Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Anyone have a chance to see any of the rogue-candidate debate last night? I vote in Massachusetts, which Obama will win by 25%. After I vote for Liz Warren, I might just drop a vote for a third party candidate since my vote for President doesn't matter anyway. Jill Stein is on the ballot here, I'm sure. I'd also vote for Gary Johnson. I don't agree with either of them on everything, but I do agree with them on a TON of things; most of all that they have actual genuine opinions that haven't been worn down by mainstream politics. More importantly, we'd be so much better off as a country if there were a viable third party to keep the two major parties honest.

I don't understand the push to get 5% of the vote in a Presidential election. Why not try to pick off 5 Senate seats? If the Libertarians controlled 5 seats politics would be a lot different.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think the thing that isn't being taken into account when we say it cost $1.6M per job is what it cost to stop the bleeding. The country's and the world's economies had to have that infusion of cash or we were facing absolute ruin. I think the real divide between serious people on the economy is those that believe that things could be a LOT worse than they are and those that don't accept that premise. My view is that, as much as there is left to do, we are fortunate to be where we are today in light of where we were four years ago.

 

[GoldenBoy3]

Any one voting for the Romney ticket will be making a big mistake. He has changed is position so many times just to fit the need. He stands for the rich and only the rich. He flauts all his toys and houses as he runs fro president. Get a clue.

I'm sure the same could be said for anyone voting for the Obama ticket. Lots of promises were made, especially that the unemployment rate would be down to 5.4% now. Its around 9.1% I believe and that's a joke. After the Bush administration people wanted a change and they all flocked to a young, charismatic, well spoken candidate for hope. After 4 years nothing has changed and frankly I see no reason to re elect the man for another 4 years.

 

[irishpat183]

Okay. He was pretty darn close last time. Point taken. In that election, Silver projected 49 of 50 states correctly (he had Indiana for McCain and Obama won by a point).

Here's Silver's criticism of Rasmussen in 2010.
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

Ahhh...So the NY times puts out a slam piece on a poll they don't like? NO WAY!!!!!

They also allow Paul "We need another bubble" Krugman to write for their dying Newspaper as well...

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I know you struggle with anything other than binary logic,

Yep. I'm pretty much a dolt.

 

[irishpat183]

Kudos to you and respect for making the arguments and at least giving reason for disagreeing with me. But...

1) Everyone wants a smart president, but as Gardner points out there are 7 different types of intelligence. What was Obama's greatest achievement pre white house? Law degree? Community organizing? Sorry...noble efforts, but not ready for the white house especially given the economic situation.

4) Wrong again. Obama and company inherited a disaster, but firemen don't walk into a burning building and pour gasoline on it. The "stimulus" was a setback and Obamacare is a financial disaster. He loathes the private sector and knows nothing about job creation because he has no experience in this. Home Depot's CEO has said the same about Obama.

5) Wah wah wah. He had a super majority for the first two years and the second two years Obama had to learn to get along with people who disagreed with him. Didn't get everything he wanted. Tough. That's what happens when you get your *** handed to you in the 2010 election.

6) You guys in Canada can keep your socialized medicine. Coverage doesn't equal qaulity...see public education in the U.S.

7) The president's words...not mine.

8) Socialist dictators publicly support Obama and you think it's because they want to stand against Rush Limbaugh??? Keep telling yourself that. And the point is the President of the United States (D or R) should be NOWHERE near the political philosophy/ belief of a Chavez, Castro, Putin.

Boom. Thata boy.

But....But....THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING IN THE STREETS AND OBAMA IS COOL!!!!

AND RICH PEOPLE DON'T PAY ANY TAXES!!!!

 

[irishpat183]

Everyone listen to this guy!! Romney hasn't stopped talking about his money, cars, houses and hordes of expensive prostitutes this entire campaign! Come back to Earth, Romney! You can't relate to the average man.

I hope this is sarcasm.....

And how does Obama relate to the average man? Please answer that......He's never worked. I'll start there.

 

[irishpat183]

I work on Election Day so I voted today. I live in Georgia so my vote doesn't really mean much but I did vote for Obama. I just loathe the Republican Party and Mitt Romney so much that I felt I had little other choice.

And crap like this reinforces my decision:

GOP's Murdock stands by rape. abortion comment | koaa.com | Colorado Springs | Pueblo |

Because they speak for the entire republican party....


But you have no problem with Maxine Waters, Anthony Weiner?? Gimmie a break.

 

[RDU Irish]

You speak of a liquidity crisis, which was the result of frozen banks and debt markets unable to function normally. If the bank called today and wanted full payment of your mortgage, it would F up your life. That is what was happening to businesses. Credit lines were being pulled. Even now, the lending environment still sucks for SMALL business while big business can issue debt at record low interest rates. Big get bigger and the small get crushed.

Tell me exactly what the stimulus did to address this core problem?

Now back to solutions. Empower smaller banks to do more for small business through preferential treatment (lower FDIC insurance rates, more/cheaper/faster SBA guarantees versus larger banks, looser regulations). This should be a time of tremendous advantage to open a bank, fresh capital without legacy assets. Yet starts are virtually zero.

Fund the SBA to excess. Higher loan guarantees, closer to 100% than 65%.

SBA small business lending falls slightly from last year - The Washington Post

So SBA supported loans hit a record of $30B last year. That is freaking pathetic. The number should be 10 times that if we want to act like government is stimulating small business. Remember, this is essentially a co-signor to businesses promising to cover 65% of the loan if it goes bad. And service industries pretty much can't qualify - ironic given our economy is largely service driven.

What would $800 billion of SBA loans guaranteed 100% do for the economy versus what the stimulus did? That can be a one time shot and guess what, MOST WOULD BE PAID BACK so the "cost" would be much less than $800B, also deferred until default in the future which does not even raise the deficit at the time implimented.

So forgive me for thinking there is a better way.

 

[RDU Irish]

Yep. I'm pretty much a dolt.

No sarcasm font? I am surprised, most dolts lack self-awareness.

 

[irishpat183]

And, RDU, when none of that common sense works....

Pull the race card. You see what crap Chris Matthews is stiring up?


But I guess it's not suprising the closer we get to an election in which Obama is going to lose. Romney has already tied him in OH and with women voters. Obama is going to lose this in a landslide.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

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.

 

[irishpat183]

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.

...and he wouldn't have let government bailed out GM, move Chevy Volt production to China.

The list goes on and on.

 

[WaveDomer]

Obama is going to lose this in a landslide.

This is a distinct possibility. There is also the possibility of close wins for either candidate, but I don't think the possibility exists for an Obama landslide. If he wins it'll be close. Although, I think he's losing right now due to momentum.

If you look at how the campaigns are acting, you can kind of tell what the internal polls are telling them. Obama's team is panicked and are talking about goofy things, trying to hit on something they deem a mistake by Romney. Think Joe the Plumber. McCain tried pushing that because he knew he was toast. So Obama spends all summer trying to demonize Romney. Spends millions upon millions of dollars. Doesn't really talk about what he'll do for another 4 years. Romney wipes that out in one night in Denver. Now Obama is trying to come up with a new plan he's pitching, talking about "Binders of women" "PBS" etc etc. Flailing. Meanwhile Romney is planning a major speech on the economy to close the deal and Paul Ryan is talking about poverty and how to pull people out of it. They are talking big.

I also think states like NC and FL are Romney's but Obama won't pull out because it would depress his base and that's the only way he wins is if he gets the base out in droves. He is losing independents big time and Republican enthusiasm is high. The polls that show Obama ahead are often polls with small samples. Many of them are also using a turnout model equal to '08. Even the most strident Obama supporter has to admit the turnout model for '08 isn't happening again. That may never happen again. But Obama has a really good GOTV team and that means a lot right now.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Brought my Mom from Illinois to live with us in NC. We removed every Obama/Biden yardsign we saw along our drive. We're going to have a bonfire and pig roast on election night. Good times will be had by all.

 

[Bluto]

Interesting endorsement.

Gen. Colin Powell Endorses Obama

 

[NDFan4Life]

Interesting:

Florida Republican Party leader receives hoax letter; FBI investigates | News - Home

Congressman's son resigns after voter fraud video - CBS News

 

[Bluto]

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.

This is kind of silly. There were large numbers of stake holder groups in every state that opposed this. Anyhow, saying either one of the candidates are "against jobs" is pretty rediculous. I think it is more of a matter of what industries and or professions each seems to favor one way or the other. Also, considering domestic oil production is at near record highs it would seem more than misleading to state that this administration is anti big oil or domestic oil production.

 

[autry_denson]

But I guess it's not suprising the closer we get to an election in which Obama is going to lose. Romney has already tied him in OH and with women voters. Obama is going to lose this in a landslide.

This is breaking news. I don't know why I'm following real polls, you clearly have your fingers on the pulse of the electorate. e.g. the last 5 real polls from Ohio have Obama up by 5 pts, 2, tie, 3, and tie, the most recent ones being the +5 and +2. But Irishpat has them tied??? send me an email when your next numbers come in.

Honestly, this is another classic post. If I wrote that Obama is going to win b/c the unemployment rate is 5%, you might be justified in calling me an idiot. And yet you write a post that conflicts with all of the data that is very easily accessible to all of us - I realize this is not a nice thing to say, but it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that you're just not that bright.

 

[Buster Bluth]

This is kind of silly. There were large numbers of stake holder groups in every state that opposed this. Anyhow, saying either one of the candidates are "against jobs" is pretty rediculous. I think it is more of a matter of what industries and or professions each seems to favor one way or the other. Also, considering domestic oil production is at near record highs it would seem more than misleading to state that this administration is anti big oil or domestic oil production.

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.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

This is kind of silly. There were large numbers of stake holder groups in every state that opposed this. Anyhow, saying either one of the candidates are "against jobs" is pretty rediculous. I think it is more of a matter of what industries and or professions each seems to favor one way or the other. Also, considering domestic oil production is at near record highs it would seem more than misleading to state that this administration is anti big oil or domestic oil production.

It's not "silly", it's actually quite sad. You realize this has nothing to do with domestic production, right? This is just Canada trying to send us their oil, through a pipeline that would employ tens of thousands of workers. Oil that is sent to refineries in the US, which also employ tens of thousands of workers and relieves national demand for hydrocarbons. Through a pipeline that eases the logjam (and hence prices) of our current infrastructure.

 

[WaveDomer]

This is breaking news. I don't know why I'm following real polls, you clearly have your fingers on the pulse of the electorate. e.g. the last 5 real polls from Ohio have Obama up by 5 pts, 2, tie, 3, and tie, the most recent ones being the +5 and +2. But Irishpat has them tied??? send me an email when your next numbers come in.

Honestly, this is another classic post. If I wrote that Obama is going to win b/c the unemployment rate is 5%, you might be justified in calling me an idiot. And yet you write a post that conflicts with all of the data that is very easily accessible to all of us - I realize this is not a nice thing to say, but it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that you're just not that bright.

In terms of the polls, you have to drill down a bit. That +5 poll, I'm assuming you are writing about the CBS poll, is not being taken seriously by anyone because it's +9 Dem. That's higher than what '08 was and '08 aint' happening again.

Romney is up big with independents, GOP enthusiasm is huge, he has the momentum in every swing state and is expanding his map. He also has a decided cash advantage and just raised like $111 million in the first half of October. Obama just took a loan out. Does this absolutely translate to a landslide or even a Romney victory? No. But it looks good for Romney right now.

 

[autry_denson]

In terms of the polls, you have to drill down a bit. That +5 poll, I'm assuming you are writing about the CBS poll, is not being taken seriously by anyone because it's +9 Dem. That's higher than what '08 was and '08 aint' happening again.

No. Your assumption is wrong. No CBS poll has been done in Ohio. Again, the data are out there and easily accessible, guessing about the explanation for results you don't like is not the best approach. If we take all 28 polls in Ohio since the 1st debate, Obama is up in 19 of them, 3 show a tie, and Romney was up in 5 of them (by <= 1 pt in each). In all polls in the last 2 weeks, Obama is up in 10, 4 are tie, and Romney is ahead in 1. In the last week Obama is up in 6 and 4 are tied.

So we don't have to drill down any further to understand what the data tell us, particularly in Ohio. It's fine if you want to argue that other factors are going to matter more in the final days before the election. You may be right, and things may change. But if you think polling data matters at all, there is simply no way to argue that Romney is winning.

 

[WaveDomer]

No. Your assumption is wrong. No CBS poll has been done in Ohio. Again, the data are out there and easily accessible, guessing about the explanation for results you don't like is not the best approach. If we take all 28 polls in Ohio since the 1st debate, Obama is up in 19 of them, 3 show a tie, and Romney was up in 5 of them (by <= 1 pt in each). In all polls in the last 2 weeks, Obama is up in 10, 4 are tie, and Romney is ahead in 1. In the last week Obama is up in 6 and 4 are tied.

So we don't have to drill down any further to understand what the data tell us, particularly in Ohio. It's fine if you want to argue that other factors are going to matter more in the final days before the election. You may be right, and things may change. But if you think polling data matters at all, there is simply no way to argue that Romney is winning.

You're right it's not CBS, it's a Time magazine poll. I just flubbed that. The Time poll is the one that's +9 Dem and nobody is taking seriously. But actually there is a CBS/Quinnipiac poll in Ohio where he is up +5 it was done on Oct. 17 - 20. I just flipped those poll names. And I'm not guessing about any explanation. If you drill down, in those "easily accessible" polls, you can see the breakdown. The Time mag poll is +9 Dem. That does not reflect what is happening now. Again, turnout in '08 Ohio was +8 Dem and '08 was a crazy wave election for Obama. If you don't drill down for data, it's meaningless. Why do you think pollsters actually pay attention to the details like party affiliation? Because they don't matter? Do you think a poll that samples 300 people is more accurate than a poll that samples 30,000 people? Those details matter. And if polling data matters, it shows that momentum is going Romney's direction, that Obama can't get above 50% in many places, and that independents are breaking for Romney. So yeah, I can argue that he's winning.

<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23857321&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbartprivate' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>

 

[irishpat183]

This is breaking news. I don't know why I'm following real polls, you clearly have your fingers on the pulse of the electorate. e.g. the last 5 real polls from Ohio have Obama up by 5 pts, 2, tie, 3, and tie, the most recent ones being the +5 and +2. But Irishpat has them tied??? send me an email when your next numbers come in.

Honestly, this is another classic post. If I wrote that Obama is going to win b/c the unemployment rate is 5%, you might be justified in calling me an idiot. And yet you write a post that conflicts with all of the data that is very easily accessible to all of us - I realize this is not a nice thing to say, but it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that you're just not that bright.

Dude....

Women: Associated Press-GfK poll showed Romney pulling 47 percent of likely voters to Obama's 45 percent -coming back from a 16 POINT DISADVANTAGE. That's like when the Bills came back on the Oilers in 94. Ridiculous

And in OH, which was largely considered to be Obama...is now tied (according to Rasmussen)

He's cutting down the gaps. Women were supposed to be a lock, no?


Sorry for dismantling the dream of your messiah getting another term. I may not be "that bright"..but you're a sheep that refuses to face the facts. Put down the Huff post once in a while and take a look around.

 

[irishpat183]

No. Your assumption is wrong. No CBS poll has been done in Ohio. Again, the data are out there and easily accessible, guessing about the explanation for results you don't like is not the best approach. If we take all 28 polls in Ohio since the 1st debate, Obama is up in 19 of them, 3 show a tie, and Romney was up in 5 of them (by <= 1 pt in each). In all polls in the last 2 weeks, Obama is up in 10, 4 are tie, and Romney is ahead in 1. In the last week Obama is up in 6 and 4 are tied.

So we don't have to drill down any further to understand what the data tell us, particularly in Ohio. It's fine if you want to argue that other factors are going to matter more in the final days before the election. You may be right, and things may change. But if you think polling data matters at all, there is simply no way to argue that Romney is winning.

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.

 

[autry_denson]

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.

Alright, sorry for the earlier comment - that was an a$$hole comment by me.

It seems to me that if you are going to look at polling data at all then you should consider all of the polls. This seems like a reasonable starting point, right? Wavedomer, if you don't believe the Time poll in Ohio that's cool - but there are a bunch of other polls that also have Obama leading there, along with a couple that have them tied. It becomes a little disingenuous when you point out the polls that favor your guy and dismiss the ones that don't.

If we consider the collection of national polls, Obama is currently ahead in the popular vote by a very slight margin. If we consider all of the state polls, Obama is ahead in Ohio and enough other states that, unless things change, he would have more than enough electoral votes to win. If there is any trend, it indicates that Obama's lead has widened slightly over the past week. Some of the swing states are extremely close and it would be a mistake to forecast them as likely Obama wins. I should also say that I'm not all that confident that Obama will win - too many states are extremely tight, and a lot can happen over the next several days. But from the polling data we currently have available, Obama is very clearly ahead. There is not an argument on this issue.

 

[WaveDomer]

Alright, sorry for the earlier comment - that was an a$$hole comment by me.

It seems to me that if you are going to look at polling data at all then you should consider all of the polls. This seems like a reasonable starting point, right? Wavedomer, if you don't believe the Time poll in Ohio that's cool - but there are a bunch of other polls that also have Obama leading there, along with a couple that have them tied. It becomes a little disingenuous when you point out the polls that favor your guy and dismiss the ones that don't.

If we consider the collection of national polls, Obama is currently ahead in the popular vote by a very slight margin. If we consider all of the state polls, Obama is ahead in Ohio and enough other states that, unless things change, he would have more than enough electoral votes to win. If there is any trend, it indicates that Obama's lead has widened slightly over the past week. Some of the swing states are extremely close and it would be a mistake to forecast them as likely Obama wins. I should also say that I'm not all that confident that Obama will win - too many states are extremely tight, and a lot can happen over the next several days. But from the polling data we currently have available, Obama is very clearly ahead. There is not an argument on this issue.

I'm using that Time poll just as example on why it's important to drill down to details to see the full picture. I'm not saying I don't believe the poll, but we took a poll at Irish Envy to see who is a better coach Holtz or Urban Meyer, you'd probably agree that Holtz would win. That's clearly an extreme example, but if a political poll is talking to a bigger percentage of Reps or Dems than is the reality on the ground, that poll is accurate but skewed because it doesn't reflect reality on the ground. That's all I'm saying.

In terms of why I think Romney is winning, that has to do more with what I see as momentum and what the campaigns are doing and where they are doing it. Now is that scientific? No. But if you look at the history of elections you can see certain trends and how campaigns that are winning/losing act. I'm also basing it on what the state of the economy is and just the reality that politics is local. If you really want to get funky you can check out the University of Colorado model that has Romney winning and hasn't missed a prediction since 1980, I think.

 

[irishpat183]

Alright, sorry for the earlier comment - that was an a$$hole comment by me.

It seems to me that if you are going to look at polling data at all then you should consider all of the polls. This seems like a reasonable starting point, right? Wavedomer, if you don't believe the Time poll in Ohio that's cool - but there are a bunch of other polls that also have Obama leading there, along with a couple that have them tied. It becomes a little disingenuous when you point out the polls that favor your guy and dismiss the ones that don't.

If we consider the collection of national polls, Obama is currently ahead in the popular vote by a very slight margin. If we consider all of the state polls, Obama is ahead in Ohio and enough other states that, unless things change, he would have more than enough electoral votes to win. If there is any trend, it indicates that Obama's lead has widened slightly over the past week. Some of the swing states are extremely close and it would be a mistake to forecast them as likely Obama wins. I should also say that I'm not all that confident that Obama will win - too many states are extremely tight, and a lot can happen over the next several days. But from the polling data we currently have available, Obama is very clearly ahead. There is not an argument on this issue.

According to Rasmussen:

"In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50% of the vote to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like another candidate in the race, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

This is now the third day in a row - and the fifth time in the past six days - that Romney has hit the 50% mark in the combined swing states. This survey is conducted on a rolling seven-day basis, and most of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the end of Monday night’s presidential debate. Romney has now held a modest lead for 14 of the last 17 days; Obama was ahead twice, and the candidates ran even once.

In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin."


The election has changed. And that last statement says it all....Obama really had it in the bag in 08...I think he gets crushed in this election due to the factors I mentioned earlier. Talk about polls....Democratic voters just are not as excited as last go round. I think Romney takes OH and FL.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm using that Time poll just as example on why it's important to drill down to details to see the full picture. I'm not saying I don't believe the poll, but we took a poll at Irish Envy to see who is a better coach Holtz or Urban Meyer, you'd probably agree that Holtz would win. That's clearly an extreme example, but if a political poll is talking to a bigger percentage of Reps or Dems than is the reality on the ground, that poll is accurate but skewed because it doesn't reflect reality on the ground. That's all I'm saying.

In terms of why I think Romney is winning, that has to do more with what I see as momentum and what the campaigns are doing and where they are doing it. Now is that scientific? No. But if you look at the history of elections you can see certain trends and how campaigns that are winning/losing act. I'm also basing it on what the state of the economy is and just the reality that politics is local. If you really want to get funky you can check out the University of Colorado model that has Romney winning and hasn't missed a prediction since 1980, I think.

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.