• 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.

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
he s a pro corporerate and Pro wall street President.

He may yell loud that Wall Street is immoral but he rewards them anyway and has Tim Geithner around and Burnanke

Social Issues whaterver

it's on economics that a President really gets judged on and Obama is a pro Wall Street President bottom line.

Bill Clinton was more on the Right than Obama
Wall Street clearly doesn't think that Obama is in their corner. It's not hard to see why: Dodd-Frank, if it's fully implemented, will cost banks billions of dollars. Many otherwise level-headed publications, such as The Economist, actually think that the basic regulatory architecture of the law is too onerous. Wall Street may be profitable (which is actually a good thing), but it's not necessarily profiting from the current administration. An argument could be made, however, that the administration did not go far enough in changing the banking system in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, and Tim Geithner certainly had a lot to do with that (not so much Bernanke, who is fairly independent in these matters).
 

Forever

Banned
No. You outlined that the base disagrees with Obama. You did not show that Dems have moved to the left.

Do you disagree that Obama is to the left of Clinton? Do you think that this is not a trend?

This conversation is entirely unconstructive and pointless to boot, I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish or why you're being so standoffish about it.
 
Do you disagree that Obama is to the left of Clinton? Do you think that this is not a trend?

This conversation is entirely unconstructive and pointless to boot, I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish or why you're being so standoffish about it.

I was just curious on your thinking of the matter. I became standoffish when you seemed intent on making broad assertions devoid of support.

Clinton/Obama does not equal "Dems." You demonstrate this in your own posts as you make predictions of what the next Democratic President will be based on protestations of "the base" towards Obama. I am implying that you are completely ignoring what the base had to say in 90's over Clinton's economic policies, and then you glossed completely over Gutter's points related to that.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
No. You outlined that the base disagrees with Obama. You did not show that Dems have moved to the left.

Support for gay marriage is part of the Democratic party platform for the first time in history. That is a measurable shift to the left on the issue. Related, DADT has been repealed, which had been signed into law by the last Democratic president.
 
Support for gay marriage is part of the Democratic party platform for the first time in history. That is a measurable shift to the left on the issue. Related, DADT has been repealed, which had been signed into law by the last Democratic president.

On social issues, and my original post cites that.


If you went through all that trouble over semantics then maybe I should've had you on ignore.

Go for it, bud.
 
Wall Street clearly doesn't think that Obama is in their corner. It's not hard to see why: Dodd-Frank, if it's fully implemented, will cost banks billions of dollars. Many otherwise level-headed publications, such as The Economist, actually think that the basic regulatory architecture of the law is too onerous. Wall Street may be profitable (which is actually a good thing), but it's not necessarily profiting from the current administration. An argument could be made, however, that the administration did not go far enough in changing the banking system in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, and Tim Geithner certainly had a lot to do with that (not so much Bernanke, who is fairly independent in these matters).

Dodd Frank is essentially a slap on the wrist that doesn't do much to banks; it will cost them some money, but Scott Brown and others made sure it wouldn't hurt their pockets/feelings too much. Wall Street doesn't like Obama because of the way he talks about them; they are the most vain, narcissistic people in this country outside of Hollywood and want to be told that they are make this country great. If it wasn't for the fact that regular people will lose jobs and money (again), it would be quite funny when the economy crashes again and we're forced to bail out too big to fail entities; Obama continually claims he ended this practice but of course, nothing in the bill addresses it.

Geithner should have been fired long ago. Hell, this country would be better off if he was dropped immediately after it was revealed he didn't pay taxes
 

Atilac

Member
Well, that cartoon is a PERFECT representation of why Romney blew this election.

You know why after the primaries, the candidates shake their etch a sketch and move to the middle?

Because thats where they maximize votes.

Imagine for example both candidates are left of center (obama) and right of center (romney).

Obama gets every vote to the left of him, because those people wont vote Romney, as Obama is closer to their position.
Romney gets every vote to the right of him, because those people wont vote Obama as Romney is closer to their position.

The people in the middle are evenly divided. Those closer to romney vote romney, those clsoer to obama vote obama.

In this case, the country is divided 50/50.

(We can ignore 3rd parties because theyre so minor, and for every green party voter theres a libertarian voter)


election1.jpg


In this case, the winner is decided by voter enthusiasm + getting the other side not to vote. What happens is an incredibly tight race, like 2000.



So usually what happens is the candidates to to move closer to their opponent. If Obama moves right, he keeps everyone to his left AND gets some of romneys voters.

Romney naturally responds by moving left, so that the vote is balanced again, 50/50.

Thats why in most cases the candidates are so similar....they want to maximize votes by moving as close to the middle as possible.

election3.jpg



HOWEVER, thats not what Romney did.

Romney moved right. His theory was that this would make his voters more likely to vote. but doing so, he immediately gives up voters to Obama, who doesnt have to move at all to gain them.

election2.jpg



But if Obama moves right....

election4.jpg


Romney is left with way too small a piece of the pie.

AKA: 2012 election.


So that cartoon, where the GOP says theyll move if Obama moves?

That sealed their position in the election of being the losing party.

These graphs represent the medium voter theorem.
 

Cloudy

Banned
Suggestions include a Romney appearance at the Keystone XL pipeline to pound his energy strategy, and to do more unscheduled stops in diners or other local haunts like the Florida Obama visit that resulted in the president being lifted off the ground in a bear hug.

“Go to a location where the Keystone pipeline was to be built, and with unemployed workers as part of the event, look into the camera and say, ‘Mr. Obama, Build this pipeline,’” said Republican strategist Greg Mueller said. “This hits the jobs issue and directly connects Obama to blocking jobs, preventing economic growth and holding back energy independence.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81804.html#ixzz27tdL2KkF

Something like this could win Romney a news cycle or two but I feel Romney has to run to Obama's left on something also
 

Cloudy

Banned
But Mango Cola? I nearly vomited on my face.

I dunno. Pepsi (Lemon) Twist is still the best cola around. Mango isn't a citrus but how different could it be?

I don't really drink pop anymore but I could go for a Pepsi Twist right now. I wonder if they still make it. So refreshing lol
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Dodd Frank is essentially a slap on the wrist that doesn't do much to banks; it will cost them some money, but Scott Brown and others made sure it wouldn't hurt their pockets/feelings too much. Wall Street doesn't like Obama because of the way he talks about them; they are the most vain, narcissistic people in this country outside of Hollywood and want to be told that they are make this country great. If it wasn't for the fact that regular people will lose jobs and money (again), it would be quite funny when the economy crashes again and we're forced to bail out too big to fail entities; Obama continually claims he ended this practice but of course, nothing in the bill addresses it.

Geithner should have been fired long ago. Hell, this country would be better off if he was dropped immediately after it was revealed he didn't pay taxes
That Scott Brown had a significant say in the final framework of Dodd-Frank means that the law isn't necessarily reflective of Obama's own stance on the issue. Obama, of course, would have given the law more teeth.

Furthermore, Dodd-Frank does have a significant impact on financial institutions. The Volcker Rule, if it's written in such a way that lends it enormous power (which, by some reports, it might be), will curtail many of the most noxious actions that led to the current crisis. The CFPB, which was the target of particular lobbying and animus, has already had an effect. In July, it ordered Capital One to pay refunds and fines totaling $210 million - a not insignificant amount. Of course, the true measure of the bill isn't how punitive it is, but how effective it is. There are many things in the bill that will work but aren't necessarily punitive.

Lastly, the bill does address too big to fail. Whether or not it will work is still open to debate, but it's unquestionable that the bill at least attempts to address it.
 

Forever

Banned
George W. Bush to visit Mitt Romney's money days before the election.

Former President George W. Bush is set to deliver the keynote address at the Cayman Alternative Investment Summit on Grand Cayman just a few days before the election.

The conference will feature Bush as the keynote speaker on the first night, and British billionaire Sir Richard Branson on the second night.

"Institutional investors, private investors, asset allocators, fund managers, service providers, academics and regulators will benefit from this discussion on the future of the industry," reads to the FAQ section of the website.

The timing of the conference could land awkwardly during an election season that's been marked by speculation about Mitt Romney's finances, particularly his offshore investments in tax havens like the Cayman Islands.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Obama's name and title are the most used words by Romney's Twitter and Facebook accounts. Now that's a message problem.

Was just about to post the same thing.

Also surprised Romney's tweets were more viral than Obama's. I can't even think of anything that Mittens tweeted.
 
New Hampshire voter registration law problems

The Tea Party speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, William O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon), is asking a state court to force the state attorney general to accept his interpretation of a new voter registration law relating to college students.

Legislators passed the law -- over the veto of Gov. John Lynch (D) -- earlier this year to require those registering to vote to obtain residency in the state, including a driver's license and car registration. The previous law said that living in the state -- including living in a dorm room -- was sufficient to vote.

You have to register a car to vote in New Hampshire and the Speaker is throwing a tantrum because the Attorney General doesn't like how the speaker interpreted the bill.


This is why states can't have nice things.


further
In May, the Legislature overturned Lynch's veto of O'Brien's voter ID law in a contentious debate that included state Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) giving O'Brien a Nazi salute on the House floor after O'Brien blocked him from opposing the bill.

Classy
 

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
Neither am I. Obama's preparing apace as the NYT article notes. The anxiety some experience is unwarranted.

It looked like a typo but that's actually a real word.

Gingrich's intellectual formidability and rhetorical prowess made Romney's triumph even greater. Come on. Romney defeated a lightweight only after having his ass handed to him. It's difficult, if not impossible, to underestimate Romney.

Gingrich was always a long shot even after he won SC, I don't think most people were that surprised that Romney could beat Gingrich of all people in a debate. But Romney is going to make the upcoming debates all about Obama's failure as a president, without actually looking petty by using zingers.

I think the primary debates taught Romney to never express his own past/current opinions on anything. Best case scenario, he gets Obama to sound confusing or look stumped and makes clips of it to use in campaign ads. That could sway whatever undecideds are left his way.

But there's a high chance that his flip-flops will catch up to him and he'll have no legitimate response ready, making his whole campaign finally go into china syndrome. If Romney hasn't given up already, then he's desperately relying on these debates to go well.
 

RDreamer

Member
Was just about to post the same thing.

Also surprised Romney's tweets were more viral than Obama's. I can't even think of anything that Mittens tweeted.

Most of Romney's tweets were jabs at Obama, so it makes sense. That sort of stuff seems to be pretty viral in general.

I could also see the people on the right being more prone to just pass along a tweet or post or whatever, considering the whole chain email mentality.

According to the write up Obama has more retweets and replies by far.
 

Diablos

Member
Wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You have to own a car to be able to vote in NH? What the fuck is wrong with that state?
.... how long has it been like this?

WTF? That's unconstitutional. I don't care if they found a loophole in some kind of law or whatever, that is straight up unconstitutional. Epic smh.
 

Kusagari

Member
How the fuck has more not been made of that NH law?

Requiring owning a car to be able to vote? That's the most unconstitutional shit ever.
 
Obama's name and title are the most used words by Romney's Twitter and Facebook accounts. Now that's a message problem.

Not necessarily. Romney's not going to win in a popularity contest or on the strength of his ideas. He has a slim chance if he makes the election a referendum of Obama's presidency. Hence, focusing everything he does on Obama rather than talking himself up.

Of course, it only works if he actually succeeds in driving down Obama's approval ratings...and Obama's done a significantly better job in making people remember that the election is a choice between him and Romney.
 

bsb

Neo Member
CSPAN is showing some old presidential debates tonight. Mondale vs. Reagan is on right now, and its kind of interesting. I was alive at the time, but way too young to be aware of politics. Even though I agree with him on the issues, I can see why Mondale lost. His lack of charisma is almost stunning.


(yes, I'm having a really rockin' Saturday night)
 
Media has done a pretty good job of picking up Ann Romney's comments about Mitt's mental health. And by pretty good job, I mean absolutely fucking horrible.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
CSPAN is showing some old presidential debates tonight. Mondale vs. Reagan is on right now, and its kind of interesting. I was alive at the time, but way too young to be aware of politics. Even though I agree with him on the issues, I can see why Mondale lost. His lack of charisma is almost stunning.


(yes, I'm having a really rockin' Saturday night)

I was just watching some primary debates (mostly between Hillary Clinton and Obama). Clinton was obviously coached by her husband (similar style) but she isn't able to connect with the viewers as well as Bill can. Obama had some pretty good zingers though.
 
I was just watching some primary debates (mostly between Hillary Clinton and Obama). Clinton was obviously coached by her husband (similar style) but she isn't able to connect with the viewers as well as Bill can. Obama had some pretty good zingers though.

I think Obama has to appear not presidential and fair new. That can cause missteps to occur. E.g. in the 60 minute interview he is asked about false ads and says some of his might be over the top, etc. That would be a bad debate answer. Romney will stand by his ads no matter what proof you give him.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Media has done a pretty good job of picking up Ann Romney's comments about Mitt's mental health. And by pretty good job, I mean absolutely fucking horrible.

What do you mean? That they should be talking about it but haven't or that they are and shouldn't be?

They are comments without merit. The presidency is an intense mental taxation, she should be concerned. No spouse shouldn't be.
 
Media has done a pretty good job of picking up Ann Romney's comments about Mitt's mental health. And by pretty good job, I mean absolutely fucking horrible.

Because it's an overblown comment only the left is desperate enough to mis-characterize. Being president is one of the hardest jobs in the world, especially now with rapid response technology. Of course a wife would worry about whether that would change her husband, and worry about the strain involved. Just look at how quickly Obama, W Bush, and Clinton aged in four years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom