any effort to swap out scheduled cuts to defense programs (and other automatic cuts) unless Congress passes a balanced package of deficit reducing legislation of equal or greater measure. That means new tax revenue from wealthy Americans and corporate interests, which Republicans have routinely refused to consider.

This doesn’t constitute a change in the White House’s position. But the renewed declaration is significant given a growing push among GOP members and their leaders for annulling those cuts.
Click to expand...

I don't see the White House giving in on this issue during an election year. We will see who blinks first.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
ClovingSteam said:
I don't see the White House giving in on this issue during an election year. We will see who blinks first.
Click to expand...

absolutely not. Democrats have everything to lose and nothing to gain by capitulating to republicans again.

And on the flip side, Republicans will look like assholes for backing out of their own compromise if they don't implement the defense cuts. But it looks like they're dead set on doing it anyway, making it REALLY easy for Obama (and the democratic committee) to point to republicans in congress as the reason why government is so dysfunctional.

It would be hilarious if these people weren't actually running MY country.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/white-house-to-gop-only-one-way-around-defense-cuts----and-youre-not-gonna-like-it.php

The officials conducted the briefing under the condition that they not be quoted directly, but their position was unambiguous — the White House will not support any effort to swap out scheduled cuts to defense programs (and other automatic cuts) unless Congress passes a balanced package of deficit reducing legislation of equal or greater measure.
Click to expand...

I have to say, it's really starting to feel like Obama was thinking 2 steps ahead of the GOP this whole time. He's painted them into a corner on so many fronts now, from health care, to tax cuts, and especially defense. He's weakened their ability to attack him on almost every position that's usually central to the left vs right debate.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Manmademan said:
absolutely not. Democrats have everything to lose and nothing to gain by capitulating to republicans again.

And on the flip side, Republicans will look like assholes for backing out of their own compromise if they don't implement the defense cuts. But it looks like they're dead set on doing it anyway, making it REALLY easy for Obama (and the democratic committee) to point to republicans in congress as the reason why government is so dysfunctional.

It would be hilarious if these people weren't actually running MY country.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is how the administration is coming out against doing away with the cuts in a public way, putting pressure on any Democratic Senators who are looking to join the Republicans. If they know that Obama is vetoing any compromise (barring a Veto-proof majority), it's less likely that Dems will negotiate with Republicans to do away with the cuts. Republicans are in a very delicate position and they know it. It's an election year and on one hand they would be crucified by their constituents by voting for tax increases but on the other hand they're going to feel the pain from the general populace if they renege on their deal. Interesting times.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Republicans will walk away from the deal, triggering automatic cuts into defense, whenceforth they will simply blame Obama for weakening America and hating the military.
 
P

planar1280

Banned
yikes

huUHz.jpg
 
W

WowBaby

Member
Aww, Karl Rove didn't like the Clint Eastwood ad.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/06/karl-rove-clint-eastwood-super-bowl-chrysler-commercial/

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” Rove stated about the ad that suggests that America’s “second half is about to begin,” adding, “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they’ll never pay back.”
Click to expand...
 
C

Crisco

Banned
RustyNails said:
Republicans will walk away from the deal, triggering automatic cuts into defense, whenceforth they will simply blame Obama for weakening America and hating the military.
Click to expand...

Normally, that's exactly what they would do. But they can't sell that bullshit line against Obama. Not after a decade of perpetual wars that people are sick of. Not after bin-Laden, Libya, and all the drone strikes against al-Qaeda. Obama has built up an iron clad resume showing his strength on national security that any attack along those lines from the GOP would be viewed as pathetic by most of the public. They are in a lose-lose-lose situation politically on this one, as long as the White House holds its ground.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Crisco said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/white-house-to-gop-only-one-way-around-defense-cuts----and-youre-not-gonna-like-it.php



I have to say, it's really starting to feel like Obama was thinking 2 steps ahead of the GOP this whole time. He's painted them into a corner on so many fronts now, from health care, to tax cuts, and especially defense. He's weakened their ability to attack him on almost every position that's usually central to the left vs right debate.
Click to expand...

Everytime a liberal writes a gloating article about this, the WH caves within days. I'm tired of the 11th dimensional chess meme.

For all the partisan bickering, the house and senate are run with a lot of gentlemen agreements, mutual respect, etc. Boehner and Co. threw that out the window with regards to these cuts, and I'm not sure Reid/Pelosi saw it coming. They can cry over the cuts all they want, but I don't see republicans getting much traction on this issue. Not only does Obama best them on foreign policy trust, he also gets to cut a few billion from the deficit and claim responsibility.

Just ten years ago a republican congress would have come to the table on this issue to avoid military cuts. It shows just how extremist the party has become - well, perhaps that's not fair: it shows the party is being run by extremists. I think Boehner is a traditional republican. He does he job, plays some golf, does favors for his corporate buddies, and calls it a day. The tea party extremists make it hard for him to do his job, hence the endless headaches. They're going to lose on this issue.

If the WH was smart they'd continue with the "don't fuck muck up the recovery" rhetoric/taunts. This type of "unprecedented" act is just the thing to rile up the extremists enough to further revolt against Boehner on the payroll tax issue, so we get a repeat of that disaster.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Everytime a liberal writes a gloating article about this, the WH caves within days. I'm tired of the 11th dimensional chess meme.

For all the partisan bickering, the house and senate are run with a lot of gentlemen agreements, mutual respect, etc. Boehner and Co. threw that out the window with regards to these cuts, and I'm not sure Reid/Pelosi saw it coming. They can cry over the cuts all they want, but I don't see republicans getting much traction on this issue. Not only does Obama best them on foreign policy trust, he also gets to cut a few billion from the deficit and claim responsibility.
Click to expand...

It sure took some time for it to sink in. But I think at this point in the game it finally has, which is why the cuts were mandated as part of the bill. If they were going to cave on it, they would have done so while the enforcement mechanics were being formulated. I don't see that happening now that they are about to sping into action.

I don't see this as them thinking two steps ahead or whatever. I think Obama and company just (finally!) realized the GOP wasn't negotiating in good faith and decided to put something into place in order to force it. The enforcement was there because they expected the GOP to walk away from it - now the Boehner and company have to either negotiate, or deal with the consequences.

This is one of the few time when I'm not expecting Obama to cave.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
planar1280 said:
yikes

huUHz.jpg
Click to expand...

Holy SHIT.

Do that for Obama with mouth agape, jaw slightly cocked, ultra-contrast, zoomed to the point of being slightly out of focus, and watch people scream racism.

Ridiculous. As bad as Bachmann creeper-cover and I am about as far away from a Bachmann supporter as humanly possible.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
planar1280 said:
Seriously Guys I am becoming afraid of Romney now...over 33,000 GOP members caucased all over Nevada with Romney winning an Astounding 16000+ . Can he really build on the momentum?!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too worried about that. Guy is under performing compared to 2008. Votes for Romney are as follows:
cfvsv.png

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/calendar

And these results are after 4 years of running for president and having a weak field.
 
C

Chumly

Member
Miletius said:
Just another reason why Michigan is safe territory for Democrats this year.



Read more at the link. I don't really see how anybody running for office could think that this kind of ad is a good idea. If it isn't viewed as explicitly racist by Hoekstra, it will certainly be viewed that way by a segment of the public.
Click to expand...

Just saw this on my local news. How big of an idiot is this guy? Hes defending it by saying that people are trying to deflect from the real issue?
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
AlteredBeast said:
how is that underperforming? It looks like he is doing better...?
Click to expand...

Doing better relative to what? He did not improve in Iowa. He won New Hampshire due to being a former governor of a border state as well as the moderate of choice. He still lost South Carolina after increasing his tally by 250% from 4 years ago. Even McCain won South Carolina. He picked up Florida because he was the only moderate in a weak field. He lost significant ground in Nevada compared to four years ago. Totally skating by. If Rick Perry had been more credible, then these results would have been more interesting.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Dr. Pangloss said:
Doing better relative to what? He did not improve in Iowa. He won New Hampshire due to being a former governor of a border state as well as the moderate of choice. He still lost South Carolina after increasing his tally by 250% from 4 years ago. Even McCain won South Carolina. He picked up Florida because he was the only moderate in a weak field. He lost significant ground in Nevada compared to four years ago. Totally skating by. If Rick Perry had been more credible, then these results would have been more interesting.
Click to expand...


LOL.

He lost 4 out of 5 states in 2008, he has won or tied 4 out of 5 in this election, with vote totals in 3 out of 5 far exceeding the 2008 totals, yet he is underperforming this year compared to then... Your reasoning and logic belongs on talk radio.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
AlteredBeast said:
LOL.

He lost 4 out of 5 states in 2008, he has won or tied 4 out of 5 in this election, with vote totals in 3 out of 5 far exceeding the 2008 totals, yet he is underperforming this year compared to then... Your reasoning and logic belongs on talk radio.
Click to expand...

And you need to expand your variables instead of looking at one slot like vote totals. First thing you are not even considering was that another moderate was running, John McCain. This moderate took New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. Romney could only take two of those. Also, at the time McCain was chosen for his foreign policy expertise because people thought the election would be about finishing the Iraq war. It wasn't till the end of summer that economy became important. Now that it is, people are still hesitant to choose their go to guy in Romney as seen in South Carolina.

Another thing you completely ignore is the strength of the field from 2008 compared to 2012. When we get to Florida, Romney had Huckabee and more than 4 other candidates to contend against in 2008. This year he has Gingrich. Which do you believe was the more competitive year? Instead of being dismissive, why don't you think about what is going on instead of looking at vote totals? Romney should be doing leagues better this year due to a weak field, and the economy being his forte. Instead he lost support in Nevada, and the whole Republican base has yet to rally around him.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
AlteredBeast said:
LOL.

He lost 4 out of 5 states in 2008, he has won or tied 4 out of 5 in this election, with vote totals in 3 out of 5 far exceeding the 2008 totals, yet he is underperforming this year compared to then... Your reasoning and logic belongs on talk radio.
Click to expand...

He won or tied 4/5? Huh? Are you following the same election we are?



Also, some of you keep forgetting that theres no some GOP or democrat master plan. The whole defense cutting thing is because the GOP is split in half.

Half want 100% cuts on everything. IE: The ron paul side.
Half want 100% increases in military, IE: the corporate military handout side
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Mike M said:
He could arguably be underperforming by a dollars spent/vote metric.
Click to expand...

Probably the only sane way to look at it. He is the front runner and is on track to become the GOP nominee. In 2008, he was not the front runner, had also spent boatloads of cash, and only won a few states with mostly smaller delegate counts and was out before the convention.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
AlteredBeast said:
LOL.

He lost 4 out of 5 states in 2008, he has won or tied 4 out of 5 in this election, with vote totals in 3 out of 5 far exceeding the 2008 totals, yet he is underperforming this year compared to then... Your reasoning and logic belongs on talk radio.
Click to expand...
Iowa and NH saw only 2 or 3% voter turnout increase since 2008. Romney only wins one.
FL and NV see double digit voter turnout decrease since 2008. This should send red alarms blaring at RNC headquarters, and Romney wins both decisively.
South Carolina sees voter turnout increase threefold. Romney loses SC to Gingrich.

Instead of looking at absolute greater than or less than votes, look at what voters are trying to tell you. Conservative base is fired up (Iowa and South Carolina), and they don't like Romney. Battleground states (Florida and Nevada) are having trouble getting the vote out for Romney. Voters in liberal states (New Hampshire) like their "Massachusetts moderate", but that's no help in General Election because those states ultimately are deep blue.

Granted it's early in the primary season, but this is what all indicators are pointing to.
 
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