• 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 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cheebo

Banned
Mark Halperin who is in Ohio following Romney's blitz of Ohio rallies these past few days says the headline of the main Ohio statewide paper this morning is about Romney's skyrocketing support in the state.

And that in the last 2 weeks Romney had had nearly four times as many events in Ohio as Obama.
 

Eidan

Member
Mark Halperin who is in Ohio following Romney's blitz of Ohio rallies these past few days says the headline of the main Ohio statewide paper this morning is about Romney's skyrocketing support in the state.

And that in the last 2 weeks Romney had had nearly four times as many events in Ohio as Obama.

I think I'm done now.
 

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/13/1143996/-The-Sansata-Story-Could-Destroy-Romney

I'm going to make this a quick one. There's plenty of links for you to read further on this and you should anyway. This story is very damning to Mitt Romney and even worse, for the employees of Sensata Tech and every working class American if Romney wins.

Romney's Bain Capital did what they do best. They bought out a company called Sensata Tech and are in the process of outsourcing it to China.

They even brought in Chinese workers for the current employees to train. Yea, they were forced to train their own replacements.

And Bain Capital forced the company to take down their American flag and put up a Chinese flag while they trained them.


A Chinese flag was flying over a Bain-owned factory in Freeport, Illinois.

This is our economy if Romney wins.

Please don't take my word for it, read for yourself below. This story needs to get out for the sake of this election and for the workers camping out in protest of their jobs being outsourced.

Oh.. and the company is set to to close on November 5th, one day before the election.

How sweet.

Obama need to hammer Romney in his hypocrisy in dealing with China.
 

Cloudy

Banned
Looking at the polling, Obama has to have a good debate. It's the media attacking him from all sides that's hurting his numbers more than Romney
 

Cloudy

Banned
Mark Halperin who is in Ohio following Romney's blitz of Ohio rallies these past few days says the headline of the main Ohio statewide paper this morning is about Romney's skyrocketing support in the state.

And that in the last 2 weeks Romney had had nearly four times as many events in Ohio as Obama.

That's actually good news for Obama. Romney knows he's losing there
 

Cheebo

Banned
Looking at the polling, Obama has to have a good debate. It's the media attacking him from all sides that's hurting his numbers more than Romney

And his lack of actual doing anything. On the today show I was watching and they noted after the first debate Romney has been averaging 3 rallies a day and hasn't had a single day without a rally. Obama has been averaging 1 rally a day and has had multiple days without a rally.

I am really confused by that aspect of it, something Obama has full control over.

That's actually good news for Obama. Romney knows he's losing there

Except by all indications the margin in Ohio went from 6-9 point lead to a 1-2 point lead in the last two weeks. Obama needs to lock that down and stop the bleeding there.
 
And his lack of actual doing anything. On the today show I was watching and they noted after the first debate Romney has been averaging 3 rallies a day and hasn't had a single day without a rally. Obama has been averaging 1 rally a day and has had multiple days without a rally.

I am really confused by that aspect of it, something Obama has full control over.

Well Obama kinda has a side-job that he can't really step away from all the time.
 

Jackson50

Member
Just did this. All the doom and gloom in the thread motivated me into donating.
If you're going to donate money, it would be more effective to donate to some of the Senate elections. Obama's already awash in cash. If he somehow loses, the cause would not be a cash deficit. But in some of the Senate contests, the money could be instrumental.
Mr. Silver's post-2008 analysis.
His post-2008 analysis was not especially rigorous, though. As I recall, his outcomes were driven by two states. Not to disparage him, I think he's been a boon to mainstream coverage of elections, but it's not his job to study these phenomena thoroughly. On the previous page, I linked to some of the political science research which suggest anywhere from a 0.5-3% boost. Considering the magnitude of Obama's advantage, I'd estimate towards the upper bound. If Ohio, Colorado, or Iowa, for example, were virtually tied on election day, his organizational advantage would probably tip the state. Romney's failure, or inability, to develop his organization could prove fatal.
 

pigeon

Banned
This is exactly how I see it. Its not panic, nor is it pessimism, nor is it cynicism. Its looking at what the hell happened and what is happening, taking that knowledge into account and moving forward.

Bams has it in him to turn the tide of his skeptics. He's done it many a time before, and there is no way he's not aware of the fretting from all quarters. He'll be there on Tuesday and he'll be fully engaged - for me thats all he really needs to do - Be the adult in the room, not somebody passive and aloof.

Calling anybody who points this stuff out trolls or chicken littles or whatever else is nonsense. Saying this is all the media's fault is equally nonsense, because the media didn't change the way they act just for that debate. Its what they do, and it helps and harms all sides.


And then you have the makeup of the audience, which can always throw things for a loop. Is the person asking a question unemployed? A small business owner? Somebody who has serious healthcare issues? It can go a lot of ways.

Frankly, I'm not even talking about the debates when I'm criticizing the media -- except in the sense that a candidate whose entire campaign has been lies and impossible claims was allowed to gain enough legitimacy to debate the President at all.
 

RDreamer

Member
And his lack of actual doing anything. On the today show I was watching and they noted after the first debate Romney has been averaging 3 rallies a day and hasn't had a single day without a rally. Obama has been averaging 1 rally a day and has had multiple days without a rally.

I am really confused by that aspect of it, something Obama has full control over.

Perhaps he's, you know, being president. Also, he could be practicing his debating a bit more this time.
 

Forever

Banned
Weareallgoingtodie.gif
 
These poll swings are crazy:

p5CHt.png


I'm not sure if they level out, but Romney is picking up chunks of points in these polls. Granted some will not matter (e.g. CA), but it's hard to ignore and I'm not sure what, barring a huge gaffe by Romney would reverse the trend. I think Obama can, at best, stop the bleeding and I'm not sure how savage Romney will get in the debates. If he brings up that Anderson Cooper interview with Sean Smith's mother (not sure if they are using it in an ad yet), it could be lights out. That interview is DEVASTATING and based on Biden in the debate, they aren't backing off their narrative.
 

Cloudy

Banned
As long as Obama's not under 50% on the betting sides, I'm not panicking. He does need a good debate though. Just to get the media vultures off his ass. The so-called liberal media wants to see him go down cos it's the bigger story
 
As long as Obama's not under 50% on the betting sides, I'm not panicking. He does need a good debate though. Just to get the media vultures off his ass. The so-called liberal media wants to see him go down cos it's the bigger story

Well, don't look at InTrade then, because it's already below 60% and has even dropped 5% since the VP debate.

9awkh.png
 

pigeon

Banned
Even though they lost the debate, even their post debate strategy has been very puzzling.

They have internals, we don't. They've been putting a lot of energy into early voting -- which makes sense if you think you can win just off banking a huge lead. Now they've obviously been spending a lot of time on debate prep, which you would think PoliGAF would be happy with!
 

Loudninja

Member
They have internals, we don't. They've been putting a lot of energy into early voting -- which makes sense if you think you can win just off banking a huge lead. Now they've obviously been spending a lot of time on debate prep, which you would think PoliGAF would be happy with!
PoliGAF is never happy you know that!
 

pigeon

Banned
Well, don't look at InTrade then, because it's already below 60% and has even dropped 5% since the VP debate.

9awkh.png

Intrade was showing Obama at 55% when 538 had him at 85%, so that's actually a pretty good sign for Obama. They're GOP-leaning and skeptical of change.
 

Tim-E

Member
They have internals, we don't. They've been putting a lot of energy into early voting -- which makes sense if you think you can win just off banking a huge lead. Now they've obviously been spending a lot of time on debate prep, which you would think PoliGAF would be happy with!

If he had 20 rallies a day they would complain that he wasn't preparing for the debates enough. If he was in Washington the entire time they'd be complaining he isn't campaigning enough. Now that he's spending some time practicing for the debate he's not campaigning enough. This shit is becoming insufferable.

I forgot that armchair internet analysts know more about running a campaign than the people who have been running Obama's since 2007.
 

Cloudy

Banned
Well, don't look at InTrade then, because it's already below 60% and has even dropped 5% since the VP debate.

Look at the full chart. Obama was in a worse position before the conventions. Romney had a ton of negative media coverage in September that artificially boosted Obama's numbers. Now Obama is getting all the negative coverage and we're right back where it should be IMO.
 
Intrade was showing Obama at 55% when 538 had him at 85%, so that's actually a pretty good sign for Obama. They're GOP-leaning and skeptical of change.

How would InTrade lean one way or the other? It's a betting market and the amount of money on each side determines the win% they publish, same as a betting line in football.
 

Cloudy

Banned
How would InTrade lean one way or the other? It's a betting market and the amount of money on each side determines the win% they publish, same as a betting line in football.

I think he means it's typically financial guys on there who would favor probably Romney. I don't think the actual data is biased though. With Obama tanking in the polls, this should be easy money for Romney backers but they aren't convinced....yet
 

pigeon

Banned
How would InTrade lean one way or the other? It's a betting market and the amount of money on each side determines the win% they publish, same as a betting line in football.

Sure. Now imagine a betting market that only took bets from Wisconsin natives. Would you expect the line on Packers games to reliably reflect the odds? InTrade is predominantly used by people in the Republican-leaning financial sector. But don't take my word for it -- I'm referring to the actual data, where Obama has underperformed on InTrade relative to other betting sites and to 538 all year.
 

Cloudy

Banned
What's crazy is that's not even all of his lies. I can think of quite a few other factchecks I saw since the debate. That video didn't even tackle the hilarious assertion that 50% of green energy stimulus recipients failed.

That was Obama's responsibility and he failed spectacularly. I do believe he was just thrown off by the blatant dishonesty and the absent moderation though
 

Cloudy

Banned
I'm referring to the actual data, where Obama has underperformed on InTrade relative to other betting sites and to 538 all year.

This is accurate. Obama on Intrade is usually about 10 points below his odds on the betting sites. I'm not sure that means bias though. Could it be that there are a lot more people on the gambling sites than Intrade?
 
And his lack of actual doing anything. On the today show I was watching and they noted after the first debate Romney has been averaging 3 rallies a day and hasn't had a single day without a rally. Obama has been averaging 1 rally a day and has had multiple days without a rally.

I am really confused by that aspect of it, something Obama has full control over.



Except by all indications the margin in Ohio went from 6-9 point lead to a 1-2 point lead in the last two weeks. Obama needs to lock that down and stop the bleeding there.

Let's go back in time when someone else wanted to be arm chair campaign director:

Obama needs to put more work into PA. McCain consistently outspends him there in ads and does rallies there roughly 4x as much as Obama. Obama can't win the election if PA slips away. Not even Virginia would save him. It would be far easier to not take PA for granted. Week after week he is outspent in ads. I mean come on, throw some extra cash at it and do some more rallies there. He has done like 9258958928958 in Florida in the past week, he can spare time for one in PA and McCain is there like twice a week.

Diablos and you live too much in the now and need to take the long view.
 

pigeon

Banned
This is accurate. Obama on Intrade is usually about 10 points below his odds on the betting sites. I'm not sure that means bias though. Could it be that there are a lot more people on the gambling sites than Intrade?

I'm not sure what you mean. If Obama consistently underperforms on InTrade, then that's the definition of bias. Whether it's structural or intentional is beyond my capacity to determine -- the fact that most people who use it are in finance is true, though, so it's a reasonable hypothesis.
 

coldfoot

Banned
A shitty one.

Romney isn't hard to figure out for people who've paid real attention to his political career. He hides it well from the public eye only because the media refuses to call him out on his massive flip flopping. Here's where Mitt Romney really stands on issues, no matter what he currently says:

1. At his core he's a corporate/wealthy feudalist. He truly believes that the rich know what's best and that the rest of us should be happy they're willing to take the lead and show us the way forward in life. Internally he finds it insulting that the poor would even question the merits of this belief. Corporations have your best interest at heart because you're a cog in the machine and no corporation wants defective cogs, so stop squeaking so damn much.

2. On healthcare - He honestly doesn't give a shit about healthcare other than what is provided at the very top end of the sector, and that healthcare companies remain a strong Wall St. play. This is why he and his ilk talk about the American healthcare system being the best in the world. Because all the absurdly priced top end services aren't out of their reach. He truly believes that what we have now (minus Obamacare) is perfectly fine and if the poor wanted to live longer they'd do better at life, make more money, and be able to afford better care.

3. On taxes - Corporations and the wealthy should be effectively tax exempt, as it's by their largess that the rest of us survive. If only we were to unshackle them with the burden of taxation they would be free to stimulate our economy in the directions they saw fit, which thanks to their superiority would clearly be in the best direction for everyone. The taxes needed to run his dominant military can easily be raised from the lower and middle classes, who should be given the yolk to motivate them.

4. On foreign policy - means to an end. The major corporations from the U.S. now need a global stage upon which to work, and therefore it is the job of the federal gov't. to grease the skids for those corporate endeavors. Overall he would really like to just be able to flex American muscle and get what he wants without having to actually go to war. That is, unless the war is politically expedient. For example, with a President Romney we WILL go to war with Iran in the third year of his first term. Why? Because the U.S. electorate has shown a strong hesitancy in the past to remove a POTUS during a foreign engagement if they can avoid it and because it would further free up more middle east oil for U.S. based corporate consumption. The fact that it would tickle Israeli hardliners pink is only a bonus.

5. On immigration - generally doesn't care about the difference between poor white people born in the U.S. and poor brown people born somewhere else. This is why he seriously thinks his "self deportation" shit is a good idea. Obviously if we just have them all start from ground zero we'll have plenty of need for brown labor and import as much labor as is needed to get the jobs done.

In short, Romney's goal is to have a limp wristed domestic gov't. that could never stand up to the wealthy or major corporations, while at the same time constructing a massive military. The end result is the wealthy and major corporations effectively controlling a massive military that will strategically aid them in propagating their influence across the globe. To make matters worse, he would also celebrate the kind of corporate sovereignty that major global players like Exxon Mobile already espouse, so it's not like these corporations would steer the military towards what's best for the U.S. and it's people. Instead they'll be selling the U.S. out through the back door while beating the drums for major U.S. support in all their more public endeavors on the front end.

Let me summarize: Romney is a social darwinist.
 
But this also isn't 2008 and Ohio is always more swingy than PA.

Obama is fine with fundraisers now, he should definitely be holding 3 rallies a day.

3 rallies in Ohio a day? The reason Romney is there is obvious: he actually needs the state to win. Ohio has been nice to Obama by being consistently in his corner so far. Picking it up also insures his victory. But wasting all his time there would limit his odds in other states that make the multiple paths to 270 possible. Picking up Virginia instead of Ohio nets the same results. Picking up Florida instead of Ohio is also a win. Romney needs all three.
 

Tristam

Member
I forgot that armchair internet analysts know more about running a campaign than the people who have been running Obama's since 2007.

I'm pretty sure there was a conscious decision to have Obama avoid mention of the '47%' comment during the debate (and to otherwise appear as 'above politics' as possible) so that he could appear presidential and evade accusations of 'spiking the football.' That was an enormous mistake; they fucked up badly.

I'm not saying there's any shining wisdom to Internet armchair analysis, but I am saying that Obama's team is nowhere near infallible, and sometimes criticism of their decisions is perfectly justified.
 
3 rallies in Ohio a day? The reason Romney is there is obvious: he actually needs the state to win. Ohio has been nice to Obama by being consistently in his corner so far. Picking it up also insures his victory. But wasting all his time there would limit his odds in other states that make the multiple paths to 270 possible. Picking up Virginia instead of Ohio nets the same results. Picking up Florida instead of Ohio is also a win. Romney needs all three.

No not in Ohio, just rallies anywhere. Right now Romney is even dominating the media because of higher number of rallies.
I would have Obama cycle between OH/VA and NV/CO/FL
 

RDreamer

Member
I missed the first debate. Was it really THAT bad? Did Obama let an allahu akbar slip while Romney sang sweet sex into peoples' ears?

No, he really wasn't that bad. Romney clearly controlled the moderator, and that gained him some points. Obama was pretty slow and deliberate, and contrasted with Romney's control it made him look sluggish and uninterested. Romney threw every lie he could possibly think of at Obama, and he didn't (and really couldn't) counter them all, thus Romney's lies were given credence with the media and viewers. Media was already going to go on a Romney comeback spree, because it makes the horse race better, they just got to do so even more. They didn't call him on any of his lies at all and just kept reporting how badly Obama did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom