• 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 Thread of First Debate Election 2008 - GAF doesn't know shit

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tobor

Member
StoOgE said:
That is the exact problem. It may not be that she is dumb, she just doesnt know this stuff because even she said, she was focused on Alaskan issues.

Now she is trying to cram a shitload of new information in just a month. You can tell she was given talking point in these interviews, and she is trying to hit them all but they are coming off jumbled and messy. She is trying so hard to get them all they come out in a random order and there is no cohesiveness to her thoughts.

Palin's handlers are going to be coaching her to speak as generally as possible, and to stay folksy and charming. She'll avoid specifics like the plague, and it's up to Lehrer and Biden to call her out on it. Couric laid down the framework for shutting this woman down, and it's up to them to use it. Ask a question with an easy out, then rephrase in a way she can't back out of and watch the gibberish flow.
 

MaddenNFL64

Member
GAF paranoia is inevitable. Obama is "no worries", so we collectively worry on his behalf.

I'm starting to think she's NOT going to implode, which means she wins in the publics eyes. AGGGHH!

*flips out*
 
CharlieDigital said:
Generally, the long-term trend has been toward increasing income inequality. Since 1969, the share of aggregate household income controlled by the lowest income quintile has decreased from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0 percent to 49.4 percent. Most noticeably, the share of income controlled by the top 5 percent of households has increased from 16.6 percent to 21.7 percent. Over the same time period, the Gini index rose 17.4 percent to its 1997 level of .459.

Researchers believe that changes in the labor market and, to a certain extent, household composition affected the long-run increase in income inequality. The wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses. These changes reflect relative shifts in demand for labor differentiated on the basis of education and skill.​

Supply-side economics, LULZ. Not only that, but productivity didn't increased. Same goes for the Reagan years.

P.S. More businesses failed during the 80s than any other period in U.S. history.
 

Cloudy

Banned
LMAO! Fox is pathetic. They've been bashing Obama for hours (I was just waiting for them to mention today's polls) and they finally have Rasmussen on and they talk about an economic poll instead of today's presidential tracker :lol

It's fukkin comical. My dream is to have an Obama blowout on election night. I will be watching Fox News exclusively that day if that happens :lol
 
"McCain, what does the scouter say about Obama's electoral vote count?"

5lpg13.jpg
 
Most of the movement in the 538 is currently due to the baked-in effect that the tracking polls have. This is especially true in some states like NV, IN, and to a lesser extent NC and MO which have only had a fraction of the polling that some of the rust belt states have had.

Once we get some better state by state polling we'll know if the shift in the tracking polls is having a corresponding shift in the state polling.


Edit: Funny how on 538 the chances of the country having a hopium OD (375+ EV Obama) is now greater than McCain winning at all.
 
MaddenNFL64 said:
GAF paranoia is inevitable. Obama is "no worries", so we collectively worry on his behalf.

I'm starting to think she's NOT going to implode, which means she wins in the publics eyes. AGGGHH!

*flips out*

What public?

Now, today, to-fucking-morrow, it's clear as fucking day. She Is A Base Pick. This Is An Independent Election.
 

Tarazet

Member
It's been a while since I heard anyone point out what a cynical pick Palin was for VP. McCain must have figured anyone who had ever shown any talent at any level would be just fine for what is, in most cases (where the main candidate isn't in his seventies), a pretty minor position. She's never had to face this much scrutiny, pressure and derision. If I was a small-town politician who was suddenly thrust into the national limelight, I'd feel the same way. Can't blame the girl for being out of her league. Blame McCain for being a dim bulb.
 
It's fucking pathetic and totally angers me that we even has to discuss Palin's incompetency on international and national affairs. For the person that is seeking to attain the second highest public office in the US, we should expect some level of competency beyond four weeks worth of cramming, one-liners, and bullshit.

Pisses me off every time I have to think about it.
 
i think palin will do OK in the debate. I think Biden will actually try to avoid blowing her out of the water just so this is one of those ambiguous debates where nobody really changes their mind, seeing as to how obama's doing great and they just need to run out the clock, more or less.
 

Chrono

Banned
CharlieDigital said:

Did you read the whole post? I wasn't saying he should be made secretary of defense, I was saying how sad it was for some other poster here (VanMardigan I think) to think so.
 
Rur0ni said:
0928_super.png


I'd like to note that Obama is higher on the super tracker than any other period.

Just to be clear, the projection line is what 538's predictions were, and the trend is the actual result from official polls? If so, that's AMAZING predicting right there.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
MATT DRUDGE IS A FUCKING PIECE OF FILTH

He is running a story on his front page that says "Family of Fallen soldier asked Obama not to wear bracelet"

If you actually read the fucking story it links to thats not even true. The mother and sister who gave it to him wanted him to wear it. The estranged father is claiming the mother didnt want Obama to use it.. but there is an interview with her after the Wisconsin primary where she said she was honored that Obama mentioned her son in his speech.

GUESS WHAT DRUDGE? YOUR PARTY IS ABOUT TO BEND OVER AND TAKE IT IN NOVEMBER, ENJOY IT.
 
Chrono said:
Did you read the whole post? I wasn't saying he should be made secretary of defense, I was saying how sad it was for some other poster here (VanMardigan I think) to think so.

Yah I read it. I'm saying "No" to the general idea; he seems way too aggressive and not nearly even tempered enough to hold the position. How about Wesley Clark or I dunno, Petraeus?

If McCain's campaign strategy is anything to go by, this man has no sense of strategy.
 
StoOgE said:
MATT DRUDGE IS A FUCKING PIECE OF FILTH

He is running a story on his front page that says "Family of Fallen soldier asked Obama not to wear bracelet"

If you actually read the fucking story it links to thats not even true. The mother and sister who gave it to him wanted him to wear it. The estranged father is claiming the mother didnt want Obama to use it.. but there is an interview with her after the Wisconsin primary where she said she was honored that Obama mentioned her son in his speech.

GUESS WHAT DRUDGE? YOUR PARTY IS ABOUT TO BEND OVER AND TAKE IT IN NOVEMBER, ENJOY IT.

Well, it's Drudge. Desperate times....
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Tyrone Slothrop said:
i think palin will do OK in the debate.

I thought so too, but she's looked VERY shaky in her interviews so far, and after watching the Presidential debates, it's hard to imagine her able to pull off a convincing performance. She does very well with prepared remarks, like at the RNC, but she's wilted under tough questions during the interviews.
 

lexdysia

Banned
VanMardigan said:
I thought so too, but she's looked VERY shaky in her interviews so far, and after watching the Presidential debates, it's hard to imagine her able to pull off a convincing performance. She does very well with prepared remarks, like at the RNC, but she's wilted under tough questions during the interviews.

Gwen Ifill is moderating, and based on her reaction to the RNC speech, she's not pulling any punches.
 
lexdysia said:
Gwen Ifill is moderating, and based on her reaction to the RNC speech, she's not pulling any punches.
Having a woman moderator might be helpful, she won't feel as much need to pull an punches (unfortunate that even has to be a consideration, but I don't make the rules).
 
StoOgE said:
NO.

The Community Reinvestment act is a good piece of legislation that states banks cant simply ignore poor people and only loan money to super duper qualified customers. Before the CRA was passed minorities were discriminated against, banks wouldnt open branches in poor neighboorhoods and all kinds of other bullshit. In fact, they would very often not allow poor people without perfect credit to even have a bank account, meaning poor people were stuck living hand to mouth or paying check cashing places insane amounts of money to cash their paychecks.

The CRA has done a ton of good in helping poor and underprivledged americans grow their net worth and standard of living. There is a difference between lending to lower and middle income americans and the horseshit "No Doc, % only loans" that came out in the last 5 years.

Lets put it this way, the CRA was passed in the last 70's and worked just fine for 30 years. There is nothing wrong with sub-prime loans as long as they are treated as such. What wound up causing the damage is two things

1) Sub prime loans became crazy. You didnt have to prove your income or that you even had a job. You could just sign a piece of paper saying "I make 100K a year" even if you didnt. Then, if you STILL couldnt afford the loan the mortgage broker would sell you a 5 year % only loan so you didnt have to pay as much in the first 5 years.

2) Sub prime loans were not treated as sub prime loans. CDO's and CMO's bundled a shitload of this bad debt together and treated much of it as though it was AAA rated paper. As good as gold. So people were buying complete shit but thought they were buying good assets.

That "the CRA and poor people caused this problem" is complete horse shit. Its just republicans grasping at straws because their entire free market knows best economic theory came crashing down this month.

The CRA worked just fine for years until lax regulation allowed retail banks to start acting as investment banks and dealing with unregulated securities... and that happened in the last 10 years.

This is so true, especially the part I put in bold. Stated income was IMO the biggest abuse that helped in causing the housing bubble. When I was working in an Allstate office selling homeowners insurance, I worked pretty close with a lot of mortgage loan officers and that was one of the main things I picked up on. I still remember one couple who bought a $400k+ and I think they may have earned a combined $90k per year. I think they foreclosed about a year later and were one of the first casualties of an ARM loan to big for them to handle.

I also agree about #2. I also don't think it helped when I saw people with A-credit being placed in sub-prime loans just to get bigger houses which goes back to #1.
 

Chichikov

Member
VanMardigan said:
I thought so too, but she's looked VERY shaky in her interviews so far, and after watching the Presidential debates, it's hard to imagine her able to pull off a convincing performance. She does very well with prepared remarks, like at the RNC, but she's wilted under tough questions during the interviews.
Debate is a different beast than an interview, for one you're working against a set time limits, plus you usually can't push for answers multiple times like Couric did (my god, did I just bring Couric a positive example for an interview? gah, feel so dirty now).

Not saying she'll do well, I sure hope she don't, but I'm guessing she'll try to stall as much as she can, to use a football metaphor, try to shorten the game.

But we'll see.
It will be interesting.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
bgassassin said:
This is so true, especially the part I put in bold. Stated income was IMO the biggest abuse that helped in causing the housing bubble. When I was working in an Allstate office selling homeowners insurance, I worked pretty close with a lot of mortgage loan officers and that was one of the main things I picked up on. I still remember one couple who bought a $400k+ and I think they may have earned a combined $90k per year. I think they foreclosed about a year later and were one of the first casualties of an ARM loan to big for them to handle.

I also agree about #2. I also don't think it helped when I saw people with A-credit being placed in sub-prime loans just to get bigger houses which goes back to #1.

That is a very good point. These sub prime loans are also middle class, and upper middle class people that could have gotten a nice normal mortgage on a house they could afford. Instead loans for houses outside of their reach were purchased with sub prime mortgages, so someone who could afford a 600K dollar house might have gotten a million dollar home. Someone who could afford a 200K dollar home might have gone for a 450K dollar home and so on.

Trust me, this problem is not because people that cant afford a house were buying 100K dollar houses. That might be part of it, but the much larger losses are going to come from the larger more expensive houses that are also more likely to have devalued over the last 3 years.
 

tfur

Member
Chichikov said:
Have you watched Meet the Press today?
Do you think he was biased?
Do you think Brokaw is partial or a Republican shill?
FFS people.

Meet The Press died when Tim died.

Tom isn't even a shell of what Tim was in regards to politics...
 

BobLoblaw

Banned
Tobor said:
Palin's handlers are going to be coaching her to speak as generally as possible, and to stay folksy and charming. She'll avoid specifics like the plague, and it's up to Lehrer and Biden to call her out on it. Couric laid down the framework for shutting this woman down, and it's up to them to use it. Ask a question with an easy out, then rephrase in a way she can't back out of and watch the gibberish flow.
Agreed. She'll try to speak in generalities, but there's no way either Biden or the host will settle for statements like "we've got to do better" (or something like that) without any specifics as to how or why. My thoughts are that they've been filling her head with nothing but talking points while they should've been giving her history lessons on the various issues and then telling her where McCain stands.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Chichikov said:
Debate is a different beast than an interview, for one you're working against a set time limits, plus you usually can't push for answers multiple times like Couric did (my god, did I just bring Couric a positive example for an interview? gah, feel so dirty now).

The problem is she has to think on the fly, and that hasn't been her forte, especially in areas where she had no previous knowledge (like foreign policy). Watching the debate the other night, I was admiring both McCain and Obama putting out detailed responses with plenty of meat. I know Biden can do the same thing. Palin hasn't demonstrated that ability outside of prepared remarks.
 
Rur0ni said:
I'd like to note that Obama is higher on the super tracker than any other period.

Obama has had a natural "ceiling" of about +6 in the tracker polls for most of the general election season, and McCain has had a similar ceiling of +2 or so in his support (excluding purely artificial convention boucnes). These newer results show that Obama's ceiling may be rising, which would be a big deal-it represents either the "window" between the two ceilings shifting to Obama, or previously undecided voters going for Obama.
 
StoOgE said:
That is a very good point. These sub prime loans are also middle class, and upper middle class people that could have gotten a nice normal mortgage on a house they could afford. Instead loans for houses outside of their reach were purchased with sub prime mortgages, so someone who could afford a 600K dollar house might have gotten a million dollar home. Someone who could afford a 200K dollar home might have gone for a 450K dollar home and so on.

Trust me, this problem is not because people that cant afford a house were buying 100K dollar houses. That might be part of it, but the much larger losses are going to come from the larger more expensive houses that are also more likely to have devalued over the last 3 years.

There was an article on this on MSNBC today. I'm going to dig it up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26869897

The housing crisis that swept through working-class and middle-class communities across the country is now creeping into the leafy driveways and the gated communities of the nation's most exclusive towns.

One symptom of these times: a surge in the number of million-dollar foreclosures. According to RealtyTrac, the number of homes valued at more than $1 million that are in some stage of foreclosure has swelled to 7,968 between January and August. That compares with 4,214 during the same period last year.

The number of $2 million-plus homes in the process of foreclosure has grown even faster, surging to 499 in the year-to-date compared with 201 for the same period last year. Home values are based on comparable, recent sales in the neighborhoods.

It wasn't long ago that bidding wars over luxury properties were commonplace, as buyers emboldened by the booming housing market paid ever-dearer premiums for what seemed like a no-lose investment. More than 64,300 homes priced at $1 million or more sold in 2007, more than triple the number in 2002, according to DataQuick.

"If you've got a lender who pushed them to the limit and you have some change in supply or demand, you'll have foreclosures," says Karl Case, the Wellesley College economist associated with the widely followed S&P/Case-Shiller index of U.S. housing prices. "Loans were unbelievably risky in every category," adds Tom Lawler, a housing economist in Leesburg, Va. "We're seeing the results of that lending in the high end."​

Here's a pretty troubling bit that I hadn't thought about:

The wave of expected layoffs at Lehman Brothers Holdings and Merrill Lynch, combined with previous cuts on Wall Street, is likely to worsen conditions in the Northeast, Mr. Case, the economist, predicts.​

Some more bits:

Adam Fenn, a Nevada broker who specializes in foreclosures, says he had no million-dollar listings last year. Now he's trying to sell about 20 homes in the $1 million-plus range, and expects to have several priced at more than $2 million in the next month or two.​
 

Tim-E

Member
Is the VP debate going to follow the same formula as the presidential debate? I think in terms of debating, she may do a little better than expected, but if it's like Friday's debate, then she's going to have to fill two entire minutes with her being uninterrupted nine times in the night trying to answer questions she knows nothing about.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Amir0x said:
PoliGAF is going to be crushed if Palin doesn't implode on stage. The media will totally be all shock and awe and "she has removed clearly any doubts that she could be president in-worst-case" if they don't have a story of her epic collapse to cover, so she better make big mistakes!


as long as she does decent, it's a win for her.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Tim-E said:
Is the VP debate going to follow the same formula as the presidential debate? I think in terms of debating, she may do a little better than expected, but if it's like Friday's debate, then she's going to have to fill two entire minutes with her being uninterrupted nine times in the night trying to answer questions she knows nothing about.

It's going to have about the same amount of time for each answer, but it won't have as much back-and-forth between the two candidates.
 
Tyrone Slothrop said:
i keep checking news sites and cable news to see what neurotic batshit stunt mccain is undoubtedly about to pull.
I've long been expecting him to pull a Bob Dole and quit the Senate.







But I doubt even McCain is that stupid.
 

TDG

Banned
The VP debate is THIS Thursday, correct?
lexdysia said:
That's good for Biden, actually.
Why do you think that? I think the more in-depth and back-and-forth they go into the issues, the more trouble that is for Palin.
 

Tamanon

Banned
TDG said:
The VP debate is THIS Thursday, correct?Why do you think that? I think the more in-depth and back-and-forth they go into the issues, the more trouble that is for Palin.

Back and forth leads to more chances to look like a dick.

And yeah it's this Thursday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom