TacticalFox88
Banned
Cause in some ways it can be spun to say that "Obama got us into another war!" I find it hard to believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan most of the country would be willing to go to war with Iran when it's Israel's problem.
-
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
Cause in some ways it can be spun to say that "Obama got us into another war!" I find it hard to believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan most of the country would be willing to go to war with Iran when it's Israel's problem.
It's hard to separate Obama's foreign policy from Hillary's SoS work (or even, really, from Biden's contributions). Inasmuch as he's been successful in Asia and in the Middle East/Arab Spring (which is a whole lot), Hillary should be credited as well, it seems to me.
@fivethirtyeight said:
So there's that.
Government is a team sport.
It's easier to create hero narrative if you only focus on the leaders, but the reality is that everything is built on the work of countless staffers and public servants.
When I say "Hillary is one of the greatest secretary of states ever", what I actually mean is that the State Department had some amazing diplomatic achievements during her run.
Absolutely.
The work on Iran is also quite impressive.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Someone on kos figured that Obama's approval must be around 54% to be producing the changes seen in their 3-day tracker. I wouldn't be surprised if his horserace numbers are close to that, but that's a 7-day tracker.
I wouldn't be surprised if this represents a genuine shift to Obama, even if only by a point or two. A lot of people were reminded of why they loved Obama in 2008.
So admittedly, I haven't been following Senate or House races much. If Obama wins in convincing fashion like he did in 2008, what are the odds that we hold the senate and most importantly, take back the house?
And by convincingly, I mean taking states like NC and FL and winning by around 5%, which at this point, I am very confident will happen. Polling is backing that up around now, and the polling drastically underestimated democratic turnout in 08.
RustyNails
Member
Something tells me this lead is going to widen a little further.
Byakuya769
Member
Foodstamp President.
BuggyDClown
Member
Wish it was time for the debates already. I feel like the gap will widen big time, and hopefully then I can relax a bit. I'm still nervous that he can lose this.
Super hard to judge. PEC thinks that the Democrats were already slight favorites to take both -- Obama improving heavily can only be good for them. 538 is slightly less sanguine but close. The problem is that there are SuperPACs like Rove's Crossroads that are targeted specifically at spending unlimited cash on Congressional campaigns, and we have no history to consult as to how effective that will be. It could make a huge difference, or it might get beaten by Obama's coattails.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
They are called bounces for a reason...
On the other hand the apparent negative bounce from the RNC really throws everything into confusion when trying to figure out what is attributed to what.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Surprised that Obama's 4 point lead is the top story on Drudge right now.
I was wrong about the bump. I figured since there were so few undecided voters, neither candidate would get a sizable bump from the conventions. Romney got like a 1.6 bump, and it looks like Obama might get a 4 point bump.
I was wrong about the bump. I figured since there were so few undecided voters, neither candidate would get a sizable bump from the conventions. Romney got like a 1.6 bump, and it looks like Obama might get a 4 point bump.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Read this analysis over at Wired: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/iran-war-plan/
It would be an expensive, prolonged clusterfuck (especially if Israel goes unilaterally) that would destabilize the entire Gulf and probably spike gas prices.
But the first attack might actually be the easy part, writes Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
At the same time, the U.S. has to keep Iran from blocking the ultra-important Strait of Hormuz, the 21-mile-wide waterway through which flows around 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas supplies. And America has to protect its energy-producing allies in the Persian Gulf, or else there will be no oil or gas to send through the Strait.
That will be no mean task, Cordesman writes: “Iran can cherry pick its targets in an effort to pressure and intimidate the U.S. and Southern Gulf states. It can use long-range conventionally armed missiles or drones against large military or urban targets as terror weapons. It can attack sporadically and unpredictably in a war of attrition or attempt to ‘swarm’ U.S. and Gulf naval forces.”
Israel might — might — be able to pull off a similar strike, but only just barely. It’ll require using a quarter of the Israel Air Force’s fighters, and all of its tanker planes, leaving no aircraft for all these other secondary targets. The jets will have to hug the Syrian-Turkish border before flying over both Iraq and Iran. And that is not exactly friendly territory. “The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate,” Cordesman writes.
And even if the reactors are hit, the ”Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional consequences,” he adds. You don’t even want to know what the Middle East would look like the day after Israel attempts a nuclear strike on Iran.
At the same time, the U.S. has to keep Iran from blocking the ultra-important Strait of Hormuz, the 21-mile-wide waterway through which flows around 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas supplies. And America has to protect its energy-producing allies in the Persian Gulf, or else there will be no oil or gas to send through the Strait.
That will be no mean task, Cordesman writes: “Iran can cherry pick its targets in an effort to pressure and intimidate the U.S. and Southern Gulf states. It can use long-range conventionally armed missiles or drones against large military or urban targets as terror weapons. It can attack sporadically and unpredictably in a war of attrition or attempt to ‘swarm’ U.S. and Gulf naval forces.”
Israel might — might — be able to pull off a similar strike, but only just barely. It’ll require using a quarter of the Israel Air Force’s fighters, and all of its tanker planes, leaving no aircraft for all these other secondary targets. The jets will have to hug the Syrian-Turkish border before flying over both Iraq and Iran. And that is not exactly friendly territory. “The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate,” Cordesman writes.
