US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Puddles said:
Dax, I thought your argument was pretty good, but Jackson uses way bigger words. You'll need to step your thesaurus game up a bit. ;)
Click to expand...

I had to look up the word "tautological." :lol

But I'm done with the argument.
Jackson50 said:
No, you did not address it. I noted why your rebuttal was deficient. And I will elucidate again. You are attributing their partisan swing in 2008 to demographic changes. However, their partisan swing coincided with a broader national swing. A largely uniform shift across various states evidences a general cause for the swing. There is scant evidence indicating NC and VA were unique cases. Thus, while demographic changes may have caused NC and VA's particular shifts, additional data is necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Otherwise, until we have additional evidence, their respective swings are probably attributable to whatever caused the general shift in other states.

First, yes. You corrected my interpretation of your argument by merely restating it. And, again, you refuted nothing. I noted the incongruity of the demographic hypothesis with reducing the GOP's recent success in midterm/off-year elections to the prominence of older white voters. If an increase in demographics favorable towards Democrats was significant enough to flip a solidly Republican state to Democratic in only a single cycle, then the proportion of new voters would likely be substantial enough to moderate the older white vote in a midterm election. But it has not. Again, evidence contradicting the demographic hypothesis. Further, that would not be lazy as states often shift uniformly in response to the fundamentals. Virginia and NC do not exist in a vacuum. If they have shifted largely in unison with the broader national swing, then it indicates the catalyst for their respective shifts are probably not specific to their state. Moreover, I have not ignored their margin of victory. Rather, I utilize the intra-district partisan swing as it more accurately depicts a district's convergence with the national trend. For example, the minute margin of victory in NC's single flipped Congressional district makes it appear as if Democrats overachieved. However, the district's partisan swing was eight percent greater than the national swing. And it occurred in a district Obama won in 08. Many Congressional districts in NC and VA mostly conformed to the national trend while a few districts experienced swings considerably larger than the national shift. Altogether, Republicans largely performed to expectations and overachieved in a few instances. Thus, incorporating their margin of victory does not substantiate the demographic argument.

Additionally, I analyze the recent Congressional elections in accordance with NC and VA's historical partisan behavior in presidential elections. They had been solidly Republican in numerous presidential elections preceding 2008. The only elections inconsistent with a solidly Republican state were 06/08. And those elections occurred in a toxic cycle for Republicans. Additionally, they moved in unison with other states evidencing a general cause for the shifts. That also weakens the argument that VA and NC were only susceptible to the swings because of demographic changes. Numerous solidly Republican states experienced even more substantial swings in the absence of significant demographic changes. NC and VA's behavior was not peculiar, and conforms to expectations given the fundamentals.
Click to expand...
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just because one state votes one way in an election does not mean it's going to vote that way in any immediate election afterward. The process is a lot more gradual than that.
 
I really wished that a lot of the candidates would stop wasting people's time. Gingrich and Perry should just leave, although they might do slightly well in SC they'll never make it all the way. They're just splitting the votes up for the non-Romneys and securing him the nom.
 
Dr. Pangloss said:
The problems our next presidential contenders have seem pretty obvious. Obama's problem is the economy, and Mitt Romney's problem is actually just being Mitt Romney. The public think Obama is a nice guy, but they want results which have been slow in coming. Mitt Romney on the other hand is going to be portrayed as the boss that fired you in one of the worst economic periods in the past 100 years. Let's just run down the gaffes he has made to make this possible:

1. I enjoy firing people.
2. I bet you $10,000.
3. I'm afraid of getting a pink slip.
4. I'm unemployed.
5. If you are not rich, then don't run for office.
6. Corporations are people.
7. Renovating his multi-million dollar mansion.

And the general election hasn't even started. Obama is going to make him look worst than John 'I don't know how many houses I own' McCain. At least McCain had his service record to fall back on. Also as Drek said, no one is going to man phones or go door to door for this guy. Obama's get out the vote effort is going to dwarf him in comparison. I'm afraid there is only one person that is going to be made to look 'out of touch' this campaign, and it is going to be Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

George W. Bush said inconceivably moronic things innumerable times. I lost count and there aren't enough minutes in the day for me to link such things. He was the U.S. president two times. People primarily vote for the party, not the person. Mitt Romney could deem himself the antichrist and social conservatives would still vote for him.
 
Meadows said:
I really wished that a lot of the candidates would stop wasting people's time. Gingrich and Perry should just leave, although they might do slightly well in SC they'll never make it all the way. They're just splitting the votes up for the non-Romneys and securing him the nom.
Click to expand...

...exactly why they don't drop out. The establishment wants Ron Paul no where near the nomination.
 
ThisWreckage said:
George W. Bush said inconceivably moronic things innumerable times. I lost count and there aren't enough minutes in the day for me to link such things. He was the U.S. president two times. People primarily vote for the party, not the person. Mitt Romney could deem himself the antichrist and social conservatives would still vote for him.
Click to expand...

Yeah but GWB was a charming buffoon that people wanted to have a beer with.

Romney comes off as the rich asshole boss from a soap opera who blackmails women into sleeping with him by threatening to fire their husbands, but also seduces them away with his vast wealth at the same time. And he's a bad liar.
 
Aaron Strife said:
PPP just released their new poll of NC. Obama is tied with Santorum (!) at 46-46 but leads Romney by a point, at 46-45. His approval rating is 47 approve, 49 disapprove, which is still underwater but better than his national approval.

Given that Obama won by less than half a point here in 2008, even winning by one point would be an improvement.

Also - Virginia has sucked for Democrats, but the recent State Senate elections resulted in a 20-20 split, which at least defied expectations (that the GOP would win outright, gaining the trifecta). And as mentioned, only one Democratic Congressperson lost in North Carolina in 2010, which wouldn't indicate a red state to me.
Click to expand...
As others have iterated, polls at this point of the cycle provide no predictive value. There is simply too much uncertainty to glean any useful information from the polls. If Obama is performing well in a few months, there is a substantive reason for optimism.

I am careful to parse a cycle into individual elections. They can be misleading. Only flipping a single Congressional district is not indicative of a red state. Alternatively, sizable gains in both houses of the General Assembly indicate a state favorable to the GOP. Altogether, the GOP have performed well in NC and VA this cycle. And given their typical orientation in presidential election, I am hesitant to extrapolate too much from 2008. Again, they may be shifting towards Democrats. But I want additional evidence before I buy into it.

NihonTiger90 said:
I expect Romney +28. Or more precisely:

Romney: 45
Hunstman: 17
Paul: 15
Santorum: 11
Gingrich: 10
Perry: 1
Other: 1
Click to expand...
Aside from a massive boost to his position, Huntsman's surge is probably the best outcome for Romney. With the possible exception of Paul, he is probably the least threatening candidate. Although, it is mostly irrelevant. Romney is the overwhelming favorite.
Dax01 said:
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just because one state votes one way in an election does not mean it's going to vote that way in any immediate election afterward. The process is a lot more gradual than that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. And that's why I desire additional evidence before I extrapolate a trend from a single election. But, admittedly, I hope your analysis proves correct.
 
Zabka said:
Yeah but GWB was a charming buffoon that people wanted to have a beer with.

Romney comes off as the rich asshole boss from a soap opera who blackmails women into sleeping with him by threatening to fire their husbands, but also seduces them away with his vast wealth at the same time. And he's a bad liar.
Click to expand...

:lol
 
Zabka said:
Yeah but GWB was a charming buffoon that people wanted to have a beer with.

Romney comes off as the rich asshole boss from a soap opera who blackmails women into sleeping with him by threatening to fire their husbands, but also seduces them away with his vast wealth at the same time. And he's a bad liar.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Romney has an enormous family that is good looking and he is good looking himself. That will have an impact, although I'm not sure how much it will have.

He's also a good, if not great, debater. All politicians are bad liars so I don't understand your point there.
 
Zabka said:
Romney comes off as the rich asshole boss from a soap opera who blackmails women into sleeping with him by threatening to fire their husbands, but also seduces them away with his vast wealth at the same time. And he's a bad liar.
Click to expand...

A rich asshole, but he'll have an active GOTV infrastructure in place and unlimited support from 'unaffiliated' Super PACs to flood battleground states. We also don't know yet how much GOP redistricting and voter ID laws will suppress Democratic votes. In a country where partisanship is very nearly a 50/50 split, these could tip the balance.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
Bloomberg has the Bain Doc

Money Quote

“Make a profit,” a laughing Romney is shown saying in the film. “That’s what it’s all about, right?”
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ack-film-depicts-romney-as-ruthless-rich.html
Click to expand...

It's funny how right now is both the best and worst time for Romney to run for president. It's the best because he's such a shitty candidate that in a different primary with actually good and competent opponents he'd easily lose, and it's also the best because the economy crashed so bad that Americans might just vote this disgusting shell of a human being into office. And it's the worst time for him because he's so easy to paint as the epitome of what a lot of the country is incredibly frustrated about.
 
I hope Huntsman loses badly. I just hate that strategy of only campaigning in one state and then getting a "momentum surge." Santorum got lucky in Iowa. I hope the same doesn't happen to Huntsman.
 
Synth_floyd said:
I hope Huntsman loses badly. I just hate that strategy of only campaigning in one state and then getting a "momentum surge." Santorum got lucky in Iowa. I hope the same doesn't happen to Huntsman.
Click to expand...

You should hate the states/state parties who try to make themselves seem more important than other states by setting their dates earlier rather than the candidates who try to use their moronic system to their advantage. None of them have Romney's money, especially Huntsman, so they have to focus on just one state at a time.
 
ThisWreckage said:
George W. Bush said inconceivably moronic things innumerable times. I lost count and there aren't enough minutes in the day for me to link such things. He was the U.S. president two times. People primarily vote for the party, not the person. Mitt Romney could deem himself the antichrist and social conservatives would still vote for him.
Click to expand...

Bush was also personable. You can't really compare the two.
 
Primaries are noticeably duller than caucuses. We're denied the exhilarating experiences of delegates fumbling through prepared speeches and party officials counting ballots.
 
Synth_floyd said:
I hope Huntsman loses badly. I just hate that strategy of only campaigning in one state and then getting a "momentum surge." Santorum got lucky in Iowa. I hope the same doesn't happen to Huntsman.
Click to expand...

It's not really his choice though... he has very little campaign funding. He has to pick and choose his battles wisely. And why hate one of the saner GOP runners?
 
ThisWreckage said:
I disagree with this. Romney has an enormous family that is good looking and he is good looking himself. That will have an impact, although I'm not sure how much it will have.

He's also a good, if not great, debater. All politicians are bad liars so I don't understand your point there.
Click to expand...

I really don't get this "facts" about Romney being even a good debater - is there actually any clips of him against actual good or even just decent debaters instead of the current crop of clowns/hasbeens/nobodies running against him?
 
5qUZs.png


Poor Perry.
 
ThisWreckage said:
I disagree with this. Romney has an enormous family that is good looking and he is good looking himself. That will have an impact, although I'm not sure how much it will have.

He's also a good, if not great, debater. All politicians are bad liars so I don't understand your point there.
Click to expand...

I can't remember any specifics, but I remember thinking Romney was a decent debater last go around, but this time I think he is absolutely one of the worst debaters in the lot. Whenever he gets called on something he looks like he's about to lose his temper and go apeshit on someone. He also looks phony as hell while he's doing it. The way he looks at others up there, too, it looks like he's just scheming on how he's going to get back at them with something extreme later, just because he can't come up with a response now. And his fake laugh is almost always a dead giveaway that he's lying through his ass on something. Even though most politicians are bad liars, Mitt's one of the worst.

Now Newt is a good debater. I hate that man so much, but the way he carries himself in a debate is way above Mitt. He says things with such confidence and nonchalance that you almost have to believe it, even if it is the most ridiculous thing you've heard in the debate.

cartoon_soldier said:
Bloomberg was the Bain Doc

Money Quote

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ack-film-depicts-romney-as-ruthless-rich.html
Click to expand...

I found this quote to be a bit damning:
For an economy to thrive, there are a lot of people who will suffer as a result of that.
Click to expand...
 
RDreamer said:
I can't remember any specifics, but I remember thinking Romney was a decent debater last go around, but this time I think he is absolutely one of the worst debaters in the lot. Whenever he gets called on something he looks like he's about to lose his temper and go apeshit on someone. He also looks phony as hell while he's doing it. The way he looks at others up there, too, it looks like he's just scheming on how he's going to get back at them with something extreme later, just because he can't come up with a response now. And his fake laugh is almost always a dead giveaway that he's lying through his ass on something. Even though most politicians are bad liars, Mitt's one of the worst.

Now Newt is a good debater. I hate that man so much, but the way he carries himself in a debate is way above Mitt. He says things with such confidence and nonchalance that you almost have to believe it, even if it is the most ridiculous thing you've heard in the debate.



I found this quote to be a bit damning:
Click to expand...

Newt is not a good debater. Paul eviscerated him in the last debate.
 
ThisWreckage said:
He's also a good, if not great, debater. All politicians are bad liars so I don't understand your point there.
Click to expand...
Plenty of politicians are good liars.

When he's challenged Romney flails like a first-nighter in federal prison. He is desperate for authenticity but he comes out with dumb bullshit like saying he didn't see the ads his PAC ran then 10 seconds later rattles off the points from the ad he now says he saw. The $10k bet and saying he was glad Ted Kennedy had to take out a mortgage just shows how tone deaf he is.
 
I know that candidate make gaffes, and many vote for the party not the person ThisWreckage. What I was trying to drive at is some independent group will make ads targeting independent voters with Romney as some asshole boss. Call it Bain Employees for Truth if you want. Moveon.org is already doing it with a former steel worker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gwen Stefani invites us to pray with her, Chris Pratt and Mark Wahlberg to promote a meditation app
2
82
5K
Insane Metal replied
Colorful Stage! The Movie: A Miku Who Can't Sing
0
510
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Soundgarden planning to release final album with Chris Cornell on vocals...
18
838
Mr Reasonable replied
  • Poll
When you read a book and it has a song, do you sing it?
14
365
DGrayson replied
Pour one out for those of us working on Christmas
48
2K
Wastelander92 replied
Top Bottom