PhoenixDark
Banned
cash rules...
Trump was a democrat not long ago. There's more money in being a tea party asshole
-
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.
PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
cash rules...
Trump was a democrat not long ago. There's more money in being a tea party asshole
Hellsing321
Member
I don't see why the Romney camp thinks they can get away with this lie. American car manufactures depend on their image as creators of American jobs to sell their cars. If people actually bought his bullshit it would cost them business. It is in their best interest to push back against bullshit like this forcefully.
Trump was a Democrat? Whaaaaaat?
Link
The Autumn Wind
Let him think short-term. In the long run, all he's doing is burning bridges and making himself a joke. I wouldn't expect anything less from a man that's had to declare bankruptcy multiple times.
Kevitivity
Member
Thats the left view of Romney's plan. Here is the center-right view...
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/133041
Squirrel Killer
Member
And how much credence did you give the 2004 Diebold stuff?
Wow.
Lol as a CEO their might a more professional way to say that
Twitter has made the world so weird
Link
The Autumn Wind
Trump doesn't deserve any form of professionalism.
Sure, but why exactly would Trump deserve the "professional" way of putting things?
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
John Taylor: the man who thinks that the 1981 recession was the result of a financial crisis.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
its obvious ralph is defending obama because hes black...
A deliberately vague amount, obviously.
Here in Oakland there's a local movie theatre that still posts angry messages about Diebold on their marquee every week. Personally I figured if Kerry conceded immediately there can't have been that much to it -- and it's hard for me to believe conspiracy theories. I wouldn't be totally amazed to read otherwise in a book in twenty years, I guess.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Another note about 1981: Wikipedia says that the cause of the recession was "a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation." None of that bears any resemblance to today. Interest rates are near zero. Inflation is low and at one point was deflationary. A recession persists in spite of loose monetary policy. I'm almost certain that John Taylor is wrong on this.
Kevitivity
Member
Um yes. Thats actually the prevailing view - bad policy by the fed. What are you referring to?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Morris on Van Susteren tonight swearing up and down a 5-10% PV Romney Win + 320 EVs.
Also, I was also checking the old data on poll averages on RCP for the 2008 and I can't figure out why Rasmussen is even used.
For example, in FL in 2008, the last polls were O+2, O+4, O+2, O+1, O+3 and Rasmussen had McCain +1, the actual result was Obama +2.8. The average of polls that weren't Ras was O+2.4.
Same shit in OH, they were four and a quarter points to the right of both the average prediction and four and three-quarters to the right of the actual result.
Am I missing something here? Why does anyone even listen to them?
Also, I was also checking the old data on poll averages on RCP for the 2008 and I can't figure out why Rasmussen is even used.
For example, in FL in 2008, the last polls were O+2, O+4, O+2, O+1, O+3 and Rasmussen had McCain +1, the actual result was Obama +2.8. The average of polls that weren't Ras was O+2.4.
Same shit in OH, they were four and a quarter points to the right of both the average prediction and four and three-quarters to the right of the actual result.
Am I missing something here? Why does anyone even listen to them?
holy shit, it's almost like they're conceding loss in advance so they can attempt to win by means of a swing state-level recount. What a bunch of fucking assholes.
I have a feeling the election might not be over in the early AM hours of the 7th...
This fucking party, I swear. They are ruining this country. From stealing 2000's election, to starting two wars, to pampering the wealthiest Americans via a completely unethical tax policy, to being economic terrorists and nearly making this country go into another recession if not depression -- it's remarkable that they are able to continue to get away with these kinds of tactics.
I have a feeling the election might not be over in the early AM hours of the 7th...
This fucking party, I swear. They are ruining this country. From stealing 2000's election, to starting two wars, to pampering the wealthiest Americans via a completely unethical tax policy, to being economic terrorists and nearly making this country go into another recession if not depression -- it's remarkable that they are able to continue to get away with these kinds of tactics.
Fragamemnon
Member
Volker did what he had to do to deal with the long-running inflation pressures that came to a head in the OPEC shock of the late 70s. It sucked and was extremely painful, but we've had very modest inflation ever since. Calling the Fed's actions in the late 70s/early 80s as objectively "bad" without supporting the argument here doesn't hold water.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
It was not a systemic financial crisis, which is usually what people mean when they use the term. From Rogoff and Reinhart, experts on recessions and crises:
Part of the confusion may be attributed to a failure to distinguish systemic financial crises from more minor ones and from regular business cycles. A systemic financial crisis affects a large share of a country’s financial system. Such occurrences are quite distinct from events that clearly fall short of a full-blown systemic meltdown, and are referred to in the academic literature as “borderline” crises.
The difference is both one of semantics and of fundamental distinctions. What's really important here, as I said in my last post, is that the recession of the early 1980s was a straightforward attempt to fight inflation. This bears little resemblance to today. Monetary policy is already loose. The inflation rate is low. Interest rates are near zero, and you cannot lower them much further to induce growth.
Lastly, who characterizes the Fed's actions in the early 1980s as bad? Paul Volcker is generally lionized for fighting inflation, which was the result of the oil shock in the 70s.
Black Mamba
Member
Taylor's forte is monetary policy, he should stick to that.
This has already been proven wrong and he knows it. Yet he states it anyway.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/res041609b.htm
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1672586
http://www.voxeu.org/article/time-different-again-us-five-years-after-onset-subprime-0
http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5499
Most of Taylor's analysis is based on a faulty assumption. Regardless, he spends little time on Romney.
Furthermore, when he finally does spend time on romney he basically says "Romney plans to bring down the debt and here is why this happening is good," meanwhile completely ignoring that romney has NO PLAN to bring down the debt. He talks about how education being better helps, but Romney has no education plan at all. He talks about how Romney's plan does not get rid of certain regulations but ignores the fact that Romney has no proposed what regulations he's replace Dodd-Frank with at all. What plan is Taylor assessing?
He even repeats the Fannie/Freddie thing that has been already laid to rest by economists everywhere.
Taylor has merely sold himself out like Mankiw who changed his own argument the moment he got hired by Romney.
edit: Almost forgot, but DeLong absolutely destroyed Romney's "white paper" written by Taylor, already.
edit: here it is: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/...am-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.html
Taylor is pretty much lying because he knows his shit. He just is getting paid by Romney to lie. At least send me a link by someone not being paid by Romney to spout pro-Romney nonsense.
el retorno
Member
I posted it a few pages back but it deserves to be scene again.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Interesting comment from a TPM reader concerning the Nate Silver/NYT dust up
We've discussed this for awhile, and I continue to believe the stats driven analysis will never take hold of TV punditry. TV news is built around the idea of breaking news: something happens in the country and every journalist scrambles to react as fast as possible. The problem with Nate Silver, PEC, etc is that they pull the veil off what has always been described as a "horse race" and reveal that it resembles more of a chess match. Elections don't swing day to day, nor do comments or gaffes move the needle as quickly as pundits tend to tell us. Nate's model has largely looked the same for months. How does that type of stability translate into a typical hyperactive news cycle of pundits?
Consider this laughable glimpse into the mind of a pundit
http://thepage.time.com/2012/11/01/potential-tipping-point/
"I’m going to take a risk here and peel back the curtain to tell you what insiders are thinking." As if they are the only people capable of such insight, or that no one else is privy to the secret sauce they possess. No wonder these people are so threatened by Nate - he told people this secret weeks ago. Look, my views on who will win are well known but let's face it - the numbers favor Obama right now; they have favored Obama for most of the race. Romney made major gains after the first debate, it remains to be seen if that was enough to win this for him...but the fact remains Obama is sitting in a better position RIGHT NOW than Romney, and that has been the case for days; no, it didn't magically occur once Sandy hit. Who needs Halperin to tell them that, outside of a low info voter, or that guy who casually watches MSNBC while working out at the gym?
Nate is a threat and is being treated like one by the media, but it's more about pride and credibility than relevancy or ratings. Those low info voters will continue watching TV news, and TV news will continue entertaining them; because that's ultimately what it's all about.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/11/twilight_du_doucherie.php?ref=fpblg
We've discussed this for awhile, and I continue to believe the stats driven analysis will never take hold of TV punditry. TV news is built around the idea of breaking news: something happens in the country and every journalist scrambles to react as fast as possible. The problem with Nate Silver, PEC, etc is that they pull the veil off what has always been described as a "horse race" and reveal that it resembles more of a chess match. Elections don't swing day to day, nor do comments or gaffes move the needle as quickly as pundits tend to tell us. Nate's model has largely looked the same for months. How does that type of stability translate into a typical hyperactive news cycle of pundits?
Consider this laughable glimpse into the mind of a pundit
http://thepage.time.com/2012/11/01/potential-tipping-point/
"I’m going to take a risk here and peel back the curtain to tell you what insiders are thinking." As if they are the only people capable of such insight, or that no one else is privy to the secret sauce they possess. No wonder these people are so threatened by Nate - he told people this secret weeks ago. Look, my views on who will win are well known but let's face it - the numbers favor Obama right now; they have favored Obama for most of the race. Romney made major gains after the first debate, it remains to be seen if that was enough to win this for him...but the fact remains Obama is sitting in a better position RIGHT NOW than Romney, and that has been the case for days; no, it didn't magically occur once Sandy hit. Who needs Halperin to tell them that, outside of a low info voter, or that guy who casually watches MSNBC while working out at the gym?
Nate is a threat and is being treated like one by the media, but it's more about pride and credibility than relevancy or ratings. Those low info voters will continue watching TV news, and TV news will continue entertaining them; because that's ultimately what it's all about.
vas_a_morir
Banned
That was depressingly unfunny. That show used to be so good, too. Not to rip on anyone who enjoyed it, I am only speaking for myself.
Kevitivity
Member
You should write a nice long email to the Stanford Economics department and let them know that you did a google search and have completely figured out all of the exact and definite answers to every economic problem ever posed by the "dismal science", and that professor Taylor is a liar.
Pro tip:
Just because someone has an alternate view from yours doesn't make them a liar.
Black Mamba
Member
^^ the pundintry won't go away because not enough people care.
In baseball, things changed because everyone who liked baseball passionately cared.
But you say people care about the election like that too. And you're right. Buuuut there's a difference.
In baseball, passionate fans are obsessed with stats already. And so when new stats came along, they cared a lot more. And casual fans did not spend their time reading much from the baseball pundits. They watched highlights and that's the extent to what they did outside of watching games.
In elections, the passionate fans are of two ilks. People who are looking for analysis and have long rejected the pundits (like us) and those who are passionate and want to hear the narrative they want (people who watch Fox or MSNBC all the time). Proper stats analysis already guide the former and won't ever matter for the latter.
The bigger difference is the casual fan. The casual fan won't put enough effort into researching stats. That person will want to randomly tune into whatever station and find out what is going on right now. They will assume these people know what they're talking about. And the stats people can't crack this.
Sports fans already obsessed with stats tend to be good at understanding math better than an entire electorate who is mathematically challenged. They don't want to see percentages and numbers. They want to be told "Obama up 2, tied." It is simple to understand. They understand "momentum" and such. They don't even really want to hear about state polling. ELECTORAL COLLEGE MY BRAIN HURTS.
In baseball, things changed because everyone who liked baseball passionately cared.
But you say people care about the election like that too. And you're right. Buuuut there's a difference.
In baseball, passionate fans are obsessed with stats already. And so when new stats came along, they cared a lot more. And casual fans did not spend their time reading much from the baseball pundits. They watched highlights and that's the extent to what they did outside of watching games.
In elections, the passionate fans are of two ilks. People who are looking for analysis and have long rejected the pundits (like us) and those who are passionate and want to hear the narrative they want (people who watch Fox or MSNBC all the time). Proper stats analysis already guide the former and won't ever matter for the latter.
The bigger difference is the casual fan. The casual fan won't put enough effort into researching stats. That person will want to randomly tune into whatever station and find out what is going on right now. They will assume these people know what they're talking about. And the stats people can't crack this.
Sports fans already obsessed with stats tend to be good at understanding math better than an entire electorate who is mathematically challenged. They don't want to see percentages and numbers. They want to be told "Obama up 2, tied." It is simple to understand. They understand "momentum" and such. They don't even really want to hear about state polling. ELECTORAL COLLEGE MY BRAIN HURTS.
el retorno
Member
I'm really interested in seeing how this develops. I don't think TV news will die over night but developments in media and especially the internet make me thing eventually people like Nate will win. They're will be pundits to try to shape immediate reactions to gaffs, ads and what not but I think you're going to see a lot less of the constant drive for ties. They're going to start to admit more in the future that it might be impossible for a certain candidate to win. Not all elections will be covered the same. A race like 2000 will be heavily covered much like today but a race like 1984 will not have the same coverage since they won't have to pretend the challenger has much of a chance.
At least thats my opinion. Though I don't think we'll see these kind of shifts until the 20s or 30s since we still have people that only get their info from Newspapers and TV, old media.
Black Mamba
Member
Taylor is being paid by Romney. Mankiw has proven himself to switch positions for Romney's convenience. And everyone knows Mankiw if they've taken econ since he taught it to you. I'm going to assume the same of Taylor because, as DeLong pointed out, he tore down stuff Taylor has to know as an economist. Taylor was factually incorrect. Not opinions, facts. Facts he knows.
Alternate views are fine. Don't send me one FROM THE ACTUAL CAMPAIGN and call it alternate. Let me repeat: Taylor is part of the Romney Campaign.
Do note: you ignored every point made. Because like Romney, you have no glass.
Black Mamba
Member
You said very succinctly what I was trying to get at. lol.
The considerable extent to which the CIA has become embedded in our counter-terrorism strategy is highly disconcerting. And its role has only expanded under the Obama Administration as they have enlarged the drone program. The CIA is notoriously evasive regarding oversight. And Congressional oversight is already deficient. It's an integral component of our foreign policy apparatus that's almost entirely unaccountable.
The multitude of communications options is what makes the bubble possible, though. Everyone has 101 different news sources to choose from now, and ultimately they choose the sources that do not conflict with their world view. They check their handful of preferred sources 5 times a day, and conclude that's a relevant survey of public opinion....even if those news sources are highly biased and relentlessly pandering to a particular own world view.
And sometimes I wonder if the shoe were on the other foot and 538 heavily favored Romney, would some liberal equivalent of UnskewedPolls be the flavor of the day at GAF?
Kevitivity
Member
I guess so ?
eBay Huckster
Member
Expecting to glean a compelling argument from Kevitivity is kind of like expecting to glean details of his candidate of choice's economic plans, in that you should likely give up on expecting those things from either (though in the latter case it's because Romney doesn't want you to know they're objectively bad if 'good' is defined as resulting in higher total output)
Black Mamba
Member
Every time someone presses you for specifics, you run and hide.
I'm sure there are actual boards you could troll and get away without answering for your positions so I don't get why you waste time here.
speculawyer
Member
I just hope Media Matters is recording all of this. ALL OF THIS. They better be recording Fox 24/7 so they can create an hour long special of confident predictions from Fox that are all completely wrong if Mitt loses.
Say what you want about CNN's "It's a tie!" pathetic spinelessness. At least they are not spewing out bad predictions.
BuggyDClown
Member
I guess I'm persuasive haha In this area though all you need to do is mention education cuts, charter schools, and the benefits of obamacare and if they aren't Fox sheep they see how it affects them. Some asked me when I'm going to run for office. Scary thoughts.
Friggin Fox news. It is everywhere here. Yuck.
My dad is voting dem for the first time in his life. You have to really screw up to get my dad to vote dem. Even all four of my grandparents are voting dem this year, and all 4 voted for McCain in 08. To bad they aren't in swing states.
I'm sure this is a crazy/stupid question, I really just need a bit of direction.
I'm a big Obama supporter and have never really thought about helping the cause beyond donations ect. I'd love to help with calls or however I could volunteer. How would I be able to donate what little time I have especially with what little time is left.
Is there any way to make calls?
I reside in LA if that makes any difference. I just happen to have the next two days free and would like to help with the last get out the vote message if I still can.
I'm sure The Daily Show team is already cutting together a Fox News bad prediction highlight reel.
Uhhh they are talking about Romney's internal "polling"
5 more days and we won't have to indulge you any longer, that is probably the best part of Tuesday besides Obama winning IA,OH and all the other states he is up in now
I posted all the detailed EV numbers for Iowa a few pages back, Romney's campaign needs like a 20-30pt win on Election Day in Iowa to even come close
Kevitivity
Member
And you call people liars.
Listen, I'm not going to spend the time and energy writing a long post explaining the world to you... I'm not even going to try to change your mind - you obviously have all the answers. I'm just providing some alternate opinions in this echo chamber.
Black Mamba
Member
Mankiw is a proven liar. I said Taylor knows his shit so the explanation has to be he's lying. Are you saying he's ignorant of the data as an economist?
It's one or the other. These aren't things up for debate. He wrong about facts.
You want to give alternate opinions, don't fucking cite the romney campaign. I discredited what Taylor wrote with my own points and that of an unaffiliated economist. This isn't me having all the answers. This is about you ignoring everything people point out to you and whine about an echo chamber.
I know
but
GODDAM I JUST DON'T TRUST THE GOP
PLEASE WIN VA+CO+NV+IA IN CASE OH OR SOME OTHER STATE GETS CRAZY
omg please get here Nov 6
Kevitivity
Member
Clearly the republican base is much more energized that BO's . Given they stark contrast of the two campaigns, I'm not surprised.
You are seriously fucked up in the head...I know
but
GODDAM I JUST DON'T TRUST THE GOP
PLEASE WIN VA+CO+NV+IA IN CASE OH OR SOME OTHER STATE GETS CRAZY
omg please get here Nov 6
polyh3dron
Banned
It'll be ok diablos.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
DEM lead of more than 44 points (16.91 to 60.99%) on 9/28 collapsed to 12.27 points by 10/30, an improvement of nearly +32 net points on the margin by Republicans.
This is a useless stat. Even if the lead really was 44 points in September, that's completely unsustainable. Democrats "only" led by 18 points in 2008. A fall to 12 points is not disastrous, especially because more people are voting early this year. In all of 2008, 481,000 people voted early. In 2012, it's already been 557,000. Assuming that this is representative of greater proportions of early voting, rather than much greater turnout overall, then Romney will probably have to beat Obama by a significant margin on election day - at least five or six points, I'd guess - just to win the state.
Edit: Early voting in Iowa started on September 27th. Their stats account for a single day of voting. And they're using this to prove that they're catching up. Ridiculous.
Haha, no, I just want Obama to get as much, we shall call it, electoral insurance as he can acquire.
Most swing states are gonna be super close, and I fully expect the GOP to capitalize on that by trying to demand a recount. They already made the first shot in Nevada, had the SoS been a GOPer they probably would have listened to what they had to say. The more swing states Obama can win by more than a couple points the better off we are.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I saw this and was cracking up. Greta was like, "we will save the tape."
and then on The Five, Greg Gutfeld and Dana Perino were actually laughing as they were talking about his predictions. They can only keep the veil up for so long.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Even the most recent punditry evolution - fact checking - has shown that overall the business is still about creating news and narratives regardless of facts. Every news station (not counting Fox) covers fact checking like a he said/she said criminal case. They present one fact check for republicans and one for democrats; you never see any discussion about who is being more dishonest overall, nor are blatant lies called out unless there is outside pressure (Romney's jeep shit comes to mind).
This makes me believe the only way we'd see any attention on stats/aggregates is if an election season featured two vastly different models on each side of the political spectrum. I think Dean Chambers made a miscalculation by deciding to be so partisan and generally unprofessional in the presentation of his numbers. Given the interviews Silver has received this year, I'm sure Chambers could have received some interviews too if he wasn't such a dick (and had a better website designer). After all, the Romney campaign is using his basic argument in terms of skewed polls.
This makes me believe the only way we'd see any attention on stats/aggregates is if an election season featured two vastly different models on each side of the political spectrum. I think Dean Chambers made a miscalculation by deciding to be so partisan and generally unprofessional in the presentation of his numbers. Given the interviews Silver has received this year, I'm sure Chambers could have received some interviews too if he wasn't such a dick (and had a better website designer). After all, the Romney campaign is using his basic argument in terms of skewed polls.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked