• 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.
Hey guys. Sorry just popping in here to ask a quick question.

Why is Mitt Romney referred to as Governor Romney? The honorific confuses me since he's no longer the governor of the state.

Well the president is still referred to as mr president after he left office, so I guess. It's similar for governors.
 

pigeon

Banned
Hey guys. Sorry just popping in here to ask a quick question.

Why is Mitt Romney referred to as Governor Romney? The honorific confuses me since he's no longer the governor of the state.

Americans don't understand honorifics.

Seriously, that's basically it. Technically, Romney is no longer entitled to be called Governor since it's just a job and it's not his job any more. In practice, Americans are so desperate for some form of titled nobility that we call governors and presidents Governor and President for basically the rest of their lives.

Big ups to you for using God's name.

Well, he's not getting my kid now -- even if Romney did make a lot of mistakes, I didn't see any falling over.
 
Is it just me, or did Obama come off as significantly more serious about the deficit last night than Romney?

This has me worried. Please tell me Obama isn't going to stop countercyclical spending with unemployment at 7.8% and a negative real interest rate. Left-wing austerity is still austerity.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
This was the first time I've ever seen her, as I don't watch - or have, for that matter - cable news. It struck me as a last minute attempt to be fair and balanced.

It failed, as you said. Nothing could balance out Romney's excited anticipation at the trap he thought he was setting for Obama, and then promptly walked into himself.

I really like that description. It was a big misstep for him. Surprised he was not aware of that fact.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Rasmussen's latest NH poll:
Obama: 50% (+2)
Romney: 49% (+1)

The prior poll was two weeks ago, and the one before that in September showed Romney leading, 48-45%. Not too shabby. Grain of salt and all that jazz..
 
This was the first time I've ever seen her, as I don't watch - or have, for that matter - cable news. It struck me as a last minute attempt to be fair and balanced.

It failed, as you said. Nothing could balance out Romney's excited anticipation at the trap he thought he was setting for Obama, and then promptly walked into himself.

She is a decent host of CNN's State of the Union.

I wish Fareed was the host of the foreign policy debate. Scieffer is going to get trampled. Yes I know he is probably learning to be more forceful after Lehrer's utter headless chicken moderation. But as far as I recall, he wasn't good in 2008 debates.
 
Is it just me, or did Obama come off as significantly more serious about the deficit last night than Romney?

This has me worried. Please tell me Obama isn't going to stop countercyclical spending with unemployment at 7.8% and a negative real interest rate. Left-wing austerity is still austerity.

Austerity is not a left-wing idea at all.
 

Patrick Klepek

furiously molesting tim burton
ibxwsAOP6exIp2.gif

omg
 
The whining about Crowley is ludicrous. Plus, Sununu has the audacity to STILL say she was wrong? Please.

This Libya fact issue is why the GOP should lose. Nothing to do with Libya but instead the fact that GOP IS DETACHED FROM REALITY.

You can't come up with effective policy or lead if you live in a world of made up facts. Far too much the right-wing talking points are not based in reality.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Just wait til Nov. 7th. :S
Oh yes. The folks living in the GOP/Fox bubble will be shocked that he's re-elected, since everyone in their spheres of everyday life hates Obama, save for maybe that one "freak" in the family that they each have.

Indeed, the only way to explain a victory to them is to say that he cheated.

It's going to be hilarious to watch. Scrumptious. Delectable. And then the holidays - Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings for many of us - that will be entertaining as well.
 
Is it just me, or did Obama come off as significantly more serious about the deficit last night than Romney?

This has me worried. Please tell me Obama isn't going to stop countercyclical spending with unemployment at 7.8% and a negative real interest rate. Left-wing austerity is still austerity.

As far as I can tell, that's exactly what he is going to do. He seems sincerely not to understand basic macroeconomics or the monetary system. Then again, neither does the progressive caucus, whose leaders recently sent a letter championing austerity as well. It's a serious problem.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Are there any good neutral (ha) sites like Politico covering the election?


Anyone? As a Canadian, I have no idea which sites covering US politics are any good or are just people on the same side agreeing with each other.
 

equap

Banned
6gO8V.jpg

how can America trust Obama with anything when he does this on camera? Do you trust his job numbers? I don't...not after seeing this.

What a bully!
 
Austerity is not a left-wing idea at all.

It's perfectly possible to have left-wing austerity. Shut down countercyclical spending, and appoint hawkish central bank representatives while pursuing left-wing spending and taxing priorities. The "fiscal cliff" is left-wing austerity: raise taxes on the rich, decrease military spending, close the deficit.

To be clear, I rather like those first two priorities, but I wish they would be paired with another stimulus program or (more likely and probably more effective) middle and lower class tax cuts to make sure the sudden increase of taxation and decrease of government spending doesn't throttle the nascent recovery.

Anyone? As a Canadian, I have no idea which sites covering US politics are any good or are just people on the same side agreeing with each other.

I can't suggest any specific outlet, but this article (and Jon Chait in general) is amazing.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/

I also dig the hell out of Matt Yglesias. He's got his own point of view, but as a left-leaning neoliberal, it at least doesn't fall in line with either party.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox.html
 

Jackson50

Member
6gO8V.jpg

how can America trust Obama with anything when he does this on camera? Do you trust his job numbers? I don't...not after seeing this.

What a bully!
Figures he'd pick on a white man.
re: third party

america can only have a multiple party system if each state decides to change its methods of electing representatives. single member districts + first-past-the-post voting ALWAYS results in a two-party dominant system. always. i could go into detail about why this is but i don't really have the energy.

any effort to shoehorn a third party into a SMD+FPTP system inevitably fails. either the third party cannot garner enough support, or it supplants one of the two major parties and the system reverts to two-party dominant anyways.
Theoretically, yes. Empirically, though, the invariability of a binary equilibrium has glaring exceptions. Even in the United Kingdom, the archetypal majoritarian system, the two-party equilibrium is fraying. And it's not apparent they'll return to one as when Labour replaced the Liberals in the early 20th Century. Thus, it's more accurate to think probabilistically instead of deterministically. Even Duverger clarified his "law" was intended to identify only tendencies.
 

Crisco

Banned
I'm personally even more pissed at Obama after last night. He clearly could have put Romney away for good 2 weeks ago. Why he chose not too, I'll never understand.
 
Figures he'd pick on a white man.
Theoretically, yes. Empirically, though, the invariability of a binary equilibrium has glaring exceptions. Even in the United Kingdom, the archetypal majoritarian system, the two-party equilibrium is fraying. And it's not apparent they'll return to one as when Labour replaced the Liberals in the early 20th Century. Thus, it's more accurate to think probabilistically instead of deterministically. Even Duverger clarified his "law" was intended to identify only tendencies.

the UK will revert to two-party dominant, it is inevitable. this is why the liberal democrats wanted proportional representation to be included as part of their coalition deal with the conservatives.

the last election was also something of an outlier, with a terrible labor leader and a dynamic young third party leader. labor will get their shit together and the system will revert eventually. any change in the two-party system is only temporary without a change in the voting system. the "tendency" will always be to revert to two-parties, so any miraculous third party run is only temporary. i feel like you're nitpicking at what i said only to reach the same conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom