cartoon_soldier
Member
It is being said on the basis of us entering another summer economic slump.
Nate Silver himself said Obama needs a minimum of 125-150k of jobs gain per month to win re-election
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
It is being said on the basis of us entering another summer economic slump.
Nate Silver himself said Obama needs a minimum of 125-150k of jobs gain per month to win re-election
PhoenixDark
Banned
There's no way we average 100k from May-August
total debt matters because the higher your total debt, the higher your interest payment, and you NEED to pay off your interest payment if you want to keep a good credit ranking.
You can't know that.
He's speculating. Silver's abilities are at its worse when he's working without any data. His own computer model doesn't suggest anything like that.
SouthernDragon
Member
That's because the GOP keeps spitting on us.
Debt doesn't cause inflation its monetary policy by the fed that does.
The country loses no matter who wins, I may as well get a chuckle out of it. (and yeah, I'd throw Bush post 9/11 into embarrassments as well).
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Asking about debt seems like one of those questions that is answered with...even more questions.
Ultimately debt does matter, because it is one of the most effective talking points for an opponent to get you out of office. Both parties have used it effectively for the past 30-40 years to illustrate how the party in power is inept or "out of control". Conversely, people use it as a measuring stick to show how effective a President/party is. We have multiple generations that have been taught/scared that this debt is going to bankrupt future generations. This foreboding sense of dread is almost as palpable as the dread produced from the Cold War.
How do we determine which governors are "good"? By the amount of debt their state has during their tenure and/or how strong the economy is. Granted, state debt is wildly different than federal debt .. but it's still the measure(s) we use to reward politicians.
So until that paradigm changes, debt will matter now and into the future. It doesn't matter what economists like Krugman and his ilk have to say.
How do we determine which governors are "good"? By the amount of debt their state has during their tenure and/or how strong the economy is. Granted, state debt is wildly different than federal debt .. but it's still the measure(s) we use to reward politicians.
So until that paradigm changes, debt will matter now and into the future. It doesn't matter what economists like Krugman and his ilk have to say.
TacticalFox88
Banned
So Romney winning would be the exact same as Obama winning? Riiiight.
How did you get to that from what I said?
But Krugman has never said debt doesn't matter. He has said taking on new debt to stimulate the economy during a liquidity trap where there is low aggregate demand doesn't matter (and won't cause inflation). He has said over and over that long term debt matters.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The economy would be better off with Romeny considering he could get some spending bills passed
Zero Hero
Member
So the senate will only pass spending bills with a repub as prez? :lol
That's rich.
You are probably right considering fiscally conservative means voting against Dem initiatives.
planar1280
Banned
The Irony: GOP says low public sector job growth means Obama is not doing enough. GOPs whole ideology is less government. #logicfail
GOP doesn't even seem to support making people work for welfare anymore. They just want to cut funds off entirely.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Caught up with the thread from last night. First thought:
whoever said that if 2004 can happen, anything can happen is mostly right. But that's using the logic of everything we should throw out in elections! Was the President a leader, did he get stuff done, has he embarrassed the nation, how did he respond to crises, stuff like that. All nonsense. It comes down to tolerable economics and a terrible opponent.
The question this season is if we can believe the economy is tolerable (I think it is, actually) and whether his opponent is better than Kerry was in 2004 (I don't think he is).
Yes, the "if Bush/Cheney can get reelected after THAT nonsense, anything can happen!" line of thought is awfully tempting. But I'm not sure it holds if we assume economic direction and opponent's campaign are taken into account. That should give Dems some hope this season, I think. The economy really is getting better, even if it is at a snail's pace, and Romney really is the worst possible GOP candidate they could field following the Tea Party/Occupy movements.
I'm more nervous than I was previously and while I can imagine a path for Romney to win, it still -- STILL -- doesn't look likely. The economy is bad but it isn't that bad, and Obama's leadership has been somewhat questionable, but it's not "rich guy cutting taxes for himself while firing poor people" terrible in terms of optics. Framed that way, does Romney have a chance?
whoever said that if 2004 can happen, anything can happen is mostly right. But that's using the logic of everything we should throw out in elections! Was the President a leader, did he get stuff done, has he embarrassed the nation, how did he respond to crises, stuff like that. All nonsense. It comes down to tolerable economics and a terrible opponent.
The question this season is if we can believe the economy is tolerable (I think it is, actually) and whether his opponent is better than Kerry was in 2004 (I don't think he is).
Yes, the "if Bush/Cheney can get reelected after THAT nonsense, anything can happen!" line of thought is awfully tempting. But I'm not sure it holds if we assume economic direction and opponent's campaign are taken into account. That should give Dems some hope this season, I think. The economy really is getting better, even if it is at a snail's pace, and Romney really is the worst possible GOP candidate they could field following the Tea Party/Occupy movements.
I'm more nervous than I was previously and while I can imagine a path for Romney to win, it still -- STILL -- doesn't look likely. The economy is bad but it isn't that bad, and Obama's leadership has been somewhat questionable, but it's not "rich guy cutting taxes for himself while firing poor people" terrible in terms of optics. Framed that way, does Romney have a chance?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
RE: today's Obama gaffe -
I don't get it at all. He was pointing out that rich fuckers like Romney aren't suffering. "The private sector is fine." He's right. It wasn't fine when he took office, but it's more less fine now. The problem, and this is where GOP ops are fucking brilliant, is how they intentionally stretch the meaning of "private" to mean "the economy."
I think the whole thing is stupid and it's not a real gaffe. Gaffes, to me, are when candidates accidentally reveal some part of themselves that reinforces a terrible stereotype, like when Romney said he doesn't care about poor people (even taken out of context he was suggesting he isn't worried about them because of the safety nets, nevermind that he intends to cut those same nets).
This gaffe doesn't stick, at all. I could be wrong, but there's no way they can pin this on the guy that saved the auto industry.
I mean, if I was a dem operative, I sure as fuck wouldn't let that happen.
I don't get it at all. He was pointing out that rich fuckers like Romney aren't suffering. "The private sector is fine." He's right. It wasn't fine when he took office, but it's more less fine now. The problem, and this is where GOP ops are fucking brilliant, is how they intentionally stretch the meaning of "private" to mean "the economy."
I think the whole thing is stupid and it's not a real gaffe. Gaffes, to me, are when candidates accidentally reveal some part of themselves that reinforces a terrible stereotype, like when Romney said he doesn't care about poor people (even taken out of context he was suggesting he isn't worried about them because of the safety nets, nevermind that he intends to cut those same nets).
This gaffe doesn't stick, at all. I could be wrong, but there's no way they can pin this on the guy that saved the auto industry.
I mean, if I was a dem operative, I sure as fuck wouldn't let that happen.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The real story of the day is the ongoing Syria/Iran thing, in which some part of Obama's admin leaked the story that they conducting cyber attacks against potentially nuclear-producing targets.
This is a huge story. Maybe I'm a wild-eyed liberal, but I saw fear in Obama's eyes today, and not because he's afraid of some other nation state, but because he's thisclose to making a significant, world-changing decision about attacking Iran. I could be very wrong, but I think this leak, whether he knew about it or not, was a last ditch effort to avoid going in.
And if Iran flares up, god knows what happens in the general. My perspective is that nobody on the planet would trust Romney with international matters, since he appears as informed as Sarah Palin on the matter.
This could be the summer surprise.
This is a huge story. Maybe I'm a wild-eyed liberal, but I saw fear in Obama's eyes today, and not because he's afraid of some other nation state, but because he's thisclose to making a significant, world-changing decision about attacking Iran. I could be very wrong, but I think this leak, whether he knew about it or not, was a last ditch effort to avoid going in.
And if Iran flares up, god knows what happens in the general. My perspective is that nobody on the planet would trust Romney with international matters, since he appears as informed as Sarah Palin on the matter.
This could be the summer surprise.
cartoon_soldier
Member
You think the Media is actually interested in proper story reporting?
A sound bite rules the airwaves
A sound bite rules the airwaves
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I don't know. I don't view "media" as a singular entity.
RustyNails
Member
Unlike Iraq's old rulers, Iran's rulers are at least competent when it comes to the outside world. The Ayatollahs are smart enough to understand how quickly things can change in the middle east, so they value self-preservation (and their power structure) more than the ruling generals and colonels of past from neighboring countries who mistakenly thought the revolution from 50 years ago was still alive. What I'm trying to say is Iran knows it's limits. They also know that idiots like Romney and McCain are far, far worse alternatives to Obama when it comes to dealing with Iran. Of course they don't tell that to their citizenry in order to keep the Big Satan narrative alive. But in any case, Iran will not sabotage US presidential politics knowingly. Now if Israel pre-emptively strikes Iran (for whatever reason), that is a known unknown.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I don't necessarily believe that they believe/acknowledge that a McCain/Romney type is supposedly worse for their existence.
There's an old meme that has been buried for a while, but you see it in women's studies circles, in which they profess that the first woman president will be a republican -- and the first woman president will likely be the one to press the "red button" at the slightest provocation to avoid any label of conciliation. I think the same meme applies generally to liberals -- Obama/Clinton is far more likely to end the existence of an empire than would Romney. Just a thought.
There's an old meme that has been buried for a while, but you see it in women's studies circles, in which they profess that the first woman president will be a republican -- and the first woman president will likely be the one to press the "red button" at the slightest provocation to avoid any label of conciliation. I think the same meme applies generally to liberals -- Obama/Clinton is far more likely to end the existence of an empire than would Romney. Just a thought.
Invisible_Insane
Member
The assertion was that Paul is within the mainstream of Republican politics. I think, based on his voting record (so far, the data for the 112 obviously won't be complete for a few more months), it should be clear that he isn't. No one denies that the Republican party has shifted rightward quite radically in the past several years, but Paul and Coburn have both managed to maintain extraordinarily conservative voting records despite that shift. I'm not really sure what argument to advance here other than one of definition: it cannot simultaneously be the case that one has a voting record that makes you an outlier in your party and yet be in the mainstream. Bernie Sanders is no more in the mainstream of the Democratic party than Joe Manchin.
-//- (I'm unabashedly stealing this from TA)
It's almost new thread time. Titles, anyone?
PoliGAF |OT| Douche v. Turd Sandwich II: You decide who's which.
Hillary will not press the button.
PoliGAF |OT| Campaign Mode! because the country can probably run itself for 5 months.
Poligaf |OT| This Thread Is Doing Just Fine Without Cops and Firefighters
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Do we really want a snappy title? Or do we merely push the needle one step further on the OT count?
EDIT - especially since there will be an election focused thread in OT (if we don't, then this thread will get put into the sales archive as punishment!)
EDIT - especially since there will be an election focused thread in OT (if we don't, then this thread will get put into the sales archive as punishment!)
RustyNails
Member
PoliGAF 2012 |OT| Romney vs Romney vs Obama
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I vote for this
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
If we do go that way, I would say the formatting for the threads should be:
PoliGAF |OT#| - Snappy comment here
PoliGAF |OT#| - Snappy comment here
PhoenixDark
Banned
PoliGAF |OT| How's that hope n change working out for ya
Of course, because we know all spending bills are the same.
PoliGAF |OT| PD's Super happy fun time Jamboree
cartoon_soldier
Member
PoliGAF |OT| Brought you by Drudge Report and PD
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
PoliGAF |OT| 2012 Presidential Erection
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
PoliGAF |OT2| PD Wins Either Way
I like this.
Ooooh, I like that.
RustyNails
Member
lets not give any more attention to neglected children throwing tantrums
SouthernDragon
Member
PoliGAF |OT| Reply if you disagree
Maybe Obama should do this kind of thing more often.
Here's the (not so) awesome part despite your insight: When Europe crashes and Wall Street shits their pants and we go through another dip, no one will give a damn and vote for Romney/feel demoralized and sit it out.
I really think that's what's gonna happen.
Don't forget about PAC money.
I think out of all those states PA, OR, and maybe WI are the only ones that would survive in a Romney "landslide" and we have to start realizing that's entirely possible.
Truly, this year will be unlike any other. I know they say that every year and in different ways, but we've never witnessed the effect of powerful and anonymous donors collectively representing $1b+ worth of money dumped into a Republican campaign. Ever. We know how awful the reality of it is, and what the implications may be, but we haven't fully lived through it yet and won't until this election is done with. History won't help us here.
Glorified G
Member
PoliGAF |OT| Butthurt Hillary fans still exist in 2012
Black Mamba
Member
Thought poligaf would get a kick out of this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=477790
In lieu of that, my suggestion:
PoliGAF |OT| #iwantrepeal - BonerDude Sixty-Nine
In lieu of that, my suggestion:
PoliGAF |OT| #iwantrepeal - BonerDude Sixty-Nine
TacticalFox88
Banned
PoliGAF 2012: Your daily trolling brought to you by PD and Fox News
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Sorry, I'm not going to dwell in your what if world. Europe hasn't crashed. Spain just got a bailout. I'll start worrying when something actually happens. Also, the recovery has had a steady cyclical slow down in the summer months and picks up again in August/September.
As for money, I'm going to agree with TA on this. In small races like congressional or senate seats, more money has a greater impact. But when each candidate at the presidential level is accumulating a billion plus each, then more money starts having a marginal impact on the race. For instance in 2008, we can all agree that Obama out raised McCain, and the GOP brand was really at its low point. Yet with all that money and support against him, McCain still received 46% of the vote. Even with a bad VP pick. Money at this level of the game will not be as big an issue as people make it out to be.
Plus ads on the TV are not votes at the ballot box. Romney's ground game is going to pale in comparison to Obama's. He will be getting out the vote which make it harder for Romney.
Spot on.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked