Support NeoGAF

[Talon]

"Shares your values:" Obama +2 two weeks ago, Obama +7 today (5 pt swing)
"Strong and decisive leader:" Romney +5 two weeks ago, Obama +6 today (11 pt swing)
"Has an optimistic vision for our country's future:" Romney +4 two weeks ago, Obama +10 today (14 pt swing)
"Has a clear plan": Romney +6 two weeks ago, Obama +6 today (12 pt swing)
"In touch with middle-class Americans:" Obama +6 two weeks ago, Obama +20 today (14 pt swing)
"Can manage government effectively:" Romney +4 two weeks ago, Obama +3 today (7 pt swing)

Now that's a convention bounce.

Have to do a little fact checking here. The numbers are actually wrong for In Touch and Optimistic Vision. Those are the two categories where CNN also includes Aug. 31-Sept. 3 numbers, and it seems it was accidentally overlooked and included by you.

Question 12 (Likely Voters only; n = 354; Error +/-5)	
Difference in %pts between weeks Sep 7-9 & August 22-23	
                                                               Obama	Romney
Shares your values	                                         4	-1
Is strong and decisive leader	                                 7	-4
[B]Has an optimistic vision for the country's future*	         3	-4[/B]
Has a clear plan*	                                         6	-6
[B]Is in touch with middle class Americans*	                 4	-2[/B]
Can manage government effectively	                         4	-3

Considering the 95% confidence interval, these aren't earth shattering numbers.

 

[pigeon]

Have to do a little fact checking here. The numbers are actually wrong for In Touch and Optimistic Vision. Those are the two categories where CNN also includes Aug. 31-Sept. 3 numbers, and it seems it was accidentally overlooked and included by you.

Ah, yeah, I missed that. Embarrassing! Those numbers moved for Romney's convention and moved back -- and then some -- for Obama's.

 

[Talon]

Ah, yeah, I missed that. Embarrassing!

Not a big deal - shit happens!

 

[sc0la]

Oh god I forgot there was some CA redistricting. I hope Dan Lundgren finally goes the way of the dodo

 

[Pre]

If the GOP really were to collapse, I would have no qualms about allying myself with the Libertarian Party. They're much more serious about fiscal conservatism and federalism. At this point, I vote mainly for Republican candidates because of the reality of the two-party system. I have some disagreements with libertarians, but I would gladly join them.

 

[Oblivion]

This is the tricky question. How many socially liberal, economically conservative Democratic voters are there, really? And how quickly can the GOP purge itself of the "party of hates all minorities" label? It seems clear that the realignment is going to move leftwards in terms of social values, but I think that it's going to necessitate an economic shift as well. After all, after 2014, the GOP is going to have to come to terms with the existence of Obamacare if they want to win. That means accepting a certain level of social support, something else they've been spending a lot of time making sure nobody will believe them on recently.

I dunno, I expect the GOP to start trying to reinvent itself immediately -- and we'll probably see Rubio beat out Ryan in 2016 -- but I don't think they'll actually be successful for a while, until the Democrats move further to the left. Which sounds good to me.



They'll both be gone forever. The Libertarians are almost gone already -- they have like four third parties to choose from. The GOP will have to cut the religious right off too, and they'll take off for the American Freedom Party or whatever they're called now. They were a fringe force before the 80s and they'll go back to being a fringe force. That leaves the core elements of the GOP -- a party of supporting business, repressing labor, lowering taxes, and limiting the expansion of social programs where possible. In other words, a conservative party.

I hate to be a broken record, but we all need to remember what happened in 2010, despite historic gains the Dems got in 2006 and 2008. Somehow despite that, the righties thought it was a good idea to go even further to the right, amazingly become even more flat-Earthery than they were before. AND THEY GOT REWARDED FOR IT. There's almost no reason for me to believe these guys are gonna moderate their views if Obama wins again, and the Dems retake both houses of congress.

 

[Mike M]

The GOP won't reinvent themselves until after the 2014 midterms at the absolute earliest, and even then only if they lose seats.

 

[Chichikov]

I hate to be a broken record, but we all need to remember what happened in 2010, despite historic gains the Dems got in 2006 and 2008. Somehow despite that, the righties thought it was a good idea to go even further to the right, amazingly become even more flat-Earthery than they were before. AND THEY GOT REWARDED FOR IT. There's almost no reason for me to believe these guys are gonna moderate their views if Obama wins again, and the Dems retake both houses of congress.

Even in the 2010, the dems won the 18-29 age group by 12 points.
This vector is not sustainable.

 

[Gruco]

Yeah it's going to take some LBJ/Goldwater shit for the GOP to back off. I don't see them actively dodging the demographic buzzsaw. They're going to wait until is cuts 'em in half.

 

[Stinkles]

I hate to be a broken record, but we all need to remember what happened in 2010, despite historic gains the Dems got in 2006 and 2008. Somehow despite that, the righties thought it was a good idea to go even further to the right, amazingly become even more flat-Earthery than they were before. AND THEY GOT REWARDED FOR IT. There's almost no reason for me to believe these guys are gonna moderate their views if Obama wins again, and the Dems retake both houses of congress.

But they realize that has short term potential for House and Senate races, but is corrossive to any chance of future presidential races.

 

[codhand]

If the GOP really were to collapse, I would have no qualms about allying myself with the Libertarian Party. They're much more serious about fiscal conservatism and federalism. At this point, I vote mainly for Republican candidates because of the reality of the two-party system. I have some disagreements with libertarians, but I would gladly join them.

You support a party whose collapse you have "no qualms about"?

A gold standard is "serious"?

 

[sc0la]

But they realize that has short term potential for House and Senate races, but is corrossive to any chance of future presidential races.

Do they really realize this though?

 

[Pre]

You support a party whose collapse you have "no qualms about"?

A gold standard is "serious"?

I agree that the gold standard is out there, but I feel that the LP better represents my economic views.

 

[Stinkles]

Do they really realize this though?

Smart cynical puppetmasters do. The base has no clue about anything right now other than the all consuming fact that the President is BLACK. That is all they can think about. It poisons every crappy counterpoint they might have on policy and they can hardly breathe from hatred and stupidity.

I think they'll keep going for one or two more electoral cycles and then be forced to switch it up.

 

[Oblivion]

But they realize that has short term potential for House and Senate races, but is corrossive to any chance of future presidential races.

Do you think they:

1) actually realize that?
2) actually care?

Sure, having a Republican president would be great and all, but if they can effectively neuter any Democratic president via congress, I think they'd be satisfied with just that.

 

[TheHeretic]

Do they really realize this though?

The GOP leadership can follow polls at least as well as the Democrats can, of course they know.

 

[codhand]

I feel that the LP better represents my economic views.

If you support supply-side economics then you should vote for Romney.

If you just think we should leave wars, then you could vote dem you know.

 

[TheHeretic]

Do you think they:

1) actually realize that?
2) actually care?

Sure, having a Republican president would be great and all, but if they can effectively neuter any Democratic president via congress, I think they'd be satisfied with just that.

The party absolutely doesn't think that way. Obstruction also tanked the house republicans in the polls. They want to presidency and will adjust their platform to get there, its just a question of how long it takes for crazy people to get kicked out on their asses John Bircher style.

 

[PantherLotus]

Here's another backpat from yesterday that preceded Laura Ingraham's comment today:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/george-will-to-republicans-if-you-cant-win

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, let's talk about Paul Ryan first, I'm going to get to the conventions later, but you saw him jump right on that jobs report. Probably the best news Republicans had in a couple of weeks.

WILL: The two numbers he stressed deserve stressing again. 368,000 dropped out of the job market, which means that for every job created, four people quit looking for jobs.

This means that if the work force participation rate today were what it was in June 2009, when the recovery began, we would have an unemployment rate 11.2 percent. If you add in the involuntarily unemployed, you're approaching 19 percent, which is why I should think from here on in, on the basis of these numbers, the Romney campaign slogan should be the title of Paul Krugman's book which is, End This Depression Now, because these are depression level numbers.

And if the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics and find another business.

 

[sc0la]

Smart cynical puppetmasters do. The base has no clue about anything right now other than the all consuming fact that the President is BLACK. That is all they can think about. It poisons every crappy counterpoint they might have on policy and they can hardly breathe from hatred and stupidity.

I think they'll keep going for one or two more electoral cycles and then be forced to switch it up.

The GOP leadership can follow polls at least as well as the Democrats can, of course they know.

I will give you that the party elite realize it. but the right has clearly fashioned a golem out of the tea party

 

[Gotchaye]

Yes the Republicans won't be demographically sustainable for very long after 2012, but any politician who tries to attract less nutty voters is going to get primaried. The party can't moderate until the primary electorate moderates, and as moderates continue to be driven from the party the primary electorate is only going to get worse.

The Republicans aren't going to be truly viable again until their current base dies off and the only ones left are the younger Ron Paul fans (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is viable, but this has to happen before the party can moderate).

 

[Clevinger]

Obama is finally starting to go down a bit in Silver's model.

Looks like our model has now fully priced in Obama's bounce -- he actually declined slightly in our forecast tonight.

 

[codhand]

Here's another backpat from yesterday that preceded Laura Ingraham's comment today

Actually Ingraham predates your self back patter

INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]

INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.

 

[pigeon]

I hate to be a broken record, but we all need to remember what happened in 2010, despite historic gains the Dems got in 2006 and 2008. Somehow despite that, the righties thought it was a good idea to go even further to the right, amazingly become even more flat-Earthery than they were before. AND THEY GOT REWARDED FOR IT. There's almost no reason for me to believe these guys are gonna moderate their views if Obama wins again, and the Dems retake both houses of congress.

This is definitely valid, but I think you're ignoring a couple of key factors. First, of course, the Tea Party knocked the Senate right out of the GOP's grasping hands. Secondly, the GOP saw some short-term gains in 2010 -- but politics is a long game. The two results of the 2010 Tea Party victory to keep in mind were a) the debt ceiling crisis, in which the Speaker of the House, after negotiating a bipartisan deal, had it blown up by a mutiny from his own caucus, and b) the 2012 Republican primaries.

I think it's very important to remember that in 2008, if you told somebody that the serious (and I use the term loosely) Republican candidates for 2012 would include Rick Santorum (then a retired and not particularly missed senator who'd suffered the worst defeat for an incumbent senator in thirty years), Michele Bachmann (an essentially unknown Representative from Minnesota who had not yet exhibited any signs of disturbing zealotry), Newt Gingrich (possibly the least popular politician in America, both then AND in 2012) and Herman Cain (whose most prominent political office to date was "guy who argued with Bill Clinton"), people would laugh in your face. Frankly, I think a lot of people would be amazed to hear that Mitt Romney would be a serious contender! Don't imagine that the GOP leadership watched those debates with anything other than horror -- and don't imagine they want it to happen again.

Because, in reality, it's probably true -- even a reasonably decent candidate would probably beat Barack Obama this year. But the GOP was utterly incapable of producing a decent candidate this year, and it's directly traceable back to the embrace of the Tea Party. If there's anybody at the wheel, they're going to be pulling as hard as they can on it. Leftwards.

 

[Pre]

If you support supply-side economics then you should vote for Romney.

If you just think we should leave wars, then you could vote dem you know.

I'm somewhat laissez-faire. On the political spectrum I'd say I'm between the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party.

But yeah, I'll likely vote for Romney. An unpopular opinion around here, I know. I've flirted with the idea of voting for Gary Johnson but it'd ultimately be a waste of a vote.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Yes the Republicans won't be demographically sustainable for very long after 2012, but any politician who tries to attract less nutty voters is going to get primaried. The party can't moderate until the primary electorate moderates, and as moderates continue to be driven from the party the primary electorate is only going to get worse.

The Republicans aren't going to be truly viable again until their current base dies off and the only ones left are the younger Ron Paul fans (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is viable, but this has to happen before the party can moderate).

Doom and gloom much?

 

[TheHeretic]

Yes the Republicans won't be demographically sustainable for very long after 2012, but any politician who tries to attract less nutty voters is going to get primaried. The party can't moderate until the primary electorate moderates, and as moderates continue to be driven from the party the primary electorate is only going to get worse.

The Republicans aren't going to be truly viable again until their current base dies off and the only ones left are the younger Ron Paul fans (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is viable, but this has to happen before the party can moderate).

Except this isn't how politics historically works. The GOP isn't the first party to go off the rails and adopt positions that guarantee electoral failure. They can correct the problems the party has, it just takes leadership the party currently doesn't have.

 

[sc0la]

Tragedy of the Commons. The party as a whole is better off in the long term if they get their shit together and stop depending on angry white men. Individual GOP candidates might well be better off in the short-term getting all hopped up on derp fuel and ratcheting up the doubling cube.

backgammon player?

But yeah, I'll likely vote for Romney. An unpopular opinion around here, I know. I've flirted with the idea of voting for Gary Johnson but it'd ultimately be a waste of a vote.

hey, a sizable portion of the GOP are casting protest votes FOR Romney. You may as well like the guy you cast your protest vote for

 

[Gotchaye]

Except this isn't how politics historically works. The GOP isn't the first party to go off the rails and adopt positions that guarantee electoral failure. They can correct the problems the party has, it just takes leadership the party currently doesn't have.

But the official leadership can't exercise any control. You can't underestimate the importance of grassroots internet organizing on the primary process. To the extent that there is a party leadership with real power, that leadership is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and friends, and they're much, much more concerned about being popular with the current base than with steering the party in a good direction.

Edit: Also, when, historically, have parties managed near-total reorganizations in 8 years? The median Republican voter is going to be over 50 in this election; we don't actually have long to wait until most of the party ages into irrelevance.

 

[Wray]

But death of the current GOP...he's probably right. The platform doesn't fit reality, demographics, and trends. Maybe we'll get Rockefeller GOP or Libertarian (center right) GOP. Any of them is better than dumbfuck GOP.

A Libertarian GOP would not be a center-right GOP. It would be far far right. There is nothing centrist about Libertarians.

Somebody in this thread made a perfect analogy the other day. Libertarians are the economic equivalent to Flat Earthers or Creationists.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

If you support supply-side economics then you should vote for Romney.

If you just think we should leave wars, then you could vote dem you know.

I don't even think Romney properly represents supply side economics.

Supply Side economics doesn't say that 0% tax rates will produce the most revenues, which is what a big part of GOP believes now. Supply Side economics says that at 0% and at 100% you will have 0 tax revenue. As a result, there has to be a sweet spot where your tax rate will produce the most tax revenue (while keeping the people happy).

What the current GOP and their economists don't get is that Supply Side economics has never been about, reducing the tax rates as much as possible to spur growth. You will spur economic growth up to a certain point (Laffer curve) but beyond that (point where US is at right now) we would affect growth and revenue drastically.

So, if you really believe in Supply Side Economics, you wouldn't vote for Romney either.

 

[reilo]

North Carolina

[B]Polls 	 	Date 	Dem 	Rep 	Margin[/B]
PPP 		9/9 	49.0 	48.0 	Obama +1.0
SurveyUSA 	9/6 	43.0 	53.0 	Romney +10.0
PPP 		9/2 	48.0 	48.0 	Tie
Elon 		8/30 	43.0 	47.0 	Romney +4.0
SurveyUSA 	8/30 	43.0 	46.0 	Romney +3.0

So, ugh, yeah, one of these is not like the others.

 

[pigeon]

But the official leadership can't exercise any control. You can't underestimate the importance of grassroots internet organizing on the primary process. To the extent that there is a party leadership with real power, that leadership is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and friends, and they're much, much more concerned about being popular with the current base than with steering the party in a good direction.

You're forgetting the purse strings. This might be almost true for Democrats, but in the GOP they still use money to run campaigns, and the RNC directly or indirectly controls most of the money. If they want to get rid of a particular candidate, they can do it. It might mean salting the earth for them that year ala their decision to cut Todd Akin off, but they have the power to right the ship. The question is whether Reince Priebus will do it.

 

[teh_pwn]

A Libertarian GOP would not be a center-right GOP. It would be far far right. There is nothing centrist about Libertarians.

Somebody in this thread made a perfect analogy the other day. Libertarians are the economic equivalent to Flat Earthers or Creationists.

You're confusing Libertarianism with the Libertarian Party. The libertarian spectrum basically encompasses anything that's not authoritarian. A leftist libertarian for example is a thing.

 

[TheHeretic]

But the official leadership can't exercise any control. You can't underestimate the importance of grassroots internet organizing on the primary process. To the extent that there is a party leadership with real power, that leadership is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and friends, and they're much, much more concerned about being popular with the current base than with steering the party in a good direction.

Well i'd go further and say there isn't any leadership. Its just a "conservative" (I think calling it anything other than reactionary is being generous) media engine and a group of career politicians desperate to keep their offices. Somebody like David Petraeus could go a long way in the party if he had political ambitions, but clearly its going to take someone with real vision than can appeal to diverse block of voters.

 

[pigeon]

North Carolina

[B]Polls 	 	Date 	Dem 	Rep 	Margin[/B]
PPP 		9/9 	49.0 	48.0 	Obama +1.0
SurveyUSA 	9/6 	43.0 	53.0 	Romney +10.0
PPP 		9/2 	48.0 	48.0 	Tie
Elon 		8/30 	43.0 	47.0 	Romney +4.0
SurveyUSA 	8/30 	43.0 	46.0 	Romney +3.0

So, ugh, yeah, one of these is not like the others.

PPP commented in a tweet that the Romney +10 poll crosstabs say that Romney had 30% of African-American voters in that poll. So maybe not that close to a realistic scenario.

 

[codhand]

So, if you really believe in Supply Side Economics, you wouldn't vote for Romney either.

Only recently and for political reasons during interviews has Romney spouted anything but less tax, less regulation, less welfare. In fact Romney's plan is mostly a secret at the moment. I think during the debates he might go full "I'm Obama, but whiter."

 

[Oblivion]

A Libertarian GOP would not be a center-right GOP. It would be far far right. There is nothing centrist about Libertarians.

Somebody in this thread made a perfect analogy the other day. Libertarians are the economic equivalent to Flat Earthers or Creationists.

Libertarians are people who agree with the GOP on economics, and disagree with them on everything else.

edit: or to quote someone else, Libertarians are Republicans who like weed.

 

[teh_pwn]

Libertarians are people who agree with the GOP on economics, and disagree with them on everything else.

edit: or to quote someone else, Libertarians are Republicans who like weed.

Eh, I think any rational right-wing libertarian would disagree with both parties but especially the GOP because they're the biggest and most irrational fiscal liberals there have been in American history.

 

[TheHeretic]

Right. What it actually says is infinite revenue.

It says theres an optimum point of taxation actually. Its a stupid theory but it was never sold as lowering taxes into infinite revenue.

 

[Gotchaye]

You're forgetting the purse strings. This might be almost true for Democrats, but in the GOP they still use money to run campaigns, and the RNC directly or indirectly controls most of the money. If they want to get rid of a particular candidate, they can do it. It might mean salting the earth for them that year ala their decision to cut Todd Akin off, but they have the power to right the ship. The question is whether Reince Priebus will do it.

I don't know. That's assuming that you can't find crazy old billionaires mixed in with all of the other people watching Fox. Adelson single-handedly kept Gingrich in the race.

Maybe the establishment can destroy a particular candidate. I'm not sure that they really can - they're not just cutting off Akin to punish him; they're cutting off Akin because he's not a smart bet. And they couldn't stop him from winning the primary (he wasn't the establishment's pick even before his comments). But this crap is going to be everywhere. They can keep playing whack-a-mole with the Todd Akins and Christine O'Donnells, but the base is going to keep throwing them up and fouling up the establishment's national message and their chances at real majorities.

 

[Wray]

Think of it as a generational thing. There's probably a lot of young voters that are center right economically but really don't care for the "gay marriage is immoral" line of thinking. It would probably take a talented leader to attract these voters and break into demographics that lean left right now. Something like this has to happen eventually because a party of old and white isn't going to last.

That's unlikely to happen.

Wealth disparity will keep growing for a long while as unemployment continues to get higher and higher over the next few decades due to advancements in AI + Life Extension and Population Growth. You're going to see each generation move further and further to left economically as the shortcomings of capitalism become more and more glaringly obvious.

 

[Oblivion]

Eh, I think any rational right-wing libertarian would disagree with both parties but especially the GOP because they're the biggest and most irrational fiscal liberals there have been in American history.

LOL.

The amount of libertarians who would side with democrats overall I've met in my life (both including online and in real life) can be counted on one hand (two if I'm being generous). Libertarians may not like Republicans but they fucking HATE Democrats for some reason.

 

[HylianTom]

In the next decade or two, we're going to be meeting some unavoidable energy and fiscal sustainability issues that will change humanity's path through history as we know it. I kinda wonder if these issues will make the Democrats vulnerable to challenges from either a re-invented GOP or another new party that isn't obsessed with cultural distractions.

Our standard of living will decline in the coming decades, no matter how much we fight it or try to ignore the issues that cause it. Like Bill Clinton would say: it's arithmetic. We have some tough choices ahead, and despite my bravado about the Dems owning the Electoral College, history has a way of throwing unexpected curveballs at us.

This century is going to be fascinating to witness.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Only recently and for political reasons during interviews has Romney spouted anything but less tax, less regulation, less welfare. In fact Romney's plan is mostly a secret at the moment. I think during the debates he might go full "I'm Obama, but whiter."

It is too late in the game to reintroduce yourself to the American people.

It says theres an optimum point of taxation actually. Its a stupid theory but it was never sold as lowering taxes into infinite revenue.

Exactly!

Problem was that starting with the Reagan years GOP started to ignore the whole argument that beyond a certain level reducing tax rates would actually hurt the revenue.

In the next decade or two, we're going to be meeting some unavoidable energy and fiscal sustainability issues that will change humanity's path through history as we know it. I kinda wonder if these issues will make the Democrats vulnerable to challenges from either a re-invented GOP or another new party that isn't obsessed with cultural distractions.

Our standard of living will decline in the coming decades, no matter how much we fight it or try to ignore the issues that cause it. Like Bill Clinton would say: it's arithmetic. We have some tough choices ahead, and despite my bravado about the Dems owning the Electoral College, history has a way of throwing unexpected curveballs at us.

This century is going to be fascinating to witness.

It certainly can prove to be an issue for Democrats. But, they did manage to pass HCR while taking substantial losses because they passed HCR. At the end of the day, the best solution to a debt crisis, is a good economy and actually just not renewing the Bush Tax Cuts. Also, American public will be more receptive to any entitlement changes if the economy is good.

 

[Gruco]

Got a headache? Take two tax cuts and call me in the morning.

Less glib, the revenue maximizing point is almost certainly between 50 and 70. It is almost certainly not below 35.

This doesn't get into the capital gains cuts, which republicans genuinely do want to lower to zero. But it's worth it, because the economy will then grow at 10% for the next 50 years.

 

[TheHeretic]

You're forgetting the purse strings. This might be almost true for Democrats, but in the GOP they still use money to run campaigns, and the RNC directly or indirectly controls most of the money. If they want to get rid of a particular candidate, they can do it. It might mean salting the earth for them that year ala their decision to cut Todd Akin off, but they have the power to right the ship. The question is whether Reince Priebus will do it.

A lot of campaign finance laws cut off money from the parties and force the candidates to campaign themselves. So this would have been true a long time ago, but not today. Some percentage of people take Glenn Beck seriously, and more than a few of them have money to throw at otherwise ridiculous candidates.

 

[Gotchaye]

Problem was that starting with the Reagan years GOP started to ignore the whole argument that beyond a certain level reducing tax rates would actually hurt the revenue.

There are two separate things here. First, there's the Laffer curve, which says that at a particular moment, there's an optimal level of taxation where increasing or decreasing taxes both result in lower revenue, and the Republicans are perpetually convinced that we're on the right side of that curve.

There's also the idea that taxes in general are a drag on economic growth, regardless of how much revenue they bring in at a particular time. And because economic growth is exponential, the optimal tax for integrated revenue over time limits to 0 (and is finite but tiny for finite time in the future).

 

[Pre]

LOL.

The amount of libertarians who would side with democrats overall I've met in my life (both including online and in real life) can be counted on one hand (two if I'm being generous). Libertarians may not like Republicans but they fucking HATE Democrats for some reason.

Economics, mostly. A lot of Ron Paul supporters seem keen on switching to Obama, but I think those are mostly the ones who support Paul because of weed.

And yes, the idea isn't that lower taxes always equal more economic growth, just as excessively high rates don't always equal more revenue. Taxation is necessary, but there is a fine balance to it.

I believe Alexander Hamilton advocated raising revenue through indirect taxes only in one of his writings in the Federalist. I'll have to remember to research that in depth sometime. Taxation is one of the those things I'm constantly trying to improve my knowledge of.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

There are two separate things here. First, there's the Laffer curve, which says that at a particular moment, there's an optimal level of taxation where increasing or decreasing taxes both result in lower revenue, and the Republicans are perpetually convinced that we're on the right side of that curve.

There's also the idea that taxes in general are a drag on economic growth, regardless of how much revenue they bring in at a particular time. And because economic growth is exponential, the optimal tax for integrated revenue over time limits to 0 (and is finite but tiny for finite time in the future).

But when talking about actual supply side economics policy, it is based on the Laffer curve...right? I could be mistaken, I had read this shit up on wiki during the DNC convention, I am no economics major.

Which actually reminds, I have always though that Democrats should start talking about Demand creators, talk in their terms, talk about how driving up demand will help the economy.