Fuckin sweet.
-
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
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Fuckin sweet.
Byakuya769
Member
I was curious about it as well. I would doubt it though.
I took one look at those two and knew they'd be graveyards, who knew they'd be executions instead.
RDreamer said:
This would only work if people perceived him as someone willing to fight for them, which they do not. If he tried it would probably come off as disingenuous and Obama could easily rebuke it. After all, what plans has Romney put forward. If I were Obama and he hit me on the economy I would ask him to detail his plan and how it was different than what Bush did for his 8 years, which he can't. Unfortunately the debates aren't set up to allow stuff like that.
I kind of hope not. I kind of grew to like having him around here.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Well... he certainly did not have an average set of opinions.
jamesinclair
Banned
I think he self-deported when the polls started coming in showing Obama +10.
Manos lost my vote for being a Citizens United apologist.
The problem with Manos is that he pretends to be a Democrat, so his entire existence is dishonest.
Also, he's hilariously clueless about guns, but that's more funny than annoying.
Internet experts are the best experts.
Dude get baited by Manos, he should take some time to reflect about the error of his ways
.When I got banned, I was arguing with myself.
Just saw this pretty good ad here in Wisconsin. I think that hits everything an Obama ad needs to. It shows what he's done with the economy, contrasts the future, and even has Clinton in there to remind people of his speech and lend credence to the arguments.
These are exactly the type of articles Romney wants right now, from the Associated Press no less:
As race stands, Obama within reach of second term.
Nothing we didn't know, but I always think when the Associated Press starts seeing the writing on the wall, it's a good sign things are about to get even more desperate for the Republicans.
As race stands, Obama within reach of second term.
Nothing we didn't know, but I always think when the Associated Press starts seeing the writing on the wall, it's a good sign things are about to get even more desperate for the Republicans.
Rocket Scientist
Member
That's pretty effective.
He's the type of poster that annoys you when he's around, but who you miss when he's gone. Only to realize you shouldn't have missed him when he's back again.
Nothing wrong with having minority opinions and I'd like to think that's not why he got banned. His posting style was a bit annoying though hopefully he's not gone for good.
It is a good ad. It splits exactly down the middle: first 30 seconds looking back at Obama's first term for context, then the last 30 seconds comparing the candidate's plans for the future. It covers a lot of ground to create a strong contrast, without feeling rushed.
speculawyer
Member
But . . . . Romney is an accountant. He took accounting courses as part of his MBA. He was head of the audit committee for Marriot.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/canellos-kleinbard-romney-taxes/index.html
(Where they got nailed for an aggressive tax dodge scheme.)
Isn't Romney being an accountant-type basically the big push of his administration? He'll balance the books!
speculawyer
Member
He may have troughed too early but it looks to be deep enough that he won't have a chance to climb out in time.
jamesinclair
Banned
I cant believe Romney paid 1 million bitcoins.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I was going to ask what happened to this because I was too busy with school. Did Gaf discuss it on the 27th?
The notion that Romney can change their minds ignores the nature of undecided voters. They are largely weak partisans who the campaign must stimulate. The primary reason undecided voters are breaking for Obama is that he's outperforming Romney in stimulating his base. Romney's failure to develop an effective campaign organization reduced his potential relative to Obama. Consequently, Romney's not going to close the gap.
And even if he miraculously delivers a few zingers, it's entirely inconsequential. This is a trivial story.
McCain's argument is valid, but the Republicans lack credibility on the issue. After the debacle in Iraq, they have no standing to debate the intricacies of intervention.
It got it's own thread, but it was more laughing at the so called "hackers" than anything else. Too bad nothing came of it, what would really be funny is if it came right before or after the debate. But it won't. This was always a hoax. Sadly
speculawyer
Member
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/christie-debate-restart-romney-154114765--election.html
Christie is a big man to to step up to the plate with this comment. I'm sure he'll bring a ton of support to the floundering Romney campaign. He didn't think the campaign would eat it that badly but a buffet of new policies will rejuvinate the campaign in a big way. He believes Romeny will have them eating out of the palm of his hand.
Chris Christie is a large man.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Don't worry, that's just bad-feeling interference from the Yankees. :/
Maybe they'll be
low fat
weight loss
Also has Romney set a record for number of campaign restarts yet? This is like the third or fourth already.
TacticalFox88
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/barack-obama-advertising_n_1913430.html
Remember when everyone was like "Why isn't Obama focusing on getting Super Pac money! Romney will crush him with ads!"
lol
Remember when everyone was like "Why isn't Obama focusing on getting Super Pac money! Romney will crush him with ads!"
lol
cartoon_soldier
Member
The Media is looking for a Romney comeback narrative (actually it has already somewhat started due to the WH Libya missteps). They will play up any "big" moments Romney has, where he may seem to fluster Obama or scored a few points.
As such the debates themselves have been largely inconsequential in the past few years. Not that this year is like the past years, if that was the case, a President with a 8.1% UE wouldn't be favorite for re-election.
Obama has to be careful for this and the foreign policy debate. Economy wise, he has to both defend his record and show people Romney will be worse. His problem will be that (for some reason) the media (not sure about the people?) don't like long answers, and they say in Politics that if you are explaining stuff you are losing. If he is able to explain things in simplistic terms such as Clinton at DNC (and not sure he can) he will do well. And yea, he has had less debate Prep too. Obama also has to be careful that his genuine dislike for Romney and his penchant for sarcasm doesn't overshadow everything. Gingrich didn't have any answer why it was bad for Romney to have a swiss bank account, Obama will need one. Same thing with the whole blind trust facade. That takes a lot of prep, hopefully Obama is up to it.
Romney delivered in the primaries debates when he needed to the most. He knows he needs to do the same here. Romney's problem will be debating a likable President vs a group of Right wing Republicans. Also, Romney for all intents and purposes was the front runner in the primary, that is not the case here. He is some what out of his comfort zone when attacking people and that may haunt him.
Obviously we can hope there is more Romney oppo research we haven't seen yet that will come out in October. The 47% tape was perfectly timed to be releases when DNC bounce was fading.
RustyNails
Member
I realized that in order for Mitt to deliver a "You are no Jack Kennedy, Senator" moment in the debate, he will have to step out of the comfort zone and take risk. But that's exactly what his handlers do not want: another $10,000 bet question.
More evidence he's a tax evader and has no standing to call out poor people for not paying tax.
Did you also realize that the person who made that comment originally didn't win the election?
ryutaro's mama
Member
It should roll out like this:
Obama: "Your party has tried for weeks to stretch and tether the Libya tragedy and me to the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and Jimmy Carter. To that I say, you are no Ronald Reagan, Governor."
We talking about PD?
cartoon_soldier
Member
I think Romney said he wants to do the "There you go again" line that Reagan used against Obama.
Manmademan
Member
Did reagan borrow the DeLorean in 1985 or something?
Medicare fines over hospitals' readmitted patients
http://news.yahoo.com/medicare-fines-over-hospitals-readmitted-084833994.html
What is this, the tenth reboot now?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Sounds like it's based on comparative percentages, which is a good way of going about it.
Hospitals that receive a shit percentage of re-admittance will be scrutinized and compared to hospitals that rate well.
I'm going to guess this might work out ok.
Depends on the details. A lot of times it's beyond a hospitals' control what happens to patients. Can hospitals deny admission to patients under these rules? What about communities served by only one hospital versus several?
I will be glad when this election is over, to be as worried as you and giving Romney some ungodly amount of credit must suck.
Romney did not deliver in the debates, he survived and you keep acting like he soundly defeated Santorum when its obvious that if they were even in money Romney was like the Titanic.
We are less than 2 months from the election, any candidate praying they can change the narrative this much during the debates is so far up shits creek without a paddle.
They can opt out of medicare altogether, but they can't make it a per-patient decision.
And obviously, they can't reject patients will life threatening emergencies.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I haven't read the details, but one problem with this can be that hospitals do not take in the same patient populations, and so some hospitals may get shit ratings because they tend to see higher risk patients, which generally have higher rates of re-admittance. Their care may be top notch, and better than another hospital with a higher rating, but that is not seen since they get sent all the complicated cases. I hope this takes into account the types of patients seen because a strict percentage comparison would not be fair at all.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
It was Hologram Reagan.
The re-admission thing is good. It means that financial incentives for hospitals are no longer to rush patients out the door. They will now do a better job of making sure that their prescriptions are checked and explained and that family doctors are notified of what happened so they can follow up on the patient.
I'm sure that the percentages may eventually have to be tweaked for different populations, but overall this is a good idea. Also I like the idea of transparency, with hospital re-admission data being made public so people can see how they do and if they are improving.
I'm sure that the percentages may eventually have to be tweaked for different populations, but overall this is a good idea. Also I like the idea of transparency, with hospital re-admission data being made public so people can see how they do and if they are improving.
Good stuff. This is part of the delivery system reforms that are going to phase in over the next few years as part of the healthcare law. They're one of the major reasons the law needs to be fully implemented. A public website to compare hospital readmission rates will help remove the black box nature of selecting hospitals to visit.
Oh, more than that.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Romney's campaign got more reboots then Hollywood does superhero and horror franchises.
Let the media look for the comeback narrative. First, it'll prove elusive. And even if they find it, it's trivial. The narrative pales in comparison to Obama's numerous advantages.
I think you mean the past few elections. Regardless, the data extends to the sixties. And the debates have, at most, nominally shifted public opinion. Otherwise, they have no discernible effect. And as to your point about Obama's performance relative to the economy indicating an atypical cycle, no. Although the point has been iterated for the past year by multiple posters, it evidently bears repeating. The overall level of unemployment is immaterial. Rather, the recent trajectory of the economy influences the outcome. And Obama's performance corresponds with modest economic growth. His performance is largely congruous with expectations, although he's probably slightly outperforming given his organizational advantage. So, no. There's no indication this cycle is a black swan.
Further, I'm not interested in analyzing their debate strategies, for debates rarely move public opinion. I'll say this, though. Romney has to be as careful, if not more, than Obama. He's proven to be indelicate on numerous occasions in various contexts. He's much more likely to commit a mistake than Obama. And as for proving himself when it counts, he defeated a field of lackwits. However, that was only after losing to said lackwits on a few occasions. Conversely, Obama's demonstrated his competence against opponents far superior to Romney's competition. And he never faltered like Romney. You frame the argument as if Obama's expected to fail, but the evidence militates against that proposition. Moreover, to preempt the argument that Obama's fucked because the media's going to propagate the narrative of Romney's upset victory, the debates only nominally shift public opinion.
It's over. Accept it. And focus on the Congressional elections.
Nate Silver tweet just now:
Probably researching an upcoming blog entry. I was wondering how things were tracking.
Probably researching an upcoming blog entry. I was wondering how things were tracking.
Do most people really want to hear a lot zingers during policy debate?
Maybe a couple for emphasis on points, because even Clinton had a couple(sort of) during his speech; but overall I'd rather have it be kept professional.
Of course, there will obviously be some elements that want crowds cheering and constant zingers I'm sure... Republican debates were a travesty.
Maybe a couple for emphasis on points, because even Clinton had a couple(sort of) during his speech; but overall I'd rather have it be kept professional.
Of course, there will obviously be some elements that want crowds cheering and constant zingers I'm sure... Republican debates were a travesty.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll