• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diablos said:
No OH or FL, but VA? And IA+CO+NV?

I think Obama will win either OH or FL but not both (probably FL, I dunno). It will be hard for him to win NV because they have the worst UE and that's probably not going to change. IA is looking shaky, too. I think CO is his best bet out of those three, but he needs to get one for sure. :|
Click to expand...

How is Iowa looking shaky? I live in Iowa and virtually everyone out here hates Romney. In 2004 and 2008 you could see signs for the GOP. Right now I have seen exactly 1 sign for Romney which belongs to a corporate farm between Ames (home of a major university) and Des Moines (the capital city)

Not to mention most people here loathe the GOP they voted in during the 2010 midterms
 
GhaleonEB said:
Sometimes reality is boring.
Click to expand...
Nah, there was an issue with the site that showed your map like so -
32X8N.png


(it still does it to me sometime, I think it might be related to the flash blocker).
 
PhoenixDark said:
New Obama ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWdZEJW1vWY

He's seriously attacking Romney for low job growth, raising the deficit, and outsourcing? This campaign is as clueless as McCain's
Click to expand...


Uh... Mitt Romney's only possible way to win the presidency is to prove to the American people that he knows how to improve the economy. If they are both seen as equal in that regard, it's a win for Obama.
 
Dude Abides said:
What should he be attacking Romney for? Being a Mormon? Cutting that kid's hair off? The dog thing?
Click to expand...
No, he should attack him for being categorically unprincipled and make a broader argument about how being extraordinarily successful at making money doesn't guarantee success at ensuring the well-being of a society. This seems like he's trying to blur the distinctions between Romney and himself, which strikes me as the sort of tactic one employs when one lacks confidence in whatever it is that is personally defining. That Obama is, rightly or wrongly, perceived as weak on the economy is given. But I think he should be fighting that narrative rather than taking the approach of saying, "Well, Romney is weak on the economy too!"
 
Dude Abides said:
What should he be attacking Romney for? Being a Mormon? Cutting that kid's hair off? The dog thing?
Click to expand...

For being a flip flopping far right extremist, imo. I agree with Bill Clinton: the message should constantly be about keeping Romney on the far right, instead of letting him move to the middle. He took a series of ridiculous positions during the primary and we should be discussing that.

I also agree that the general Bain attacks are effective. Making money for corporations does not equal creating jobs, especially in Romney's case. This is a guy who has never put the middle class first.
 
PhoenixDark said:
He took a series of ridiculous positions during the primary and we should be discussing that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should just replay the stuff he said on the trail and make effective ads with those. Perhaps, they are saving this for later. But they should keep hammering his attempts at etch-a-sketching.
 
BotoxAgent said:
Yeah, they should just replay the stuff he said on the trail and make effective ads with those. Perhaps, they are saving this for later. But they should keep hammering his attempts at etch-a-sketching.
Click to expand...

Yeah they're probably saving the flip-flop stuff for the debates.

The economic stuff is for the summer downturn. The economy usually picks back up in the fall. So for the summer, its economics, In fall, its going to be character. Once the economy starts moving again in the fall, Romney will be done for anyway.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
No, he should attack him for being categorically unprincipled and make a broader argument about how being extraordinarily successful at making money doesn't guarantee success at ensuring the well-being of a society. This seems like he's trying to blur the distinctions between Romney and himself, which strikes me as the sort of tactic one employs when one lacks confidence in whatever it is that is personally defining. That Obama is, rightly or wrongly, perceived as weak on the economy is given. But I think he should be fighting that narrative rather than taking the approach of saying, "Well, Romney is weak on the economy too!"
Click to expand...

He did do the whole "If you think your job is to make money for investors, you don't understand this job" thing. I don't think people will really buy that anyway. Being successful at business is seen as valuable leadership experience, rightly or wrongly. I also don't think Obama will have much luck convincing voters the economy isn't weak. He can explain why that is, we were in a deep hole, Republicans are obstructionist, etc., but once you get into that you've lost most people as it sounds like making excuses. I don't see anything wrong with doing the Rove thing on this.

PhoenixDark said:
For being a flip flopping far right extremist, imo. I agree with Bill Clinton: the message should constantly be about keeping Romney on the far right, instead of letting him move to the middle. He took a series of ridiculous positions during the primary and we should be discussing that.

I also agree that the general Bain attacks are effective. Making money for corporations does not equal creating jobs, especially in Romney's case. This is a guy who has never put the middle class first.
Click to expand...

Presumably he will be doing that. But he can't let Romney's record as governor of Mass. go unchallenged. Romney has two leadership experiences to tout, one private and one government. Obama has to take shots at both.
 
PhoenixDark said:
For being a flip flopping far right extremist, imo. I agree with Bill Clinton: the message should constantly be about keeping Romney on the far right, instead of letting him move to the middle. He took a series of ridiculous positions during the primary and we should be discussing that.

I also agree that the general Bain attacks are effective. Making money for corporations does not equal creating jobs, especially in Romney's case. This is a guy who has never put the middle class first.
Click to expand...

Attacking on flip flopping would only open up attacks to his own flip flops. I know you're being facetious, but a campaign on typical political rhetoric would be the stupidest move for anyone, let alone Obama, to use right now.
 
markatisu said:
How is Iowa looking shaky? I live in Iowa and virtually everyone out here hates Romney. In 2004 and 2008 you could see signs for the GOP. Right now I have seen exactly 1 sign for Romney which belongs to a corporate farm between Ames (home of a major university) and Des Moines (the capital city)

Not to mention most people here loathe the GOP they voted in during the 2010 midterms
Click to expand...

Seriously. Don't see the exremely religious voting for Romney since he's Mormon. An Iowa religious leader said so as much back in December and I'm sure he's not the only one.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Ezra Klein must read my posts. He's arguing a Romney presidency in 2013 would ultimately be better than the gridlock we'd get with another Obama term, and could lead to some decent spending bills
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...se-for-romney/2012/06/04/gJQAIETuDV_blog.html
Click to expand...

I disagree with Ezra only because if Romney wins, it will most likely mean a flipped Senate too. Republicans are not going to back off Paul Ryan's budget plan and Romney will sign it when it passes.

When Bush got elected, the House wasn't ruled by tea party conservatives, neither were too many incumbents losing primaries to people on their right. Tea Party might have lost influence on the national-media stage, it still is able to flex its muscles for House and Senate races.
 
Cyan said:
Huh, weird. Usually high turnout favors Dems.
Click to expand...
Normally, yes. However, recall elections, like special elections, are peculiar. They do not necessarily conform to standard expectations.
PhoenixDark said:
For being a flip flopping far right extremist, imo. I agree with Bill Clinton: the message should constantly be about keeping Romney on the far right, instead of letting him move to the middle. He took a series of ridiculous positions during the primary and we should be discussing that.

I also agree that the general Bain attacks are effective. Making money for corporations does not equal creating jobs, especially in Romney's case. This is a guy who has never put the middle class first.
Click to expand...
Presumably, they will concentrate on more effective attacks when the electorate is attentive. Otherwise, the message will be engulfed by noise. The campaigns are only treading until the conventions. We're experiencing the phony campaign.
ErasureAcer said:
Seriously. Don't see the exremely religious voting for Romney since he's Mormon. An Iowa religious leader said so as much back in December and I'm sure he's not the only one.
Click to expand...
I do. And regarding the previously ambivalent, I expect they will be galvanized by Obama's recent approbation of same-sex marriage. They may disapprove of Mormonism, but they'll bite the bullet to oust Obama.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
I think everyone realizes that by now...


well, almost everyone.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much for the last hopeful, who happens to post here.

Last word: Walker by 6, Kleefisch by 5, and the one close senate seat (Vans district which no longer exists) is a recount.

All in all going to be pretty boring. With 16 senate seats coming up in the redrawn districts even the Van Waanggard is mostly meaningless.

C'mon recount!!!
 
I kind of hope Walker loses just so I can say lol Silver forever. Maybe it will drive him back to baseball, where he belongs.
 
I've actually said for a while that Walker will probably win, but that Barrett could also win - right now I'd say Walker by 1.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of being condescending trolls!
 
I think it's time for an interlude and how some on the left talked about Obama in 2008.

http://noagendashow.visibli.com/share/SdKogq

This guy was so close to getting Obama spot on:

Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bulls-- and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself.

Not this time.
Click to expand...
 
So the paycheck fairness act is back in the news right now and I'm stunned that anyone who isn't a business owner could be against it.

Even ignoring the concept of closing the gender income gap, how could any worker think that it is a good thing that their employer can prevent them from discussing income with their co-workers. A lot of people don't understand that, for a lot of companies, it's an immediately fire-able offense for talking salary with coworkers.

This has been a real sore point with me for a while, both that it's allowed by law to prevent people from discussing salary and that people don't even realize it.
 
Dave Inc. said:
So the paycheck fairness act is back in the news right now and I'm stunned that anyone who isn't a business owner could be against it.

Even ignoring the concept of closing the gender income gap, how could any worker think that it is a good thing that their employer can prevent them from discussing income with their co-workers. A lot of people don't understand that, for a lot of companies, it's an immediately fire-able offense for talking salary with coworkers.

This has been a real sore point with me for a while, both that it's allowed by law to prevent people from discussing salary and that people don't even realize it.
Click to expand...

What are the details?

As someone who manages people, I can see it causing dissension in the ranks. Everyone has their own perception of the job they do and even on a team of people at equal levels, there are people who clearly do more than others, whom I trust more with clients, and consequently deserve to get paid more, despite what the other people on the team think of themselves. If it requires open access to salaries, it will probably just depress salaries overall.
 
Kosmo said:
What are the details?

As someone who manages people, I can see it causing dissension in the ranks. Everyone has their own perception of the job they do and even on a team of people at equal levels, there are people who clearly do more than others, whom I trust more with clients, and consequently deserve to get paid more, despite what the other people on the team think of themselves. If it requires open access to salaries, it will probably just depress salaries overall.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require open access to salaries it just prohibits policies making discussing salaries a fire-able offense. If I even divulge how much I make to another person I can get fired for it.

Unfortunately for your expectations, nobody I've discussed salary with (I'm such a rebel) has run to our managers demanding higher compensation. It can, however, create tension if a) you actually have "favorites" or discriminatory spending or b) the coworkers are already antagonistic.

What these policies are really around for is to quell a source of worker/manager tension and so prevent unionization.

Edit: I should point out that a couple of people that I've discussed salaries with have gone to management to pursue higher wages. Not because they thought I was being given special treatment but because they realized how badly they had been getting fucked.

More Edit: And these weren't people who were bad performers, just that we had started off (at the same time) in different offices and they realized that the management of their office was being stingy as hell with cost-of-living and performance increases compared to other offices.
 
Dax01 said:
the pay check fairness act is an invasion of privacy of men by women. how anyone can support it is beyond me

think of the dissension
Click to expand...

A right to privacy of your pocketbook. No right to privacy of your vagina.

1930s slang has thwarted the GOP.
inception
 
Signal from WH is they are preparing for HCR without Mandate (seems impossible)

Fucking eh. We finally get some kind of Healthcare changes and they will be gone thanks to Republicans and the Tea Party.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
Signal from WH is they are preparing for HCR without Mandate (seems impossible)

Fucking eh. We finally get some kind of Healthcare changes and they will be gone thanks to Republicans and the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

That would open the door to striking down social security and medicare....
 
Kosmo said:
As someone who manages people, I can see it causing dissension in the ranks. Everyone has their own perception of the job they do and even on a team of people at equal levels, there are people who clearly do more than others, whom I trust more with clients, and consequently deserve to get paid more, despite what the other people on the team think of themselves. If it requires open access to salaries, it will probably just depress salaries overall.
Click to expand...
I work for a big government contractor. A new guy joined our team and we hit it off pretty well. After hours, we talked about our salaries. Turns out he is getting paid $10/hr more than I am for the exact same shit I do. Besides, he's a newbie and I've been on this job for a year AND he sits in my cubicle because our lead told me to show him the ropes. Does the newbie deserve to get paid more than me? I have no recourse in this situation. I can't talk to my employer because I can't discuss salaries. If I ask for a raise he will simply say he pays me the defined DOL prevailing wage so I can't bargain or the company policy is no raise for 18 months or some shit.

I don't hate the new guy or resent him/dissention/bad energy or whatever you wanna call it. It's not his fault he's getting more and I'm smart enough to realize that.
 
Yeah Walker will likely win. I still will show up to vote for tommorrow to show my support. Again people really don't realize that while he's seen as a monster in the city he's seen as a God here in the country. The amount of "ReCall Walker and Thank Him. Its Working!" signs you see is crazy. Anyone from rural Wisconsin knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Dave Inc. said:
So the paycheck fairness act is back in the news right now and I'm stunned that anyone who isn't a business owner could be against it.

Even ignoring the concept of closing the gender income gap, how could any worker think that it is a good thing that their employer can prevent them from discussing income with their co-workers. A lot of people don't understand that, for a lot of companies, it's an immediately fire-able offense for talking salary with coworkers.

This has been a real sore point with me for a while, both that it's allowed by law to prevent people from discussing salary and that people don't even realize it.
Click to expand...

Look up reference group. What would happen is that people will start comparing themselves to others. This could cause conflict and lower productivity.

But personally while it will cause some conflict feel that it does more harm than good.
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
Yeah Walker will likely win. I still will show up to vote for tommorrow to show my support. Again people really don't realize that while he's seen as a monster in the city he's seen as a God here in the country. The amount of "ReCall Walker and Thank Him. Its Working!" signs you see is crazy. Anyone from rural Wisconsin knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
It seems Wisconsin is slowly becoming Milwaukee/Madison vs. the rest of the state. Soon you'll be just like Illinois.

403px-Illinois2010.png


There are 102 counties in Illinois. The Democrat, Pat Quinn, won 4. He also won the election.

Some Republican internals were saying Democrats will probably win one of the State Senate seats, so even if Walker wins, it won't be a total loss. Although they're not really in much position to do anything other than gridlock.

Hell, even if Barrett wins and Democrats get the State Senate, there's still the Assembly. Blegh.
 
Measley said:
What a dumb op ed. If Romney is elected, the tea party congress is going to send every bill to his desk and he'll sign every single one. Romney blows whichever way the wind does.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't buy it. If Romney wins, Republicans probably win the Senate too, and I don't doubt for a second that as soon as they get the majority back they'll abolish the filibuster and vote in lockstep on every right-wing legislation Boehner passed in his time.

Obamacare will be repealed (if SCOTUS doesn't do that already), Ryan budget passed, and I might have to consider moving to Canada. USA would crater just like Europe.
 
Dave Inc. said:
So the paycheck fairness act is back in the news right now and I'm stunned that anyone who isn't a business owner could be against it.

Even ignoring the concept of closing the gender income gap, how could any worker think that it is a good thing that their employer can prevent them from discussing income with their co-workers. A lot of people don't understand that, for a lot of companies, it's an immediately fire-able offense for talking salary with coworkers.

This has been a real sore point with me for a while, both that it's allowed by law to prevent people from discussing salary and that people don't even realize it.
Click to expand...

Gotta keep that blowing the boss bonus under wraps. Causes dissension in the ranks.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Ezra Klein must read my posts. He's arguing a Romney presidency in 2013 would ultimately be better than the gridlock we'd get with another Obama term, and could lead to some decent spending bills
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...se-for-romney/2012/06/04/gJQAIETuDV_blog.html
Click to expand...

If Romney wins, democrats very likely lose the senate and have no chance of regaining the house. Boehner is a terrible speaker and the senate doesn't function. Unless Romney turns out to be the most effective executive since LBJ, we're not getting anything (positive) done.
 
Measley said:
What a dumb op ed. If Romney is elected, the tea party congress is going to send every bill to his desk and he'll sign every single one. Romney blows whichever way the wind does.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If Romney wins, that means the Senate will likely fall into GOP hands as well. Since Boehner has no spine and Romney being a career panderer, the Tea Party will be effectively running the government. The GOP senate may offer some weak, token opposition with some of the crazier bills coming out of the House, but McConnell and the other GOP senators are too fearful of ending up as another Dick Lugar to resist the Tea Party for long.
 
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
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT| Relegated to Community
397 398 399 400 401
20K
1M
D4Danger replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
264K
firehawk12 replied
Top Bottom