Politics

[GoIrish41]

Romney is winning by 4 and 3% in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls in the popular vote. He is winning and will win.

To be honest, Obama had momentum that he CANNOT replicate this time around. That's what is going to beat him...because it's about substance this time around. Not being the first black pres, or being cool, or beating Bushy. Obama has to win on his own record. And it won't happen.

Here is what the Gallup poll from today says:

- Mitt Romney had a 3% lead among likely voters but President Obama had a 1% lead among registered voters.

- Obama was at 47% compared to 50% for Romney among likely voters, but Obama was at 48% compared to 47% for Romney among registered voters.

If your analysis is right, those likely voters who aren't registered better get a move on.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Not only that...but Romney DESTROYS Obama. 330-208.

And I agree. Obama had a lot going for him last time around. It just won't be there this time.

1) African Americans and minorities aren't as enthusiastic as they were in 2008 about Obama.

2) Women are now split evenly, as Irish Pat noted.

3) Suburban voters going to Romney.

4) Independent and swing voters are leaning Romney.

5) Obama won't get the huge youth vote he did in 2008.

6) The biggest issue for everyone is the economy and Romney leads in that spectrum. Gay marriage, abortion, and free birth control aren't going to do poop about 8% unemployment and $16 trillion in debt.

7) Hopefully we won't have 20,000 dead people voting in Chicago this time around.

 

[connor_in]

Here is what the Gallup poll from today says:

- Mitt Romney had a 3% lead among likely voters but President Obama had a 1% lead among registered voters.

- Obama was at 47% compared to 50% for Romney among likely voters, but Obama was at 48% compared to 47% for Romney among registered voters.

If your analysis is right, those likely voters who aren't registered better get a move on.

Just for clarity's sake...Likely Voters are a subset of Registered Voters...so all LV are RV but not all RV are LV

Please resume...

 

[WaveDomer]

Here is what the Gallup poll from today says:

- Mitt Romney had a 3% lead among likely voters but President Obama had a 1% lead among registered voters.

- Obama was at 47% compared to 50% for Romney among likely voters, but Obama was at 48% compared to 47% for Romney among registered voters.

If your analysis is right, those likely voters who aren't registered better get a move on.

Likely voters means they are going to go and vote, Registered means they are registered in their district. From Gallup: "likely voters, that group of individuals who we can estimate are most likely to actually turn out and vote."

 

[Bluto]

The President cannot control oil production on private land, or even state land. Production there is through the roof. If he were pro-oil at all he'd get his Democrat buddies to open up ANWR. ANWR is the size of South Carolina, and we're afraid some oil derricks will permanently destroy the entire place?! Bullshit. We're held hostage by the (genius) phrase of "saving it for future generations."

Obama is also benefiting, in spite of being anti-fossil fuels, from fracking. He won't go out and say it, of course, but fracking will single-handedly save eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. Since natural gas produces ~50% the emissions that coal does, our emissions have fallen to the lowest level in two decades.

From what my oil buddies told me, a huge amount oil production is from bids issued under George Bush's term that got underway in 2010-2011.

Obama is not in any way shape or form pro-oil. And he is very very very much anti-coal. If you compare coal and gas, he loves gas.

Buster if oil production is at an all time high and fracking is going to replace it as a prime energy source why even bother with ANWR? As far as energy producers and more specifically oil companies not "destroying places", well I suppose you missed the memo on the Exxon Valdez and Deep Water Horizon as well as the progected economic impact of climate change. So your claim of bull is way of target.

On that point for someone who is quite intelligent I'm a bit surprised by what seems to be a lack of understanding of how ecological systems function and your general dismisiveness of various environmental policies. "Pristine wilderness" such as ANWR and the ecosystems contained in them play a critical role in the function of the larger ecosystem we call our planet. Again, one cut corner and you could end up with superfund site. If there are cheaper viable alternatives why even bother?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Buster if oil production is at an all time high and fracking is going to replace it as a prime energy source why even bother with ANWR?

Because you can export oil and demand is going up around the world? My roommate friend got a job in Denver out of college with a mere physics degree and is making $225,000. That's why. It's money injected into the economy. I wouldn't expect a Democrat to get that though.

As far as energy producers and more specifically oil companies not "destroying places", well I suppose you missed the memo on the Exxon Valdez and Deep Water Horizon as well as the progected economic impact of climate change. So your claim of bull is way of target.

Deep Water Horizon =! drilling on land. And you're living in la-la land if you think the methods of transporting oil and the safety of it via regulations haven't increased to the point where it's a .00001% occurrence.

On that point for someone who is quite intelligent I'm a bit surprised by what seems to be a lack of understanding of how ecological systems function and your general dismisiveness of various environmental policies. "Pristine wilderness" such as ANWR and the ecosystems contained in them play a critical role in the function of the larger ecosystem we call our planet. Again, one cut corner and you could end up with superfund site. If there are cheaper viable alternatives why even bother?

Huh? First, there aren't cheaper (economically) viable alternatives to oil. There will probably be in twenty-five years. We need oil and an economic boost now.

Pristine wilderness? It's tundra, not Yosemite. It's the size of South Carolina and the assumption that oil derricks and pipelines will destroy the place is laughably absurd.

 

[Bluto]

Because you can export oil and demand is going up around the world? My roommate friend got a job in Denver out of college with a mere physics degree and is making $225,000. That's why. It's money injected into the economy. I wouldn't expect a Democrat to get that though.




Deep Water Horizon =! drilling on land. And you're living in la-la land if you think the methods of transporting oil and the safety of it via regulations haven't increased to the point where it's a .00001% occurrence.



Huh? First, there aren't cheaper (economically) viable alternatives to oil. There will probably be in twenty-five years. We need oil and an economic boost now.

Pristine wilderness? It's tundra, not Yosemite. It's the size of South Carolina and the assumption that oil derricks and pipelines will destroy the place is laughably absurd.

So I know people in telecom, wind and solar who make ten times what your buddy makes. So that's a pretty sorry arguement. Again it's an issue of what kind of jobs not "people hating jobs".

This "it's not economically viable" stuff is a bunch of crap too. It's a matter of priorities not money or resources. Get out a pencil an piece of paper and tell me how economically viable building thousands of miles of levees along the east and gulf coast would be to keep the major coastal cities of those areas from being underwater due to sea level rise caused by burning fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure it'd be "cheaper" to phase out coal and oil.

Your final comment again underscores your lack of understanding of ecological systems let alone the bad presedence it would set for allowing business development in a wildlife refuge.

Anyhow, I wouldn't expect a gonzo liberatarian to understand.

 

[Bluto]

Oh I missed the "comparing it to deep water horizon" is dumb comment. The oil is going to have to get outta there some how. A quick look at a map of Alaska makes it pretty clear it would be shipped out in tankers, which float on water. As for the "regulations" that make an environmental disaster nearly impossible in your opinion, wouldn't those be the same regulations that are "killing jobs" and Mitt and the GOP gang are looking to dismantle? I guess you're just gonna have to do better. Lol.

 

[Bluto]

So much for Romney's tax plan

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

 

[pkt77242]

All this talk about Obama killing the Keystone Pipeline is funny. While he did kill it there has a fair amount of Republican opposition to it at the state level. Here are some articles about it.

Keystone XL pipeline unites left and right - The Washington Post

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along | Fox News

 

[PraetorianND]

So much for Romney's tax plan

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

Unfortunately this won't change anything. People voting for Romney are just going to blow this off as liberal propaganda..... It's too late to get off the tracks. I would like to think that if something this major came out about my candidate I would eat crow and rethink my pick, but I probably wouldn't.

 

[pkt77242]

If Obama cared anything about jobs he wouldn't be blocking the Keystone pipeline. The only reason he gets a say is because it touches Canada -- if the states alone had their say it'd already be built.

What are you talking about? There are many conservatives at the state level that support it. This is a great example of not knowing the facts but spouting off stupid ****. This is the one of the rare times that conservatives and enviromental activists have come together in agreement. Look at Nebraska, Texas and other states that aren't thrilled by it passing through their states. See the articles I posted already.

 

[autry_denson]

From one of Nate Silver's competitors: "From this perspective, it’s a bit odd to see commentary out there suggesting that Romney should be favored, or that quantitative, poll-based analyses showing Obama ahead are somehow flawed, or biased, or not to be believed. It’s especially amusing to see the target of this criticism be the New York Times’ Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight blog has been, if anything, unusually generous to Romney’s chances all along."

Full article: Into the Home Stretch | VOTAMATIC

Amazing how many people are just immune to evidence. Who's winning right now is an empirical question, and it's very difficult to dispute the evidence.

 

[pkt77242]

Because you can export oil and demand is going up around the world? My roommate friend got a job in Denver out of college with a mere physics degree and is making $225,000. That's why. It's money injected into the economy. I wouldn't expect a Democrat to get that though.




Deep Water Horizon =! drilling on land. And you're living in la-la land if you think the methods of transporting oil and the safety of it via regulations haven't increased to the point where it's a .00001% occurrence.



Huh? First, there aren't cheaper (economically) viable alternatives to oil. There will probably be in twenty-five years. We need oil and an economic boost now.

Pristine wilderness? It's tundra, not Yosemite. It's the size of South Carolina and the assumption that oil derricks and pipelines will destroy the place is laughably absurd.

Leaks are rare? U.S.-Canada Keystone pipeline leaks, fuels outrage

The existing pipeline has had about 12 leaks already(most were really small) and one was rather large (21,000 gallons). For some reason, I don't have a lot of faith in this company to get it right.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So I know people in telecom, wind and solar who make ten times what your buddy makes. So that's a pretty sorry arguement. Again it's an issue of what kind of jobs not "people hating jobs".

I think you're completely missing the point. It's MORE economic development.

And you know 24-year olds in wind and solar who make $2,250,000?

This "it's not economically viable" stuff is a bunch of crap too. It's a matter of priorities not money or resources. Get out a pencil an piece of paper and tell me how economically viable building thousands of miles of levees along the east and gulf coast would be to keep the major coastal cities of those areas from being underwater due to sea level rise caused by burning fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure it'd be "cheaper" to phase out coal and oil.

Ahh, the global warming argument.

Well when did I say that we couldn't get off of oil? I'd be all for that, actually. But the fact of the matter is that it is only "economically viable" if you add in (i.e. artificially raise the price/tax) global warming causes. If you take that course with coal, you will raise the cost of energy by 400% (switching from coal to natgas), and that absolutely demolishes manufacturing and business because they can just go to China. Not to mention now the entire middle class is seeing their disposable income evaporate and tens of millions are struggling to heat their homes in the summer. Solid.

What we need are scientific breakthroughs. We need batteries that last 50x what they currently do. We need solar costs to drop to 10% of what they are. We need breakthroughs, not crushing economic activity in the name of global warming. That is a bad hand to sell to Americans.

Your final comment again underscores your lack of understanding of ecological systems let alone the bad presedence it would set for allowing business development in a wildlife refuge.

If I called Manhattan a wildlife refuge, would you believe it? Just because the government labels it as a wildlife refuge doesn't make it a legitimate one. It's a vast empty space of tundra.

In case you didn't know, ANWR is ~30,000 square miles. The federal government owns a total of 67% of Alaska, also known as ~444,000 square miles. You think wildlife in Alaska will be fukked by oil derricks? Come on man..

 

[Buster Bluth]

Leaks are rare? U.S.-Canada Keystone pipeline leaks, fuels outrage

The existing pipeline has had about 12 leaks already(most were really small) and one was rather large (21,000 gallons). For some reason, I don't have a lot of faith in this company to get it right.

I said leaks are rare? Serious ones are. News-worthy ones are. Natural disaster ones are. Everything breaks and needs maintenance. Your expectations are unreal.

Can't have wind, it'll kill birds.

 

[pkt77242]

I said leaks are rare? Serious ones are. News-worthy ones are. Natural disaster ones are. Everything breaks and needs maintenance. Your expectations are unreal.

Can't have wind, it'll kill birds.

21000 gallons is not small especially when it runs through our farmland and over some of our major aquifers. Sorry to say. I might be for it if they found a different path but not the existing plan.

 

[PraetorianND]

It's a vast empty space of tundra.

Incorrect. ANWR is not empty.

 

[Bluto]

I think you're completely missing the point. It's MORE economic development.

And you know 24-year olds in wind and solar who make $2,250,000?



Ahh, the global warming argument.

Well when did I say that we couldn't get off of oil? I'd be all for that, actually. But the fact of the matter is that it is only "economically viable" if you add in (i.e. artificially raise the price/tax) global warming causes. If you take that course with coal, you will raise the cost of energy by 400% (switching from coal to natgas), and that absolutely demolishes manufacturing and busineuss because they can just go to China. Not to mention now the entire middle class is seeing their disposable income evaporate and tens of millions are struggling to heat their homes in the summer. Solid.

What we need are scientific breakthroughs. We need batteries that last 50x what they currently do. We need solar costs to drop to 10% of what they are. We need breakthroughs, not crushing economic activity in the name of global warming. That is a bad hand to sell to Americans.



If I called Manhattan a wildlife refuge, would you believe it? Just because the government labels it as a wildlife refuge doesn't make it a legitimate one. It's a vast empty space of tundra.

In case you didn't know, ANWR is ~30,000 square miles. The federal government owns a total of 67% of Alaska, also known as ~444,000 square miles. You think wildlife in Alaska will be fukked by oil derricks? Come on man..

I know people in their mid 30's who make those amounts and I knew people in their 20's who made the comparable salaries to your friend out of school in various industries. Big deal. I know prison guards who make 150k having only a high school diploma. I've met 23 year kids who were making about a mil a year doing various nefarious things. I'm still not sure what your point is? That jobs in the oil industry are awesome? A high paying job is a high paying job regardless of the industry. it just so happens that oil and coal are destined for the dust bin if we decide to pull our collective heads out of our posteriors. Anyhow, good for your friend.

Phasing out coal and oil would not break the bank or crush any economy. China and Germany are going full steam on this stuff and kicking our *** by the way. Germany is going to be close to 80% renewable energy in a decade and their economy is cruising right along. Plus natural gas would easily bridge the gap in this country. Again it's a matter of priorities and having to kick some rich aholes like the Koch brothers square in their money bags.

Glad you think Alaska is a big empty space. You should go up there sometime. It's pretty nice in the summer. Trying to equate Manhattan and ANWR is just dumb. For the record wildlife in Alaska got pretty fkkked by the Valdez spill, along with the fishermen and natives who made their living off of said wildlife. Again there's absolutely no reason to be drilling there other than our own stupidity and resistance to inevitable change.

 

[brick4956]

electric vehicles should be the way of the future as a company in south korea has created a li-on battery that could cut recharge time to achieve a recharge time of 7-10 minutes the battery life is a expected to be 5% less than current ev batteries this technology needs to be heavily invested in the united states so we can cut down on pollution and start investing in our own country if we were able to cut down on oil and start going electric we wouldn't need that damn oil pipeline as we could start getting away from that old technology.

electric vehicles should be the way of the future as a company in south korea has created a li-on battery that could cut recharge time to achieve a recharge time of 7-10 minutes the battery life is a expected to be 5% less than current ev batteries this technology needs to be heavily invested in the united states so we can cut down on pollution and start investing in our own country if we were able to cut down on oil and start going electric here is a link to the description of some of the results of this awesome technology

[TH]Scientists Create High-Density, Flexible Lithium-Ion Batteries

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

You do realize that there is pretty much no point in discussing polls that aren't FiveThirtyEight, right? Single polls do a horrible job at showing trends and that's obvious when nothing happens but there is a 3% percentage swing in either direction. It's whoever wins Ohio where it is within the margin of error but Obama has a slight lead. Of course theoretically Obama could lose it but win Nevada (likely), Iowa (I'd bet on it), New Hampshire (maybe), Colorado (coin-flip) and still win the election. You are incorrect if you believe Romney is leading or in the driver's seat right now. It's not over but Obama is in the lead.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[phgreek]

So much for Romney's tax plan

Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study - Yahoo! Finance

really seems to me like this is another economist pissing match....even within this article you have :

“It is not an analysis of Governor Romney’s plan,” said Scott A. Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation. a nonprofit research group also based in Washington.

“It has been, I think, mislabeled as such and misinterpreted as such. We don’t think there are enough details to analyze,” he said, adding that he believed that it was possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue neutral tax reform that cut rates in the way Mr. Romney described.

So, depends on who you believe...

 

[pkt77242]

really seems to me like this is another economist pissing match....even within this article you have :

“It is not an analysis of Governor Romney’s plan,” said Scott A. Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation. a nonprofit research group also based in Washington.

“It has been, I think, mislabeled as such and misinterpreted as such. We don’t think there are enough details to analyze,” he said, adding that he believed that it was possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue neutral tax reform that cut rates in the way Mr. Romney described.

So, depends on who you believe...

Or it could be a little bit of both. The current info that Romney has released makes it look like the rich will get a tax cut and everyone else will get ****ed, but the fact that there hasn't been enough info released makes it just about impossible to truly judge his plan.

So in reality, he is just saying what everyone wants to hear to get elected. I will cut everyones taxes by 20% (In reality nope) but it will be revenue neutral (maybe but not if he cuts everyones taxes by 20%) and it is looking like some peoples taxes will go up (very possible some middle class earners and possibly even some people on the lower end).

So in summary, he complains about Obama's solutions but won't give actual details on his solutions. Nice

 

[Rhode Irish]

You do realize that there is pretty much no point in discussing polls that aren't FiveThirtyEight, right? Single polls do a horrible job at showing trends and that's obvious when nothing happens but there is a 3% percentage swing in either direction. It's whoever wins Ohio where it is within the margin of error but Obama has a slight lead. Of course theoretically Obama could lose it but win Nevada (likely), Iowa (I'd bet on it), New Hampshire (maybe), Colorado (coin-flip) and still win the election. You are incorrect if you believe Romney is leading or in the driver's seat right now. It's not over but Obama is in the lead.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

The thing that kills me the most is when people cite national polls, as if they don't realize they're largely irrelevant. If Romney gains further support in Arkansas or Texas, or makes gains in New York or California, it doesn't effect the election at all. (And it could happen since those states aren't being contested.)

Also, all this talk about "momentum" is a little off. No doubt Romney had some a couple weeks ago after the first debate, but either Obama has stopped the bleeding or all of the convertible people have already moved, because not much has changed in a couple of weeks now.

The reality is that the map favors Obama and the climate favors Romney. I continue to believe that the climate is not of the President's making, but that doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and you can't expect most of the people to grasp the nuance of how we got where we are and how things are improving.

 

[Bluto]

really seems to me like this is another economist pissing match....even within this article you have :

“It is not an analysis of Governor Romney’s plan,” said Scott A. Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation. a nonprofit research group also based in Washington.

“It has been, I think, mislabeled as such and misinterpreted as such. We don’t think there are enough details to analyze,” he said, adding that he believed that it was possible to devise a distributionally neutral, revenue neutral tax reform that cut rates in the way Mr. Romney described.

So, depends on who you believe...

Unfortunately some pretty well regarded economists (Stiglitz, Reich) seem to think most of Romney's proposals will be bad for the country as a whole. Then again I've read a couple posters state that education/credentials don't make you "smart" so hey, Nobel prizes and the like aside I guess they could be wrong.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The thing that kills me the most is when people cite national polls, as if they don't realize they're largely irrelevant. If Romney gains further support in Arkansas or Texas, or makes gains in New York or California, it doesn't effect the election at all. (And it could happen since those states aren't being contested.)

Also, all this talk about "momentum" is a little off. No doubt Romney had some a couple weeks ago after the first debate, but either Obama has stopped the bleeding or all of the convertible people have already moved, because not much has changed in a couple of weeks now.

The reality is that the map favors Obama and the climate favors Romney. I continue to believe that the climate is not of the President's making, but that doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and you can't expect most of the people to grasp the nuance of how we got where we are and how things are improving.

Yeah Al Gore would be someone to talk about the importance of national polls.

 

[phgreek]

Or it could be a little bit of both. The current info that Romney has released makes it look like the rich will get a tax cut and everyone else will get ****ed, but the fact that there hasn't been enough info released makes it just about impossible to truly judge his plan.

So in reality, he is just saying what everyone wants to hear to get elected. I will cut everyones taxes by 20% (In reality nope) but it will be revenue neutral (maybe but not if he cuts everyones taxes by 20%) and it is looking like some peoples taxes will go up (very possible some middle class earners and possibly even some people on the lower end).

So in summary, he complains about Obama's solutions but won't give actual details on his solutions. Nice

kinda tired of this refrain...Ask Gov. Huntsman how well getting in the weeds works. The electorate can handle a discussion held at about the 8th grade level...they are buying a vision...A GENERAL IDEA. What you want is Romeny to put out details to a) have the press start a pissing war with economists which interjects fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Right now folks look at the vision, see a guy with a resume (something new); b) to dictate how it will go. Mr. Romney had the vision to not get trapped there so that if he wins, he has ground to work with DEMS within. Its laughable that "Hope and Change" wants DETAILS...WTF...you guys kill me.

 

[phgreek]

The thing that kills me the most is when people cite national polls, as if they don't realize they're largely irrelevant. If Romney gains further support in Arkansas or Texas, or makes gains in New York or California, it doesn't effect the election at all. (And it could happen since those states aren't being contested.)

Also, all this talk about "momentum" is a little off. No doubt Romney had some a couple weeks ago after the first debate, but either Obama has stopped the bleeding or all of the convertible people have already moved, because not much has changed in a couple of weeks now.

The reality is that the map favors Obama and the climate favors Romney. I continue to believe that the climate is not of the President's making, but that doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and you can't expect most of the people to grasp the nuance of how we got where we are and how things are improving.

Agreed...

 

[phgreek]

Unfortunately some pretty well regarded economists (Stiglitz, Reich) seem to think most of Romney's proposals will be bad for the country as a whole. Then again I've read a couple posters state that education/credentials don't make you "smart" so hey, Nobel prizes and the like aside I guess they could be wrong.

...aaaand it still dependson who you "regard"...believe...same thing

 

[pkt77242]

kinda tired of this refrain...Ask Gov. Huntsman how well getting in the weeds works. The electorate can handle a discussion held at about the 8th grade level...they are buying a vision...A GENERAL IDEA. What you want is Romeny to put out details to a) have the press start a pissing war with economists which interjects fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Right now folks look at the vision, see a guy with a resume (something new); b) to dictate how it will go. Mr. Romney had the vision to not get trapped there so that if he wins, he has ground to work with DEMS within. Its laughable that "Hope and Change" wants DETAILS...WTF...you guys kill me.

I could just as easily say, WTF, you Repubs who make the rich richer and the poor poorer, want me to believe that Romney is going to actually not give the rich a huge tax cut and **** the poor with his vision? Give me a ****ing break. It works both ways.

I am sick of Romney saying that Obama's plan is right for the US but mine is amazing but I am not going to tell it to you. Just crazy.