And even if the reactors are hit, the ”Iranian retaliation will have a devastating regional consequences,” he adds. You don’t even want to know what the Middle East would look like the day after Israel attempts a nuclear strike on Iran.
On top of that, most analysis I've read tends to agree that it would only set them back for a period of time.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The House and Senate are both tough for different reasons.
The Senate because the Democrats have several vulnerable incumbents in red states (Montana, Missouri), as well as open seats (North Dakota, Nebraska). In addition Wisconsin looks like an R flip even though it'll probably go blue - Tommy Thompson was popular as governor while Tammy Baldwin is a more divisive figure but has been a better fundraiser. Florida and Virginia look close as well but the Democrats have the lead there. There is an upshot though in that Massachusetts and Nevada both have strong Democratic candidates with built-in advantages in the state (MA is historically blue while NV is trending that way, and polls there severely lowball Hispanic support), Maine is a likely pickup for Dems (technically Independent former gov Angus King, but he's liberal on a host of issues and would likely caucus with Reid), and the teabaggers made Indiana a toss-up when it looked safe by primarying Lugar.
Basically if democrats hold their losses to only 2 or 3 seats, while picking up Maine and one of the tossups they'll still have the majority. If everything broke their way (and in a Democratic wave, it could) it'd be a 3 seat pickup.
Dems ceded some ground in the House race because Republicans won control of the redistricting process in many crucial states, NC, OH, VA, PA etc. It's not so much that Democrats will lose seats, it's more that the Republicans were able to shore up vulnerable incumbents in Obama districts. Nate Silver said that Democrats would probably need to win on the generic ballot (tally of all house races) by 3-4 points to win the House back, as it's harder to defeat incumbents, more of which are Republicans which helps insulate them in close contests. The trick is that if Obama's running 5 or more points ahead of Romney, Democrats in House races need to track close to his numbers to win. House polling so far has been sort of mixed, ranging from a tie to a big lead for the Democrats. We won't get a clearer picture on that until closer to election day.
Right now I think Democrats will lose a seat or break even in the Senate, and pick up about a dozen seats in the House, and they need 25 to win.
Perhaps the margin is coming from disaffected 08 voters who are coming back to Obama's corner? I have no doubt that if 2012 turnout matched 2008, Obama would win handily.PhoenixDark said:
Nate seems to think that the size of a bounce does correlate to a real shift in the polls -- essentially that a percentage of the bounce survives. So a good bounce is still meaningful.
This is exactly what I think is happening, especially since Obama's job approval is finally coming up to match his personal approval rating -- the people who liked Obama but didn't like his work as President are coming back around.
Aaron Strife
Banned
"That guy who took a giant dump on me and my party was a real winner!"
But surely the jobs report will sink him into the abyss indefinitely, right PD?
Lol. Reaching out to stoners and picking apart details of the fucking DNC schedule sounds like desperation to me.
Like, no one really thinks that the DNC alone can carry Obama to victory (though it is helping), but it's like Romney is giving into the notion that it has and blaming it on the lineup.
Too early to say for sure, but Mitt's campaign could prove to be even worse than McCain's.
Is no one else afraid of the impact of money? I feel like constant ads could screw us.
Byakuya769
Member
Mitt, all your keynotes were better than you. Hell, your introducer was better than you. I mean, I guess he has to attack it, but at least TRY to find a place of strength for yourself first.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Not so much with the low percentage of undecideds.
Also, being in Florida, it's getting ridiculous the number of ads that are political each break, that they drown out each other.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well, Obama and Romney are really only playing in eight states - Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Colorado. And most of the ad space has already been reserved through election day. I'm not too concerned.
Doubt it. The report came out the day after the convention and before the weekend. That makes a difference. Only cynics and those who already don't like Obama will care.
Seriously, what the fuck is going on with this Clinton strategy the GOP and Romney's campaign is putting out there.
Not for the Presidential election. More worried for Congressional races.
RustyNails
Member
Clinton is better than Obama so therefore don't vote for Obama
The entire centerpiece of Clinton's speech was VOTE FOR OBAMA, but by all means don't!
Okay GOP :rolleyes
PAC money in ads is proving to be counter-productive. You can only play ads so many time until it's noise, like a fucking autotuned pop song on the radio at your gym or bar in the background.
Okay GOP :rolleyes
PAC money in ads is proving to be counter-productive. You can only play ads so many time until it's noise, like a fucking autotuned pop song on the radio at your gym or bar in the background.
I'm always nervous about it, but there have been a lot of ads already and none of them seem to have moved the needle much. Even the Bain attacks, which seemed relatively effective, didn't reduce Mitt's support. So I'll believe it when I see it, basically.
Aaron Strife
Banned
If I had any interest in helping the GOP win elections, I'd say they should be making the argument that Gingrich was basically running the country during his presidency and that Clinton stood in the way of progress.
It probably wouldn't work, but it'd have to be better than heralding Clinton as the greatest president ever while he's endorsing your opponent.
It's what happens when you know someone has really nailed you. They're just going to try to ride it out and laugh it off and hope nobody remembers Clinton's speech by November. There's really no way for them to attack Clinton's speech because it was almost entirely truth, and it was incredible political theater. Even the most jaded and duplicitous of politicians knows when they've been roundly and fairly beaten. To try and strike back too hard against that speech would put them in the unfortunate position of having to deny many of their own positions, positions that they based most of their convention on.
Clinton put them in a no-win situation, so the only thing they can do is try to respectfully move the conversation away from Clinton's speech as quickly as possible.
RustyNails
Member
The Bain ads did magic in Rust belt. There's a reason why Mitt's pulled out of PA, and why Obama leads in Ohio. If Ohio is going blue, there's no way WI and IA are going red.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The thing is Gregory won't ask a follow up saying, "So you believe Paul Ryan, your vice president made a big mistake?"
cartoon_soldier
Member
Posting this again, Emanuel Cleaver at DNC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qRlfBKGC-3Q#t=343s
Amazing.
Him + John Lewis were amazing. Black caucus is best caucus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qRlfBKGC-3Q#t=343s
Amazing.
Him + John Lewis were amazing. Black caucus is best caucus.
I don't say this often, but here's a conservative columnist who really knows what she's talking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e5-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html#pagebreak
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e5-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html#pagebreak
He is desperate to find something about the military to "beat" Obama on, even if its absurd.
Black Mamba
Member
Wow, new polls put Obama at 80% on 538's model. 4:1 odds!
Not enough LOLs
Not enough LOLs
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Here I was thinking I would get a logical well thought out article...
Like John Kerry said, before having a debate with Obama, he should finish the one with himself. Jesus Christ. This guy...
They really do live in an alternative universe
Your trolling has too many different layers for me to keep it straight sometimes.
edit: My favorite one was where she is like "the RNC was way better than the DNC, by the way, they should probably just stop having conventions altogether next year. Just a random thought."
Byakuya769
Member
You're going with this all the way through November? Or are you waiting for some PD concessions?
Hilarious that the author put Artur Davis on a list of the strong bench of the Republicans. Artur Davis, the dude who got bunted from Congress as a Democrat, AND THEN became dissatisfied with his party.
That was a GAF troll post masked as an article if I've ever seen one.
Holy shit :lol
RustyNails
Member
Oblivion is turning out to be a fine PD junior. Keep at it!
Battersea Power Station
Member
Hey, PoliGAF, I have a question. Please forgive my entering the circlejerk, preaching to the choir, etc., but I am genuinely curious.
We have two major parties in our political system and, for the sake of brevity, each can field a candidate for the office of President. If voter turnout was close to 100%, the Republicans would not be able to win a nationwide race, as the parties are currently defined. As such, their only hope of winning is for many, many people not to cast votes, i.e. not let their voices be heard.
To repeat, if we take "one man: one voice" of the whole country, it is not possible for the Republican candidate to win the Presidency. Their only chance to win is if people don't vote. They can only win if people are too busy, too lazy, too disinterested, too bitter, etc.
To me, that makes their policies and their platform incompatible with democracy. They're basically admitting, via voter suppression tactics, that if each person lets her/his voice be heard, they would not win.
What I don't get is how a person running under this strategy can be considered a legitimate candidate. By definition, such a person is not running in hopes of convincing the most people of his or her views, but is running in hopes that people don't care enough. That's anti-democratic to me, and against the spirit of the Constitution.
I'm curious as to why this is not more of a scandal, and why not many seem to care about it outside of blogs, satirical shows, and some pundits.
We have two major parties in our political system and, for the sake of brevity, each can field a candidate for the office of President. If voter turnout was close to 100%, the Republicans would not be able to win a nationwide race, as the parties are currently defined. As such, their only hope of winning is for many, many people not to cast votes, i.e. not let their voices be heard.
To repeat, if we take "one man: one voice" of the whole country, it is not possible for the Republican candidate to win the Presidency. Their only chance to win is if people don't vote. They can only win if people are too busy, too lazy, too disinterested, too bitter, etc.
To me, that makes their policies and their platform incompatible with democracy. They're basically admitting, via voter suppression tactics, that if each person lets her/his voice be heard, they would not win.
What I don't get is how a person running under this strategy can be considered a legitimate candidate. By definition, such a person is not running in hopes of convincing the most people of his or her views, but is running in hopes that people don't care enough. That's anti-democratic to me, and against the spirit of the Constitution.
I'm curious as to why this is not more of a scandal, and why not many seem to care about it outside of blogs, satirical shows, and some pundits.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Typical liberal bias from Nate Silver, not even accounting for the dismal jobs report!
Whether it's the youth for voting with their hearts instead of their heads, or minorities for voting to keep themselves on welfare and out of work, many Republicans think democracy should be kept exclusive to them.
The reason it's not a scandal is because there is a good number of people who do believe certain people shouldn't be voting.
Whether it's the youth for voting with their hearts instead of their heads, or minorities for voting to keep themselves on welfare and out of work, many Republicans think democracy should be kept exclusive to them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll