• 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 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TomServo

Junior Member
GhaleonEB said:
The participation rate was unchanged. And the decline in recent months is largely explainable by the aging population. Agree about the rise in part time workers, though. It does seem to validate all the anecdotal reports of the way service employers are reacting to the ACA, by cutting hours. I wish we had a funtional government who could repair flaws in the law. :\
Click to expand...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-03/average-weekly-hours-law-large-numbers-and-april-618000-payroll-decline

...the US economy added 165,000 jobs and yet US businesses paid $323.2 million less in total wage compensation...
Click to expand...

And there's the bottom line. Less money getting into workers' / consumers' hands.

This isn't a recovery. $85 billion in asset purchases made by the Fed every month for the foreseeable future and ZIRP for the near future have inflated a new risk asset bubble, and folks looking for some return outside of the stock market are starting to inflate a new housing bubble.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
TomServo said:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-03/average-weekly-hours-law-large-numbers-and-april-618000-payroll-decline



And there's the bottom line. Less money getting into workers' / consumers' hands.

This isn't a recovery. $85 billion in asset purchases made by the Fed every month for the foreseeable future and ZIRP for the near future have inflated a new risk asset bubble, and folks looking for some return outside of the stock market are starting to inflate a new housing bubble.
Click to expand...


Boston also shut down its city for an entire day, which probably contributed to the average weekly hours dropping.

Also ignores errors. Can be off by .1 or .2 in either direction. He does this a lot.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
This is again all self-correcting, though. If Tammy Baldwin is too liberal for Wisconsin by more than a small amount, she's going to lose next time around when Republicans nominate someone more strategically. If Barbara Boxer is way too liberal for California, why is she still in office? This just can't explain the degree to which Republicans in Congress are crazy.
Click to expand...

Tammy Baldwin might lose next time if they nominate the right person, but she might not. Probably depends on how things are in 2018. My example with Boxer was more about how this type of stuff happened two decades ago and isn't really exclusive to today. California is certainly more liberal today than it was in 1992, too (it went for Bush in '88, though Clinton won it in 92 but only with a plurality). Boxer only got a plurality in 1992, too. Her margin of victory has gotten larger since 1992 (and she's earned a majority each time) as the state has become more liberal (other national Democrats began to receive a majority starting in 96). That explains why she is still in office.

Dax01 said:
Markey's going to win.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about Coakley (and she was doing better in some polls around this time). This race needs to be taken seriously. If Gomez positions himself as a moderate correctly (and by all accounts he is; supports gay marriage, immigration reform, unclear if he is pro-life or pro-choice), he could beat Markey. Seems like Democrats are paying attention more now than 2010, though, but they definitely need to. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win in Massachusetts (and certainly not a candidate like Markey, whose age I think will work against him when compared with Gomez)
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
People said the same thing about Coakley (and she was doing better in some polls around this time). This race needs to be taken seriously. If Gomez positions himself as a moderate correctly (and by all accounts he is; supports gay marriage, immigration reform, unclear if he is pro-life or pro-choice), he could beat Markey. Seems like Democrats are paying attention more now than 2010, though, but they definitely need to. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win in Massachusetts (and certainly not a candidate like Markey, whose age I think will work against him when compared with Gomez)
Click to expand...

Markey's going to win.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
People said the same thing about Coakley (and she was doing better in some polls around this time). This race needs to be taken seriously. If Gomez positions himself as a moderate correctly (and by all accounts he is; supports gay marriage, immigration reform, unclear if he is pro-life or pro-choice), he could beat Markey. Seems like Democrats are paying attention more now than 2010, though, but they definitely need to. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win in Massachusetts (and certainly not a candidate like Markey, whose age I think will work against him when compared with Gomez)
Click to expand...
It does need attention.

But this is true

Dax01 said:
Markey's going to win.
Click to expand...

All the undecideds are Obama voters.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Aaron Strife said:
It does need attention.

But this is true



All the undecideds are Obama voters.
Click to expand...

Well, according to the crosstabs, only 15% of the undecideds are Obama voters. But then again, it also says that 48% voted for a third party or don't remember, so who knows (unless I'm reading the crosstabs incorrectly)

I do think Markey will win, but being at only 44% (regardless of what Gomez is at) is troubling to me. Coakley was at least almost 50% (or even at 50% in some polls)
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Carpe Libertatem said:
Well, according to the crosstabs, only 15% of the undecideds are Obama voters. But then again, it also says that 48% voted for a third party or don't remember, so who knows

I do think Markey will win, but being at only 44% (regardless of what Gomez is at) is troubling to me. Coakley was at least almost 50% (or even at 50% in some polls)
Click to expand...

Aren't there only 16% undecided according to that poll? I think it's fair to say they'll all swing toward Markey unless he says something stupid about the Pats or Socks.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Carpe Libertatem said:
People said the same thing about Coakley (and she was doing better in some polls around this time). This race needs to be taken seriously. If Gomez positions himself as a moderate correctly (and by all accounts he is; supports gay marriage, immigration reform, unclear if he is pro-life or pro-choice), he could beat Markey. Seems like Democrats are paying attention more now than 2010, though, but they definitely need to. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win in Massachusetts (and certainly not a candidate like Markey, whose age I think will work against him when compared with Gomez)
Click to expand...
According to this article, Gomez is pro-life, but isn't seeking to change current abortion laws.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Link said:
According to this article, Gomez is pro-life, but isn't seeking to change current abortion laws.
Click to expand...

That's the position a lot of politicians take. Basically a way to get the support of pro-choice groups without completely burning bridges with those who are pro-life (probably important in MA GOP primaries where a decent amount of the base is pro life, but not as much compared to other states). Personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to legislate against it

Aren't there only 16% undecided according to that poll? I think it's fair to say they'll all swing toward Markey unless he says something stupid about the Pats or Socks.
Click to expand...

It's possible if not likely they will, but again the same sort of thing was said in 2010. It'll really just come down to turnout most likely because it's a special election and I'm sure the Democratic Party (both national and state) learned from their mistakes last time, but Gomez seems like an impressive candidate IMO and the polar opposite of Markey (old vs young, 40yrs in washington vs 0yrs, etc)
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
People said the same thing about Coakley (and she was doing better in some polls around this time). This race needs to be taken seriously. If Gomez positions himself as a moderate correctly (and by all accounts he is; supports gay marriage, immigration reform, unclear if he is pro-life or pro-choice), he could beat Markey. Seems like Democrats are paying attention more now than 2010, though, but they definitely need to. It's not a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win in Massachusetts (and certainly not a candidate like Markey, whose age I think will work against him when compared with Gomez)
Click to expand...

Coakley didn't campaign. Markey is campaigning heavily. Brown could campaign on being the last vote to kill Obamacare. Gomez doesn't have that luxury. Brown led independents by TWICE Gomez's lead and won by less than 5%.

Oh, also, Markey was a Navy SEAL.
 
M

Mrs. Manky

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
255742_368518519926629_628183280_n.jpg


Thread title is so appropriate.
Click to expand...

So, why are men gaining weight, then?
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Dax01 said:
What? Gomez is pro-life, can be easily painted on the side of Wall Street, and Markey has a huge cash advantage. It's his race to lose. Hopefully once he loses we never hear about Gomez again.
Click to expand...

He is personally pro-life, but says he would not support any legislative efforts to ban access to abortions (this is basically what Scott Brown supported and a lot of Democratic politicians in more conservative states too). If national Republicans think the race can be won, Gomez will probably get the money he needs. If they think it's a lost cause and would rather invest in 2014 elections, he won't

Coakley didn't campaign. Markey is campaigning heavily. Brown could campaign on being the last vote to kill Obamacare. Gomez doesn't have that luxury. Brown led independents by TWICE Gomez's lead and won by less than 5%.

Oh, also, Markey was a Navy SEAL.
Click to expand...

Brown did lead independents by 32 (twice Gomez's 16) in a PPP poll, but that poll was a week and half out from the election. This poll is almost two months out from the June 25th election. Scott Brown didn't pick up a lead until the last couple weeks before the election (Brown wasn't even reaching 40% in polls around this time). By all accounts, Gomez is doing better at this point in the race than Brown was doing at the same point in 2010.

I also couldn't find anything about Markey being a Navy SEAL. He was in the Army Reserves, but I couldn't see anything that indicated he was a SEAL.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
Brown did lead independents by 32 (twice Gomez's 16) in a PPP poll, but that poll was a week and half out from the election. This poll is almost two months out from the June 25th election. Scott Brown didn't pick up a lead until the last couple weeks before the election (Brown wasn't even reaching 40% in polls around this time). By all accounts, Gomez is doing better at this point in the race than Brown was doing at the same point in 2010.
Click to expand...

I think you have that backwards. Why should Gomez's momentum increase? Brown pulled ahead because he was campaigning and Coakley was hiding out and mocking the Red Sox. Markey's not doing that.

Carpe Libertatem said:
I also couldn't find anything about Markey being a Navy SEAL. He was in the Army Reserves, but I couldn't see anything that indicated he was a SEAL.
Click to expand...

I had that backwards. Gomez was a Navy SEAL. Who cares? Why would being a Navy SEAL matter? >.>
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
He is personally pro-life, but says he would not support any legislative efforts to ban access to abortions (this is basically what Scott Brown supported and a lot of Democratic politicians in more conservative states too). If national Republicans think the race can be won, Gomez will probably get the money he needs.
Click to expand...
That pro-life position didn't help Brown, and undecideds are 61% female. Markey can get money from national Democrats too.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
pigeon said:
I think you have that backwards. Why should Gomez's momentum increase? Brown pulled ahead because he was campaigning and Coakley was hiding out and mocking the Red Sox. Markey's not doing that.
Click to expand...

Whether or not Gomez's momentum increases probably depends on a lot of factors (what's happening in Congress, whether Markey makes critical errors, etc), but being at 40% right now is better than what Scott Brown was at. Gomez may very well stay at 40%, but he could also go up if things go right and he manages to paint himself as a moderate Republican

I had that backwards. Gomez was a Navy SEAL. Who cares? Why would being a Navy SEAL matter? >.>
Click to expand...

Well, veterans tend to be favored for political office and SEALs are pretty well-known (especially since the bin Laden raid, which coincidentally Gomez criticized Obama for "politicizing"). I think it's fair to prefer veterans for political office - there's a lot of leadership skills they learn when they're in the military.

Now, serving in the armed forces doesn't make a bad candidate good, but it does help a good candidate become better. Or an average candidate become good.

That pro-life position didn't help Brown, and undecideds are 61% female. Markey can get money from national Democrats too.
Click to expand...

I think it was more Brown's support/cosponsorship of the Blunt amendment that did him in (and that he started attacking Warren in pretty dumb ways towards the end, like the Native American thing) with women. Brown also had a few anti-women votes in his past as a state senator that Gomez wouldn't have.

I think Markey's been getting money from national Democrats already - the DSCC endorsed him back in December. He was basically the party's choice regardless of if Lynch jumped in (Lynch would have this locked up no question, though).
 
S

speculawyer

Member
North Carolina? You remember: the state against science regarding sea level rise? The state with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources head who doubts climate change science and believes oil is a renewable resource? The state that tried to appoint a head of early childhood education who believed the Fukushima earthquake might have been caused by ultrasonic waves from North Korea? That North Carolina?

Folks, that’s nothing. We have a new record.

The scientific method the Republican-run legislature is against now is … counting. Yep — in its desperate attempts to get rid of North Carolina’s renewable energy program, the legislature has given up the radical, liberal, lamestream, obviously subjective “science” of, um, actually counting votes. You see, when the votes were actually counted, the bill that would have removed the renewables program (and said that wind, among other things, was not renewable) died in the state house, failing to emerge from committee by an 18-13 vote.

Okay, hmm … you’re Republican legislator Mike Hager, you hate the renewables program, and your bill has just been defeated by an indisputable margin of five votes. What to do … what to do? Easy. You reintroduce the bill. And when it next comes up in committee, this time in the state senate? You have a voice vote — and have your finance committee chair, Republican Bill Rabon, refuse to count the actual votes. In a voice vote so close that both sides claim they would have won if the votes had been counted, Rabon declares that the bill has passed and runs off.

No, I wish I were, but I am not making this up. We have given up counting votes in North Carolina. The Reign of Error rules supreme here.
Click to expand...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ting-votes-too-scientific-for-north-carolina/

That's not anti-science . . . that is just plain old corruption and dishonesty.
 
7

789shadow

Banned
Glass all of North Carolina except for Great Smoky Mountains, the Research Triangle, Charlotte, and the Outer Banks, and we're golden.

Of course I'm not serious, but what the fuck North Carolina.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
R

RustyNails

Member
Black Mamba said:
Man, this makes the sequester look all the more foolish. 332k in February. We should be over the 250k threshold last month and every month before September really kicks into high gear again (late winter and early fall are usually the high points i believe).

The sequester is seriously stopping us from entering a full job recovery (well, maybe not full full since it might not be the long term jobs we really want, but still).

11k gov't jobs cut last month. Fucking idiots. Also the UE dropped despite 200k more people in the labor force.
Click to expand...

I posted this a few months ago if you recall
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/biden-planning-fresh-gun-control-push-90883.html?ml=po_r

Vice President Joe Biden is planning a new gun control offensive — he just hasn’t told the president yet.

Biden told a group of law enforcement officials Thursday that he is planning even more travel, with trips around the country to stump for a renewed push on expanded background checks and gun-trafficking laws that failed to pass the Senate last month.

But Biden volunteered that he “hasn’t really discussed” his plans with President Barack Obama and plans to lead the gun control charge on his own, according to two law enforcement officials who attended the meeting. The 90-minute meeting in Biden’s office was an attempt to move forward after the failed effort on background checks.
Click to expand...

C'mon crazy eyes. It seems like Biden is better at negotiating with Congress with Obama, by virtue of being fully aware they hate him from the outset.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Black Mamba said:
They counted all the female voice votes at 77%.

When you do the math, it works out that the bill passed.
Click to expand...

uggghhhh. You know, earlier this year I had to admit to myself that living here in certain areas isn't that bad even if I I'm tired of this state, but with what's transpiring in the legislature, it seems my earlier instincts were correct. Woman's intuition and all that!
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Gomez can win but I don't think he will. He's leading with independents, has similar moderate views as Brown, and has an undeniably appealing personal story...but this is still MA. Markey has the money and unlike Croakley he's actully campaigning/probably knows some basic Red Sox info.

Gomez can't hide behind his personal story forever. Sooner or later his more right wing views will be exposed, starting at the first debate. The right wing's reaction to the "Bin Laden comparison" ad reeks of desperation to me; I doubt MA voters will appreciate the ugly swift boat attempt they tried on Obama, and once that side of Gomez is prominently displayed the independents will split.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Chichikov said:
Just came across that, damn, Harvard need to take a long hard look at themselves and rethink their whoring out to Wall Street.

The money is not worth it, they're trashing their good name which took them centuries to build.
Click to expand...

"...author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die." This book should just have been one word long. "Me."
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
A poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University shows discomfort and displeasure amongst the Republican rankings in that the majority of respondents rejected all possible mainstream presidential candidates.

The Republican data tells a story not of unity, but chaos and resentment within their ranks. Sen. Marco Rubio lead with 18%, Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush at 16%, and N.J. Gov. Chris Christie brought up the rear with 14%. A lukewarm response indeed, but the number that is most telling is the candidate who has received the most support in GOP circles: Nobody!

20% of respondents in the official poll said that they would select none of the present potential candidates, and these are the best that the Republican party has to offer after the debacle of Mitt Romney.

Chris Christie is supposed to be a front-runner with lip-service to cooperation, but he still lags behind his two contemporaries.

The GOP likes none of their choices for president. Do you suppose they will suddenly find one in 2016 that was missing in 2012? Jon Huntsman, perhaps? Tim Pawlenty? Mike Huckabee? These are individuals who have already failed in the public eye multiple times, and it is telling if any of these men are elevated later in the election cycle to show how desperate times have become.

It can be summarized that with numbers like these it is easy to see why the Republican party is frantically attempting to re-brand itself in the brink of facing the well oiled Democratic presidential campaign machine that has steamrolled all of their recent efforts.
Click to expand...

Hillary. FFS! Be the final nail in the coffin for this POS party!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
666
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
519
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Nintendo sells 77 Million Amibos
48
2K
Kikorin replied
LTTP: Battlefield 4 (PS3) 2013
LTTP
35
923
Kupfer replied
Top Bottom