RustyNails
Member
I call it the Whitman effect. There's a saturation level between favorability to total money spent in ads, where after one point no matter how much money you pump in ads, your favorables cease to go up.
-
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
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
In a way I'm still amazed that political ads (particularly attack ads) actually work. Like, I can't think of a single one for any candidate at any level of government that made me go, "Hmmm..."
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I call making the OP for the next thread!
A bad economy trumps money. Only this time Obama will have a bad economy + tons of money against him; the worst of both worlds.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You're right that many states will flip if the economy crashes, but as of right now Virginia and Iowa are doing well, and Ohio is recovering. All three states lean to Obama right now, some (Virginia) more than others (Ohio).
If Europe goes down hard, it's game over here - I think most people agree with that. I tend to think the countries will address their issues but the longstanding uncertainty and lowered demand will fuck us with continued stagnated growth.
Nice try pig, but everyone knows you're a narc.
I just had a very odd exchange with some family friends over the next elections, these are people who voted for -bo the first time around, and they have somehow fallen into the whole doom and gloom being presented with fox news.
I'm baffled. Never even a million years did I think the words coming out of their mouths would come out of their months.
After their intentional twitter stunt, and the mounting money bags, I'm starting to think Romney might come out on top as well. cray cray.
I'm baffled. Never even a million years did I think the words coming out of their mouths would come out of their months.
After their intentional twitter stunt, and the mounting money bags, I'm starting to think Romney might come out on top as well. cray cray.
Souldriver
Member
Obama will win the election.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Obviously. I really feel sad for poor Phoenix. He's going to weep on election day.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Why would I weep? It would just mean we'd be four years away from Hillary becoming president.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Poligaf |OT| We Let Our Chads Hang
Edit:
Poligaf |OT| Shitty Real Life Westeros
Edit:
Poligaf |OT| Shitty Real Life Westeros
Annually, I think typically in February or so.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Don't revisions occur every month? Confused.
Exactly. PAC Money out the ass + Slow recovery + Eurozone is a trifecta of bad fucking news for Dems no matter how you spin it.
If? Everyone's pretty sure it will. Hopefully it'll crash after the election sometime. I know that sounds like an insensitive thing to say, but goddam, we have no control.
A state that "leans" in uncertain times doesn't mean a damn thing if you are the sitting Pres and the economy tanks on your watch again.
The state of American media is sad. Your family members fell victim to feeling like crap in uncertain times and letting propaganda machines pull at their heart strings.
Part of me wants Romney to win if Europe is going to be fucked either way, just so the republicans end up taking the blame for the economy getting fucking destroyed. The other part of me doesn't want them in power at all for any length of time, because oh god, how much can they undo in 2 years of power? Probably a lot 
(and the fact that they might get to nominate more supreme court justices really is the main reason I want Obama to win, this court we have now proves more than ever how partisan they've gotten and the last thing we need is another young super conservative justice on the bench).
(and the fact that they might get to nominate more supreme court justices really is the main reason I want Obama to win, this court we have now proves more than ever how partisan they've gotten and the last thing we need is another young super conservative justice on the bench).Eh, well, the recovery is still in effect but at a much slower pace than anticipated. Logic would dictate that if Mittens enters office, by the end of his first term UE will sink below to what it was when Barack entered office, thus allowing him to take credit for saving the economy when he didn't do a god damn thing except cut more taxes for the rich.
Part of me wants Romney to win if Europe is going to be fucked either way, just so the republicans end up taking the blame for the economy getting fucking destroyed. The other part of me doesn't want them in power at all for any length of time, because oh god, how much can they undo in 2 years of power? Probably a lot
I don't know if you can really bitch about SC partisanship in one breath then hope your guy wins so he can put your kind of partisan on the Court. I mean, you can, but c'mon.
uh
Have you seen the decisions by the court lately? Why would you want more people like that representing the SCOTUS?
He has every right to whine about that. To me it's one of the most vital reasons why Obama must be re-elected. Dubya left office being universally hated but his SCOTUS choices sure have fucked us for the long term, haven't they?
So whine about the thing that actually bothers you, that they are partisan for the other side. You guys don't want an apolitical Court, you want a Court that will root for your team.
And yeah, there are a fuckload of decisions the past three courts have made that I strongly disagree with. But putting more leftists on sure won't solve anything.
Right, and that makes my point. You don't want the court to be less partisan, you just want it to be your flavor of partisan.
The SC is the main reason I believe we're fucked if Obama doesn't win.
Frank the Great
Banned
this court is the most blatantly partisan and activist court in very many years. i don't see how anyone can really disagree with that. the court has been throwing out precedent, re-writing case law, and overturning democratically passed statutes as it sees fit, and the only consistency is that the decisions are in line with the republican party platform.
if there were two sane judges on the court instead of roberts and alito, it wouldn't necessarily be partisan in the other direction. it just wouldn't be as blatantly pro-republican (not conservative, republican) as it is today.
it is really a shame and i fully believe that history will look upon this period of the SCOTUS with disgust.
I can't remember the last time I heard someone seriously argue anything different.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
First off, everyone seems to be making too general of a statement. "The Euro is going to implode man and take us down with it." The first thing wrong with this is that it is automatically assumed that the Euro is a done deal. That nothing is going to reverse it. Hell, Intrage is only giving 40% odds to someone dropping out of the Euro by the end of the year (This could be Greece and the other nations have had three years to prepare for its exit). You also give up on Germany finding a solution. Let me put this into poker terms. Germany is pot committed. It has already given a ton of money to the Euro project. It wants it to succeed. It has received tons of concessions from other nations regarding budgets. Why would it fold now? It's going to double down, and keep kicking the can down the road like the last three years.
Second, you have to realize that the European Union has been in a recession since the start of the year, and we are still here. That means our exposure to the zone is minimal. Our trade with the European Union comes to 184 billion dollars. That's less than what we send to Mexico. Also, our banks don't hold that many European assets or liabilities. So if the situation gets worse, and then saying that America is automatically screwed is dumb. Only the companies that deal primarily with Europe would be hurt (like 20-30% of their sales come from there). That would be Ford and some tech companies.
This wouldn't be like the 2008 recession. There won't be a financial crisis where we have to recapitalize the banks. Only a small segment of our 14.6 trillion economy will be hurt. Our unemployment rate is not going to suddenly spike to over 10%. We are near the bottom of the curve from the last recession. There isn't any more room to fall lower. Everything is already running with the bare minimum of employees as it is. For those saying America is doomed, how much are we doomed?
Lastly, these statements exist in a vacuum. Euro implodes and the US does nothing? The Fed doesn't do a round of QE3 or GDP targeting? China doesn't do anything? We just take it on the chin? Nothing is a foregone conclusion.
Second, you have to realize that the European Union has been in a recession since the start of the year, and we are still here. That means our exposure to the zone is minimal. Our trade with the European Union comes to 184 billion dollars. That's less than what we send to Mexico. Also, our banks don't hold that many European assets or liabilities. So if the situation gets worse, and then saying that America is automatically screwed is dumb. Only the companies that deal primarily with Europe would be hurt (like 20-30% of their sales come from there). That would be Ford and some tech companies.
This wouldn't be like the 2008 recession. There won't be a financial crisis where we have to recapitalize the banks. Only a small segment of our 14.6 trillion economy will be hurt. Our unemployment rate is not going to suddenly spike to over 10%. We are near the bottom of the curve from the last recession. There isn't any more room to fall lower. Everything is already running with the bare minimum of employees as it is. For those saying America is doomed, how much are we doomed?
Lastly, these statements exist in a vacuum. Euro implodes and the US does nothing? The Fed doesn't do a round of QE3 or GDP targeting? China doesn't do anything? We just take it on the chin? Nothing is a foregone conclusion.
Aaron Strife
Banned
SCOTUS shouldn't be partisan, but it is.
For what it's worth, the four "left" judges are centrist at best. If we had nine of them I think we'd be much better off.
For what it's worth, the four "left" judges are centrist at best. If we had nine of them I think we'd be much better off.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
1. Pangloss is right. Though QE3 won't save the world if Europe implodes, nor will China.
2. The SCOTUS nonsense: the whole point of lifetime appointments is to ensure the justices were above petty political arguments of the day, and that they could make tough decisions without fear of losing their appointment. While the court has always been somewhat partisan, it's not true that this court is no different than all those that came before. It's obviously different and Americans have every right to fear their decisions.
2. The SCOTUS nonsense: the whole point of lifetime appointments is to ensure the justices were above petty political arguments of the day, and that they could make tough decisions without fear of losing their appointment. While the court has always been somewhat partisan, it's not true that this court is no different than all those that came before. It's obviously different and Americans have every right to fear their decisions.
With the monthly employment situation report, the BLS revises the previous two months based on additional data received since the last report.
At the end of each year the BLS adjusts their model for the prior year, including their seasonal adjustments and population growth assumptions, based on a look at the data for the year, such as from the Census.
IIRC, revisions to 2011 showed a few hundred thousand more jobs than originally estimated. During the recession, job losses were revised up each year.
See here, from January's release.
"Partisan" tends to refer to political parties, which doesn't really apply in the Supreme Court as much as ideology. "Ideologue" would be more appropriate, I think.
But sure, keep decrying how middle of the road types contrast too much with hardliners on the bench. It's bad enough that the swing vote is already conservative.
But sure, keep decrying how middle of the road types contrast too much with hardliners on the bench. It's bad enough that the swing vote is already conservative.
Frank the Great
Banned
the thing is, i don't really think they are ideologues as much as they are republicans. decisions like bush v. gore would seem to go against everything they normally stand for - it was an extension of equal protection laws to an area beyond what the 14th amendment contemplated (counting ballots) which conservatives have been battling forever. moreover, there were a billion things the court could have done other than halting the recount to correct the EP protection.
BUT the court was totally willing to do this to get a republican president elected and get some more of their buddies on the court with them.
it is just blatantly partisan, it's not even about ideology.
BUT the court was totally willing to do this to get a republican president elected and get some more of their buddies on the court with them.
it is just blatantly partisan, it's not even about ideology.
Semantics aside I don't disagree. My point is that people don't want non-activist judges, they just want judges who will side with them. The idea that anyone other than Kennedy is a non-ideologue on this court is laughable. This court is only "worse" because the decisions are essentially coming down to one person which makes the contrast more striking.
If Obama appoints a non-hard liner people will go nuts. If he does appoint an ideologue of your stripe, people will claim that justice is a "moderate."
Except the economy is most swing states isn't bad. Its actually improving pretty rapidly. The UE rate in Virigina for example is 5.6%. Obviously some states like NC and Florida are having serious UE issues, but Obama only needs Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado to win, and all of those have UE rates below 8%.
By analyses of the recounts, Bush would have won Florida. What's your point?
Dude Abides
Banned
Not really. There is no Brennan or Douglas on this court. There is no left counterpart to the hard-core ideologues Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.
The results of the recount were highly dependent on the exact standards and form the recount undertook, and there are multiple scenarios in which Gore or Bush each could have won. What's important is that the exact outcome to standard map was not obvious ex-ante, so by preventing the recount from taking place the Supreme Court prevented a non-trivial risk of Gore winning the election.
Aside, stuff like this is why I think its more appropriate to call the court partisan rather than ideological.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
The judges knew that at the time of their ruling? Really? It's not about how the outcome would have necessarily changed, it's the fact that they were protecting their parties interests.. just in case.
You can't be thinking like that.Part of me wants Romney to win if Europe is going to be fucked either way, just so the republicans end up taking the blame for the economy getting fucking destroyed. The other part of me doesn't want them in power at all for any length of time, because oh god, how much can they undo in 2 years of power? Probably a lot
I know many politicians are rooting for the country to fail so their party can win, but at least they have massive financial incentive to think like that (and that's a huge part of the problem).
The only way we can counter those hyper-partisanship incentives is if the electorate speaks in a clear and loud voice that this is not acceptable, I know it hasn't done it so far, but seriously, it has to start with you.
Also, from a practical level, general election don't matter as much as you think.
Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone thinks about 2000, and true, it's the big one, because you can draw simple line from that election to the Iraq war.
But this is more an exception to the rule.
You really think that Kerry would've stoppped the financial meltdown or react differently to it?
How different would you think this country would be?
Again, this is not to say that election don't matter, I'm saying exactly 2 things here -
That it's better to have a good Republican president than a bad Democrat (and vice versa for you conservatives) and that regardless of party affiliation, we should be working together to govern this country.
Id like to see how California is doing primaries be implemented in all of the states. I think that would be a rather simple and hopefully somewhat effective way in getting more moderates who are willing to work together into congress. I mean, i imagine in a republican dominated district that a teaparty mouth breather going up against a moderate republican that appeals to, well, everyone else would fair a lot worse in a general election than the republican primary
Sirpopopop
Member
Friendship with Scalia aside, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not a centrist.
Definitely someone who is a progressive in every sense of the term, even if she doesn't always take the boldest path to express it.
So we have one "European Liberal" on the Court and the rest are centrists or insane.
Like that'll do anything.
Gallup has unemployment at 7.9%. First time since they started tracking it in 2010.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Interesting that this hasn't shown up in the mainstream media. When it was at 9% (higher than the UE rate from the BLS), it was all over the news;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/14/picket-gallup-shows-us-unemployment-9/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-finds-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
http://nation.foxnews.com/unemploym...l-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
So much for the liberal biased media...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Interesting that this hasn't shown up in the mainstream media. When it was at 9% (higher than the UE rate from the BLS), it was all over the news;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/14/picket-gallup-shows-us-unemployment-9/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-finds-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
http://nation.foxnews.com/unemploym...l-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
So much for the liberal biased media...
Heads up, Fareed Zakaria has a special on immigration tonight.
His special on healthcare was great, I assume this one will be as well.
Also, and believe you me it's not something I enjoy saying - Bloomberg is 100% right.
His special on healthcare was great, I assume this one will be as well.
Also, and believe you me it's not something I enjoy saying - Bloomberg is 100% right.
RustyNails
Member
Wow. That bloomberg snippet was jaw-dropping. A guy who graduated Ivy League and worked in Microsoft gets his H1b rejected? Fuck illegal immigration. We need to fix legal immigration first.
I've been shouting it from rooftops.
Immigration can fix pretty much all of America's problem.
Need school teachers?
Say that if you have a PHD in whatever, speak fluent English, have a family and no criminal record we'll get you citizenship if you sign a 5 years contract for teaching in an inner city school.
You'll have a million overqualified candidates lining up Ellis Island tomorrow.
The US is in the unique position to do auditions for the world's best and brightest, but instead, it does a fucking lottery.
It's ridiculous.
And yeah, my opinion was shaped in large part when I went through that system.
On a national level (as oppose to the humanitarian one) legal immigration is a much larger problem than illegal one.
Edit: and immigration is the best way to keep the population young when your birthrate slows down, which is why demographically, the US is still in the best long term shape of all developed and BRIC countries.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-adviser-criticizes-obama-in-german-paper-op
Pretty sleazy to be dropping op-eds in foreign countries.
Pretty sleazy to be dropping op-eds in foreign countries.
Aaron Strife
Banned
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...t-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
The most liberal justice is smack dab in the center. Ginsberg is progressive in a relative sense.
Black Republican
Member
dont know the details but im hearing dylan ratigan is leaving msnbc
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked