• 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.
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
E

eznark

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
Unions are going to concentrate on state, local races this time, field organization. They will pitch in for sure, not to extent GOP people are cutting checks for their SuperPACs though. They aren't running any ads against Romney or for Obama at the moment either. At this point, they are not involved in the GE.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it looks like they only have about $5m right now in that super pac. No wonder Obama isn't letting them spend any in Wisconsin.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Obama up 8 in Pennsylvania

PPP's newest Pennsylvania poll finds things have changed very little in the state over the course of the last ten weeks. Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney 50-42, basically the same as his 49-42 advantage there in early March.
Click to expand...
Not shocking.

Next month's fundraising numbers will be interesting. This month should be a wake up call to Dems. The question is whether they have anyone to wake up.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
I think the speediest way to assess if a political pundit is an idiot is by whether he ranks Pennsyvania as a swing state or not.
Click to expand...
It just depends on where you live. Allegheny County (and by that I mean mostly Pittsburgh and some other places scattered throughout suburbia nearby), some spots in central PA, and much of eastern PA will vote for Obama. Everywhere else is totally redneck.

You should hear a lot of the people at my office. I'm about 30 minutes outside of Pittsburgh and you'd think you were in the middle of Kentucky.

So, if you were not politically aware whatsoever and just basing your thoughts of Obama's chances here by how people are talking, you'd think he is going to lose the state.

This is part of the reason why the state GOP tried to gerrymander the EV's here; their intent is bullshit, but the one thing they were right about is how diverse the voting trends are here when you look at the breakdown after the election. They tried to capitalize on that (unfairly) and they failed.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Diablos said:
It just depends on where you live. Allegheny County (and by that I mean mostly Pittsburgh and some other places scattered throughout suburbia nearby), some spots in central PA, and much of eastern PA will vote for Obama. Everywhere else is totally redneck.

You should hear a lot of the people at my office. I'm about 30 minutes outside of Pittsburgh and you'd think you were in the middle of Kentucky.

So, if you were not politically aware whatsoever and just basing your thoughts of Obama's chances here by how people are talking, you'd think he is going to lose the state.

This is part of the reason why the state GOP tried to gerrymander the EV's here; their intent is bullshit, but the one thing they were right about is how diverse the voting trends are here when you look at the breakdown after the election. They tried to capitalize on that (unfairly) and they failed.
Click to expand...
There are regions of PA that are becoming more Republican, but the urban areas are becoming more Democratic, so as far as demographics go it's kind of a wash. Same with Ohio, though it's slightly more Republican than the US in general.

cartoon_soldier said:
I really hope people wake up. Obama is going to be swift boated this year, what we are seeing is just the beginning.
Click to expand...
It's really hard to be swiftboated when you're a known entity to 100% of the American electorate.

I'm not saying the dark money groups aren't anything to be worried about, but I have to believe they won't have much impact on Obama's chances. Look at the bullshit they're trying, like bringing back Reverend Wright or the AZ sec of state keeping him off the ballot because he believes the birth certificate is a forgery. If they're reduced to these shenanigans, it means they're not able to run on the economy anymore, which means game over for Romney.

What it might do is hurt Democrats down the ballot, particularly in red states, but hell, if the economy starts improving rapidly and Obama's winning by big numbers, it won't even matter. He's got good coattails.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Pennylvania Poll: Obama Up 8, Doubles Romney With Independent Voters

A new poll of Pennsylvania from Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling shows President Obama with an 8-point overall lead, 50 percent to 42 percent, built on large leads with women and independent voters. Obama leads women by 20 points in the poll, while Romney takes men by 5 points. Among independent voters, Obama gets 48 percent, while 24 percent go for Romney and the remaining voters are unsure.

“Our polling for most of last year suggested Pennsylvania could be very competitive in 2012,” said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling, said in a release. “But Barack Obama’s now looking more like the clear favorite to win the state again by a healthy margin as he did in 2008.”

The TPM Poll Average also shows President Obama with a solid 8.6 percent lead in the state.
Click to expand...
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/pa-poll-obama-up-8-doubles-romney-with

I wonder how pissed the Romney camp is over the Catholic church reviving the contraception farce
 
M

Manmademan

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
I really hope people wake up. Obama is going to be swift boated this year, what we are seeing is just the beginning.
Click to expand...

lol. one of the benefits of the "continuous campaign cycle" (maybe the ONLY benefit) is that the GOP has never actually stopped negative campaigning against Obama.

Literally everything they can think of has been tried at some point in the past 4 years and the electorate is just numb to it. The fact that they're going back to their "greatest hits" and trying the "obama isn't a US citizen!" tactic really tells you that there's really no effective way to "swift boat" the guy.

all they have is the economy, and if it continues to improve, even weakly so they'll have nothing.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Manmademan said:
lol. one of the benefits of the "continuous campaign cycle" (maybe the ONLY benefit) is that the GOP has never actually stopped negative campaigning against Obama.

Literally everything they can think of has been tried at some point in the past 4 years and the electorate is just numb to it. The fact that they're going back to their "greatest hits" and trying the "obama isn't a US citizen!" tactic really tells you that there's really no effective way to "swift boat" the guy.

all they have is the economy, and if it continues to improve, even weakly so they'll have nothing.
Click to expand...

They're getting quite desperate with Fast/Furious too. Non-stop negative ads certainly effect voters, but by now everyone has heard the typical stuff. Yet some on the far right seem to think if voters simply knew the REAL OBAMA they'd run for the hills. Newsflash: the dude has been president for four years, and most people like him even if they don't like his policies.

You'd think an undercover radical would have displayed some undeniable sign of extremism by now...but Obama just keeps being...well, Obama.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
SirButterstick said:
How's your kids doing, Kozmo?

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...o-newark-mayor-cory-booker-for-2002-campaign/
Click to expand...

lol. You literally can't write art as good as life, goddamn.

Diablos said:
It just depends on where you live. Allegheny County (and by that I mean mostly Pittsburgh and some other places scattered throughout suburbia nearby), some spots in central PA, and much of eastern PA will vote for Obama. Everywhere else is totally redneck.

You should hear a lot of the people at my office. I'm about 30 minutes outside of Pittsburgh and you'd think you were in the middle of Kentucky.

So, if you were not politically aware whatsoever and just basing your thoughts of Obama's chances here by how people are talking, you'd think he is going to lose the state.

This is part of the reason why the state GOP tried to gerrymander the EV's here; their intent is bullshit, but the one thing they were right about is how diverse the voting trends are here when you look at the breakdown after the election. They tried to capitalize on that (unfairly) and they failed.
Click to expand...

You can't dispatch from the bubble, yo. I work at an Army Depot in Pennsylvania and like 99% of all employees here are republican bull dogs. One attacked me violently for suggesting that a G.I. bill-type investment in America's people should be expanded for all Americans, saying I was "insulting every fucking veteran on the depot and that I better shut my fucking mouth now." I laughed in his face and told him he needs to listen better.

Pennsylvania is Obama's. It's so hilarious seeing Republicans at work saying he's going to lose PA.


PhoenixDark said:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/pa-poll-obama-up-8-doubles-romney-with

I wonder how pissed the Romney camp is over the Catholic church reviving the contraception farce
Click to expand...

Fox News spin this afternoon was something like "Obama must be furious the Catholic Church are the ones spearheading this issue, because instead of this now looking like a Republican War on Women, it looks like an Obama war on religion."
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Asked further about each candidate's character, voters seemed to favor Obama. They gave the Democratic incumbent higher marks on "understanding the economic problems people in this country are having" (48%-40%), as well as "has the better moral character to serve as president" (52%-38%).
Click to expand...


Kind of hard to swift-boat the guy when people look at Obama as an upstanding moral citizen.


There is legitimately only ONE attack on Obama that can gain any ground whatsoever with Independents, and that is, that He's just not up for the task at hand. He's a great guy, but he's just not "____________" enough to be an effective President.


Of course, Mitt Romney has to show that he is up for the task at hand, and that's why they're attacking Mitt's Bain record. It's not just about the jobs lost, that adds the emotional element, but what it also does is highlight his failures (Bankrupt companies) and the fact that his business experience is apples and oranges when compared to the economic skills / responsibilities of a president.


The main way that The Republican machine can win is off of tactics...voter registration suppression, redistricting, PAC money, etc...and not by making the country despise / hate / lose respect for Obama the way they did with Kerry, Dukakis, etc.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Now Democrats themselves ask Dem SuperPAC donors to wake the fuck up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/dscc-senate-democrats-super-pac_n_1536325.html

While Democratic Senate candidates have about $50 million more in the bank overall than their Republican counterparts, they have been outspent by a factor of nearly three to one -- $29.1 million to $9.3 million -- in the advertising wars, largely thanks to the outside groups and super PACs willing to spend unlimited amounts of money.
Click to expand...

Outspend almost 3-1, that is bad for Democrats in house and Senate too.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Aaron Strife said:
If there wasn't a net negative effect on our society at large, I'd enjoy the irony in religious black people using the Bible to suppress other minorities in the same way whites used the Bible to suppress blacks in the slavery/Jim Crow eras.

SIGH.

My only hope is that the votes in MN, MD, ME, and WA fail, succeed, succeed, and succeed, respectively. For me, personally, I feel there's more at stake than the Obama v. Romney, Democrats v. Republicans bullshit. This is peoples' lives.
Click to expand...


I'm curious.....how did racist white people use the Bible to suppress black people in the slavery/Jim Crow era?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Vahagn said:
Kind of hard to swift-boat the guy when people look at Obama as an upstanding moral citizen.


There is legitimately only ONE attack on Obama that can gain any ground whatsoever with Independents, and that is, that He's just not up for the task at hand. He's a great guy, but he's just not "____________" enough to be an effective President.


Of course, Mitt Romney has to show that he is up for the task at hand, and that's why they're attacking Mitt's Bain record. It's not just about the jobs lost, that adds the emotional element, but what it also does is highlight his failures (Bankrupt companies)


The main way that The Republican machine can win is off of tactics...voter registration suppression, redistricting, PAC money, etc.
Click to expand...
Which is why Obama's camp better be working on informing voters about voter ID laws - not just registering them to vote. From what i understand they have been doing this in many states, but who knows how effective it is thus far.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Which is why Obama's camp better be working on informing voters about voter ID laws - not just registering them to vote. From what i understand they have been doing this in many states, but who knows how effective it is thus far.
Click to expand...

Let's see.

http://web.stagram.com/tag/regtovote/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/7218127948/

Weekend%20of%20action%20Saturday%20tweet.jpg


20120518%20MT.jpg


Jacqui560.jpg


You just need to go to Obama's site and you would see they are spending more time on the site getting volunteers, registering voters and also setup a site to help people see what they need to vote in each state.

http://gottavote.org/en/NC/?source=GottaVote-20120517-HP
 
E

el retorno

Member
mckmas8808 said:
I'm curious.....how did racist white people use the Bible to suppress black people in the slavery/Jim Crow era?
Click to expand...
Genesis 24:1-4 (NIV): Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. He said to the chief servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac."


Leviticus 25:42,25:44-46 (NIV): "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves ... Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.


Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.


The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.


What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans, but many Democrats too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Click to Play
Like in 2004, energizing the basewill drive political victory
President Barack Obama doesn't normally dwell on similarities to his predecessor in the Oval Office, but Jerry Seib explains one area where Obama and George W. Bush have an awful lot in common. (Photo: Getty Images)

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well under way. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s’ health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per-capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!
Click to expand...


MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


MW-AR657_federa_20120521151828_ME.jpg


Link

Ahahahaha Once again, Republicans defeated by logic, facts, and reality.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
Unions are going to concentrate on state, local races this time, field organization. They will pitch in for sure, not to extent GOP people are cutting checks for their SuperPACs though. They aren't running any ads against Romney or for Obama at the moment either. At this point, they are not involved in the GE.
Click to expand...
Even if the focus primarily on local and state elections, the benefits of union organization will reverberate. Virtually, the advertisements will neutralize. But unions provide ancillary benefits through existing organizations with an array of volunteers which Republican Super PACs lack. And given that the Obama campaign effectively utilized unions in bolstering canvassing in 2008, I'd expect a similar advantage.
Invisible_Insane said:
Dead on. I think the idea that Republicans specifically opposed Elizabeth Warren as head of CFPB is a profound misreading of the history that ignores their intransigence on all the other nominees mentioned here, and that's without even taking judicial nominees into consideration. But I think this also exposes just how wrong the idea that Obama "went to bat" for Warren is; given that he was going to have to strongarm someone into heading CFPB, Warren would have been just as easy to recess appoint as Cordray.
Click to expand...
Right. Republican obduracy has been fairly indiscriminate. The GOP would have obstructed the appointment irrespective of the appointee. Moreover, she was not uniformly adulated by Democrats. Perhaps Obama determined her appointment was not worth the political capital. Regardless, I agree. The notion he went to bat is erroneous.
eznark said:
lol at any politician being motivated by serving the public good
Click to expand...
200px-Cincinnatus_statue.jpg
 
B

Bulbo Urethral Baggins

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
This is why you shouldn't debate with right wingers confirmed.

Edit:
Primary results tonight won't be kind on Obama
Click to expand...
Yep. We prefer facts over pathetic spin.

Noticed this wasn't highlighted:
By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans, but many Democrats too) stopped him
Click to expand...
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Yep. We prefer facts over pathetic spin.

Noticed this wasn't highlighted:
Click to expand...

How in the world is math spin?


Jesus Christ...the intelligent voter knows that most Republicans have left office with more spending, and bigger debts than the office they took. They've also raised Taxes. The only person who's actually balanced the budget in half a century at the end of his office is Clinton, and before you go all crediting the Republican Congress...Bush Sr. Bush Jr. and Reagan also had Republican Congresses for parts of their Presidency too.



The math just doesn't measure up with Republican spin
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
NBC/WSJ's May poll has Obama by four points, 47/43.

Doom.

In the newest poll, Obama leads Romney among African Americans (88 percent to 2 percent), 18 to 34 year olds (55 percent to 35 percent), women (53 percent to 38 percent), independents (44 percent to 36 percent), and seniors (46 percent to 44 percent).

Romney, meanwhile, holds the advantage with whites (52 percent to 39 percent), men (49 percent to 40 percent), suburban residents (47 percent to 41 percent), Midwest residents (48 percent to 43 percent), and high-interest voters (47 percent to 44 percent).
Click to expand...
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
TacticalFox88 said:
MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg


MW-AR657_federa_20120521151828_ME.jpg


Link

Ahahahaha Once again, Republicans defeated by logic, facts, and reality.
Click to expand...

The comments (and apparently Bulbo, too!) are gold.

"If spending is going down, then why is the debt still going UP??! And what the hell does revenue have to do with anything?!"
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Wow, watching Rendell backpedal on his comments. Wtf is going with the democrats!? That wall street money really goes far.
 
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