• 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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
No, it's a really good idea. He can't win and he doesn't want to spend his own money on this doomed campaign. This way he also gets a nice meal and can make questionable speeches without the press jumping all over him, in theory at least. I bet these events have a no cellphone rule now.

Fair point for sure. They certainly aren't acting like they can win. Ingratiating himself towards the people that fund him makes sense. I'm just trying to figure out who would be giving him money at this point.
 

Chumly

Member
Romneys money isn't going to help if he's going to keep putting out shitty ads. I just started seeing counter ad from Obama that I thought was good bragging about tire tariffs on china while Romney criticized them. I thought it was a pretty effective counter to romneys recent china nonsense.

There is a night and day difference between advertising and ground games between the campaigns and Romney is just wasting his money away
 

pigeon

Banned
I've seen a few articles today, including this one from the Washington Post, talking about how Romney is spending more time raising money than he is campaigning. I realize he needs money to stay in the fight, but it seems like a really bad idea. It furthers the narrative that he is more interested in his donors than he is in the American people.

Power of the Internet economy. People love to talk about Obama's micromarketing fundraising campaign, but it's really just the same thing he did in 08, which was the same thing Dean did in 04 -- and they're all just reflections of the fact that among the Millenials, i.e. the people who actually know how to use the Internet, the Democrats have a significant demographic advantage. (And owning California and New York probably doesn't hurt there either.) The Democratic fundraising campaign is just using the same tools Amazon, Google and Facebook have been refining all decade, which allows them to decentralize their fundraising strategy. You could also think of it as Kickstarting the Presidency. By contrast, Romney's fundraising is the old-fashioned centralized model -- and just like brick and mortar is losing to Amazon, sit-down dinners have fundamental logistical constraints compared to email pitches.

To put it another way, Obama's disruptive crowdsourcing of venture capital is allowing him to proactively deploy politics-as-a-service on multiple channels, while Romney's waterfall approach isn't sufficiently agile to engage with market restructuring if and when it occurs.
 

RDreamer

Member
Just saw capacity is 23,000 so that means this is gonna be full... Or that number was wrong, but I'm not sure. Line is at least like 4 miles long.
 

Clevinger

Member
How long until the Koch brothers (Americans for Prosperity) just start giving people money to vote for Romney?

Americans for Prosperity offering Iowans gas at $1.84 next week
A limited number of cars can fill up their tanks at $1.84 a gallon in Coralville, Waterloo and Ames on Monday and Tuesday, courtesy of activists from a conservative non-profit group.

Americans for Prosperity is offering the reduced gas as part of its “Obama’s Failing Agenda Tour,” which includes three buses traveling across the country.

Gasoline will be limited to the first 150 vehicles and each car will be limited to 15 gallons, said Mark Lucas, Iowa director for Americans for Prosperity, which was co-founded by wealthy political activists Charles and David Koch.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions

Jadedx

Banned
It amazes me how much people really want to see Obama. Did any previous presidents draw in crowds like this on a consistent basis?
 

Paches

Member
It amazes me how much people really want to see Obama. Did any previous presidents draw in crowds like this on a consistent basis?

Not sure about previous presidents, but when RDreamer was talking about how long the lines were it reminded me of Missouri in '08.

crowd,missouri,obama,politics,rally-ad657c94beeb9aba0caf01ab17455683_h.jpg
 

In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.

How about this . . . They must pay $500 per challenge and when they correctly identify someone they get $1000 reward. Thus, they could make a profit with legit complaints but they would be dissuaded from frivolous challenges.
 
Mitt Romney’s lawyer admitted to the Democratic accusation that the Romneys could have paid a lot less in taxes in 2011, but they manipulated the returns so as to conform to an August Romney claim that he always paid at least 13%.

The AP reported:


But, Brad Malt acknowledged, the couple “limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor’s statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.”

If you were wondering why Romney dumped his tax returns on Friday a week before they were due, we’re told it’s because he didn’t want the issue to muddy the debate waters. However, he has done nothing but hand Democrats a justification for their tax the rich a bit more policies. Mitt

Romney’s taxes are becoming the poster child example of all that is wrong with our current tax
codes.

One reason Romney pays so little is that most of his income comes from capital gains, rather than “income” and is thus taxed at a much lower rate. He also takes advantage of tax shelters and loopholes that have been the target of the Obama administration. The fact that Romney pays so little seems at odds with his disdain for the “47 percent” of Americans he claims don’t pay any taxes, and further at odds with his expression that he feels more Americans would like to pay taxes. After all, Mitt Romney clearly doesn’t like paying taxes.

Tax experts point out that Romney’s returns are missing a few details:

What’s missing, tax experts say, are the details of Romney’s retirement account from Bain Capital, including investments in offshore accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
Another factor thrown into the mix is the fact that Romney’s 20 year average of his taxes is a “simple one (i.e., the average of the percentage in each year) rather than a weighted one (i.e., where you add up all the tax paid across the 20 years and divide it by all the income
).”

It’s a potentially important difference because the simple average treats each year equally — whether Romney earned, say, $5 million in that year or $30 million. It is especially important if Romney paid a low tax rate in a year in which he earned a lot but paid a high tax rate in years when he earned less. The weighted average would give a more accurate picture.

Romney told us that paying more than he owed would disqualify him from the presidency, but he has now paid more than he owed in order to make his earlier statement about never paying below 13% appear to be true. Not to worry, though, Mitt Romney can merely amend his return after the election in order to get that money back from the government, like any 47%-er would want to do.

Harry Reid points out in a statement from his office, “That raises the question: what else in those returns has Romney manipulated?”

As our former President warned us, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

Thanks, W. We’ll try to keep that in mind.

...Yep. I'm convinced Romney doesn't think he's going to win, so he's like fuck it.
 

Chumly

Member
Romney is just getting desperate and is making even more stupid decisions due to it. I mean who could honestly say this tax return "release" or whatever you want to call it was a good idea. You either go all out or don't do it at all. This partial release raises even more questions.
 
Saw my first Romney yard sign today on a walk in St. Paul. In good news that house also had a Vote No sign on the marriage amendment banning gay marriage.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Honestly, I'd like to see more of that. I'd like the debates to allow the candidates to bring a laptop and be allow to put up graphs as they talk. It is 2012 . . . use the fucking tools we have.

Agreed. It's one reason why I loved the 1992 campaign. Perot's use of charts and graphs made quite a mark on the race, so we know that they can be useful in connecting with voters.

Ross+Perot+charts.png
 

kehs

Banned
Honestly, I'd like to see more of that. I'd like the debates to allow the candidates to bring a laptop and be allow to put up graphs as they talk. It is 2012 . . . use the fucking tools we have.

I'm really hoping the Whitehouse repeats what they did with the state of the union by having information onscreen over -------------------> Here.
 
Agreed its not like her experience or knowledge got her anywhere (elected office wise)

She has got to have made the biggest career out of nearly no substantive office holding. A half-term governor of a state of 700,000 people. There are tons of Senators with more important careers and you've never heard of them.
 
Saw my first Romney yard sign today on a walk in St. Paul. In good news that house also had a Vote No sign on the marriage amendment banning gay marriage.
Interesting.

If this amendment were decided by pure enthusiasm alone, Vote No would romp. Everyday I see a new sign or button or bumper sticker somewhere, in places I wouldn't usually expect. I drove around in White Bear Lake (rural-ish near St. Paul) and saw a decent amount of Vote No signs mixed in with the dozens of Republican signs (no Romney though, heh).

If Yes wins, definitely a case of a silent majority.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Agreed. It's one reason why I loved the 1992 campaign. Perot's use of charts and graphs made quite a mark on the race, so we know that they can be useful in connecting with voters.

Ross+Perot+charts.png

Agree, despite my laugh at the thought of Ryan doing so. Rooting the debates and arguments in more data like this is something we need. Hell, just showing a chart with the job losses/gains by month since Obama was in office would do wonders for a lot of people.
 
One thing I'll love about an Obama win is that it will be complete defeat of people like the Koch brothers and the Sheldon Adelsons. Despite spending all that money, your side still lost.
Meaning that all the cries and claims about Citizens United....were wrong. Obama winning will pretty much kill the biggest claims related to Superpacs and the fact he had more than Romney will go a long way to getting most Dems to drop the Citizens United angle...since it kind of either didn't matter or benefited them.
 
Interesting.

If this amendment were decided by pure enthusiasm alone, Vote No would romp. Everyday I see a new sign or button or bumper sticker somewhere, in places I wouldn't usually expect. I drove around in White Bear Lake (rural-ish near St. Paul) and saw a decent amount of Vote No signs mixed in with the dozens of Republican signs (no Romney though, heh).

If Yes wins, definitely a case of a silent majority.

MGZx4.jpg


Vote No is making me hungry.
 

Forever

Banned
Meaning that all the cries and claims about Citizens United....were wrong.

No, Obama will still be the first incumbent to be outspent overall and before Citizen's United Obama was the most successful fundraiser in history. Your logic is simpleminded and absurd on its face, attributing a loss solely to finances. The problem the Republicans are having is that they simply could not buy a better candidate than the one they got. Furthermore, the arguments against Citizen's United are not just practical but also principled.

This is Limbaugh logic.
 
Meaning that all the cries and claims about Citizens United....were wrong. Obama winning will pretty much kill the biggest claims related to Superpacs and the fact he had more than Romney will go a long way to getting most Dems to drop the Citizens United angle...since it kind of either didn't matter or benefited them.
This is terrible logic.

That's like me saying that because I didn't die of lung cancer this year, smoking obviously doesn't matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom