The people on the other side who are trying to buy this election are putting nasty, deceptive TV ads on the air right this very minute. They're not going away. They're getting worse."Keep this close?" I say. "They're posing as if they think they are already behind."
If we don't do what we can to keep this close, right now at this crucial moment, we risk letting the other side run away with it.
Meade says: "Do you think they're posing?"
I say: "I see what you mean. I'd like to see their internal polls."
Posts
177 comments:
Panic is setting in. I wonder how long before we invade Syria or declare war on Iran. I'm guessing October.
"nasty, deceptive TV ads"
The mind reels at this level of hypocrisy and projection.
Darn! I'm late!
I'd like to see their internal polls.
I don't think they're actually behind. But they have an enthusiasm gap, and ennui and complacency are probably big concerns for them. As is fundraising.
Also, this may just be unwarranted cynicism, but I wonder whether they're purposely trying to pump up their proportion of low-dollar donations at this point -- don't they have an awful lot of fundraising appeals that pitch for just one dollar or just three dollars or something like that? Especially if Romney+RNC keeps beating them on total fundraising numbers, I think they want to be able to tout a larger number of individual donations, or a larger proportion of small donations, or really anything that will let them further the narrative that a sitting president is somehow the underdog.
Poor left wingers have an ideology, too.
Like a toddler, it can be stated in one word.
"Mine!"
iowahawkblog Uncle Choo-Choo the Wonder Veep reaches stage 3 of grief http://t.co/mTGjfFRo
How can I possibly top that? I won't even try.
And yes, it's very interesting that they're back to the "underdog" narrative again. They were running with that, then they switched to alpha dog for a while (around the time of the Romney "wimp" cover), now they're back to underdog again.
Agree, I'd love to see some of those internal polls. Running "Romney killed woman with cancer" ads (on top of "hasn't paid 10 years of taxes" and "felon"), the sleaziest and most scurrilous negative campaigning, which risks destroying the only thing Obama supposedly had going for him-- his "likability"... that is not the way a confident campaign behaves.
Oh yeah, you better belief they're behind.
They now it, and they have nothing to say.
That email doesn't sound stupid enough to evoke Joe Biden, the man selected by Barack Obama to add gravitas to his administration.
Funny how a Vice President known for verbal meanderings types in nice, punchy, concise, emotionally-charged sentences that sound like they were written by, oh, I don't know, a direct mail fundraising consultant?
Good luck. So far I think they've been outfoxing the right, the right playing checkers; Obama-Biden are playing chess... That could end any time.
For the vp choice I thought Romney was in zugzwang, and he made the choice that caused the least damage. The presumption I always had, and kind of still stands is that Obama would lose his reelection bid if he passed health care. I thought that was a decent trade.
But don't underestimate the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
People tell me it should matter more than I think who wins or not.
Biden.
In hindsight, this was a major clue that Obama was an incompetent, un-serious clown, in way way over his head.
I mean, who picks Joe Biden as a running mate???? Next in line to the Presidency.
Why should we have a problem with Biden as President?
So that's where he's been! Someone hid Plagerist Joe out in the woodshed until he came back with a finely crafted message. Either that or Fareed Zakaria's writers' got a new gig.
More Fore Years! -CP
Terry_Jim,
Poor left wingers have an ideology, too.
Like a toddler, it can be stated in one word.
"Mine!"
That's Mormon ideology as well, so they're even:
Mormons constitute sixty-three per cent of Utah’s population. (The figure includes non-practicing Mormons.) Virtually all statewide elective offices, from the governor down, are held by Saints, as Mormons call themselves. The state legislature is overwhelmingly made up of white Mormon Republican males. Three-fourths of the state judiciary is Mormon. The entire United States congressional delegation from Utah is Mormon. School boards, city councils, municipal agencies, and mayors’ offices are dominated by Mormons. “The fact is we live in a quasi theocracy,” James E. Shelledy, the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, told me. “Eighty per cent of officeholders are of a single party, ninety per cent of a single religion, ninety-nine per cent of a single race, and eighty-five per cent of one gender.”
"MINE!"
"Mormons think of themselves as a people chosen by God to lead the rest of humanity to salvation. Submission to authority is an essential part of the religion."
"MINE!"
"By far the most successful Mormon business venture is the Church itself."
And you're doing everything you can to bring it to power.
"MINE!"
who picks Joe Biden as a running mate?
Biden was a solid, thoughtful pick. Clinton either wasn't going to accept or Obama didn't want Clinton. Ask yourself: why did Obama want Clinton? Two reasons: (1) party unity and (2) getting the votes that Hillary got in the primaries. Really, those two reasons are the same thing.
Biden was a great pick to assure the people voting for Hillary -- lunch-pail Democrats, blue-collar Democrats, Reagan Democrats, whatever you want to call them. Biden also brought foreign policy bona fides, despite what an atrocious blowhard he is. He also brought oldness and experience to counter Obama's utter lack of experience.
Anyway, those Democrats who voted for Hillary and Democrat-leaning blue-collar types are going to vote for Romney. Obama knows it. He knows he's in trouble.
Obama-Biden are playing chess...
LOL.
Uh, yeah, real chess masters, those two.
How does it feel to be one of the pawns?
Claiming "nasty, deceptive ads" in the future tense means it can be a general statement and can never be untrue (sort of like all the people going to attack Obama because he doesn't look like the money) and then when Obama puts out another "Romney gave this woman cancer" ad the justification will be that the Republicans do it too. Just as bad.
There were 10,000 enthusiastic supporters at the Romney/Ryan events today. Obama couldn't fill a fundraiser half-way at %51/head.
The internal polls are very dire for Team Obama, indeed.
What you should keep close are all the "expert opinions" being aired on this race. And then on November 7th, publish an erratum blog for the absurd shit that is said in the next months.
As for Biden, I can't wait for this fool to run into the buzz-saw from Janesville on October 11th.
Being underestimated can be a nice advantage.
Good catch, Palladian. Certainly, that email money pitch sounded like deep chess. So did the bullshit about killing the spouse of some worker. And the tax dodging.
These Obama-Biden people are regular Gary Fucking Kasparovs. It only looks like flailing, third-rate hackery.
Being underestimated can be a nice advantage.
...and being overestimated can be a disaster for the country. You know, kind of like Barack Obama.
Before we attack Iran.. does Obama receive an intelligence community assessment on Iran?
It would be too reminiscent of the Dems attack on Bush 43, if suddenly, their assessment that Iran is not close to a Nuke would change to an Iranian Nuke is imminent and the only solution is an attack.. so close to the election?
Clinton's Wag the Dog comes to mind.. playing politics with national security may bite the Dems in the you know what... now that they are in charge and open to all those scurrilous accusations they leveled at president Bush.
But, in the end, if Obama decides to attack Iran... republican marching orders will most likely be to get behind the president.
Thankfully, bloggers and commenters are not bound by such arragements.
The polls you want to watch are the secret internal polls no one sees.
Your opponent's self-contentment is also useful.
Who knew there would be 10,000+ wealthy, right-wing ideologues in Waukesha, WI alone? Things don't look too good for our scrappy underdog incumbent and his pluggish sidekick.
Imagine, all these ordinary people coming out to support the R&R Railroad? The effrontery! (It burns!) -CP
Being underestimated can be a nice advantage.
You're right, all those +D weighted media polls that have Obama ahead (and the MSM dutifully trumpeting them, and dismissing Romney as a gaffe-prone "wimp") might be an advantage for Romney.
More bad signs for Jimmy Carter II:
Oil is now headed back up over 4.00 a gallon for diesel, gas...with the liberal Northeast's "evil!!" heating fuel oil at 3.28 a gallon now.
Food prices are expected to be up by 20% for grain based foods, dairy up 20%, meat up between 30-50%.
On election day, people will have a rough idea how much a turkey for the upcoming Thanksgiving will cost. They won't like the answer.
Of course I know how you feel. I was with someone today who doesn't believe there's a chance that Obama will lose. You have a lot in common.
"The presumption I always had, and kind of still stands is that Obama would lose his reelection bid if he passed health care. I thought that was a decent trade.."
Yes, we know about your presumptions. "Passing health care" is like passing nationalization of coal mines. Its great until the next administration reverses it.
These Obama-Biden people are regular Gary Fucking Kasparovs. It only looks like flailing, third-rate hackery.
They've already sacrificed their bishops and their knights. The king castled himself to get away from the queen, but she made sure they lost the rooks so she could get at him.
So all they have left are an army of undefended pawns, a trapped king and that angry bitch of a queen, who seems too busy wandering aimlessly around the board, complaining about the other side's excess of material, to be of any useful defense at all.
Talk about screwing pooches.
That panic in his voice is knowing that Obama is are thinking of going to the mattresses with Hillary. "Thanks, Joe, for your service to the country, but now you need to spend more time with your family. Or with the fishes. Your choice."
While Obama is lending his campaign thousands of dollars...
Biden is only giving him a plug ;)
It's noteworthy that Obama campaign emails like this one vilify not just the opposing candidate(s), not just GOP politicians, but private citizens, voters, Americans, who happen to support the other side: "wealthy, right-wing ideologues." As far as I can tell, he's not talking about politicians there. He's talking about private citizens, who happen to support or donate to the Romney campaign.
I.e., Republicans. Not just Republican politicians-- but Republicans, "wealthy" Republicans. That's the "other," "the enemy." They're pitting Americans against other Americans ("wealthy, right-wing ideologues").
I've never noticed such a thing in any of the Romney campaign emails I've received. They criticize the other side's politicians, the Dem party apparatus-- but they never disparage other Americans, private citizens who happen to be Democrats or happen to be donating to the other side. I find the tone of the Obama emails jarring.
"I've never noticed such a thing in any of the Romney campaign emails I've received. They criticize the other side's politicians, the Dem party apparatus-- but they never disparage other Americans, private citizens who happen to be Democrats or happen to be donating to the other side. I find the tone of the Obama emails jarring."
But there's a difference, yashu. Right-wingers are bad people. Everyone knows that!
phx said...
Why should we have a problem with Biden as President?
=================
We wouldn't.
Yes, Joe Biden is a blithering idiot...
But if Obama dropped dead tomorrow, outside blacks, and liberal and progressive jewish journalists...most people in the country would consider Biden an improvement.
Oh, and all the younger females that lost "Their Boyfriend" would be very sad until the men around them in their non-fantasy lives promised them trinkets or a trip to Cabo San Lucas when the rconomy improved.
Right-wingers are bad people. Everyone knows that!
I gather you're feeling sorry for yourself again.
Like many today, I heard Wasserman-Shults in full attack mode. I only had audio, but it sounded like she may have herniated a nut. It was mean, angry, strenuously forceful, like a dinosaur struggling in a tar pit, sinking, bellowing, but unable to get traction as it used every tool that has usually worked in the past. Then, just a few bubbles oozed up, and a stench wafted by that smelled of something past it's expiration date.
The momentum is awesome.
I find the tone of the Obama emails jarring.
"Right-wingers are bad people."
Oh, I surely know.
I was born to be bad.
I gather you're feeling sorry for yourself again.
I'm not a right-winger (whatever that is). Actually, I'm feeling sorry for you, because you're an idiot and that must be a terrible way to go through life.
who picks Joe Biden as a running mate?
Who elects a cultist to power?
I find your lack of faith... disturbing. -CP
The email was written to leftists who believe Obama will win it in a walk and is a way of saying "don't get cocky--and pay us!"
Obama is saying "we gotta get us some of that reform like they got" per O Brother Where Art Thou? and it is working to some extent with the "go back to the BushTrickleDownVoodooRichEatBabies" economic talk.
I didn't say you anything about right wingers, you did. I was talking about you. I said it sounded to me like you were feeling sorry for yourself and not accepting the responsibility for yourself, like you were blaming people for calling you (or calling someone) a right winger and painting you therefore as a bad person. They are terrible people who are doing that.
You're in a conundrum for sure, if that's how you feel!
Nate Silver and Intrade are probably the two best political prognosticators around (except maybe a turtle somewhere) and both have shown a sizable lead for Obama, at least for the past week and a half or so that I've been paying attention to such numbers.
And the Ryan pick doesn't appeal to swing voters -- it's just RW masturbation.
My default mode is pessimism (works well - either I get proven right or get pleasantly surprised), but optimism is becoming unstoppable.
"who picks Joe Biden as a running mate?
Who elects a cultist to power?"
I would accept government mandated underwear verified daily by the TSA rather than see Biden President. I'd take a bullet for Obama if needed.
" Blogger phx said...
Right-wingers are bad people. Everyone knows that!
I gather you're feeling sorry for yourself again. "
No, I think there is a feeling of empathy for people who made such a bad choice last time and seem unable to accept it.
If you bought an AMC Gremlin, you can trade it in and get something better. It's OK. Of course, you won't get much in trade.
Nate Silver and Intrade are probably the two best political prognosticators around (except maybe a turtle somewhere) and both have shown a sizable lead for Obama, at least for the past week and a half or so that I've been paying attention to such numbers.
And the Ryan pick doesn't appeal to swing voters -- it's just RW masturbation.
Okay, before I respond you chess players will have to tell me. Is Mikio a moby?
Will the whitehouse even let Slow Joe out anymore? There are so many holes in the ships deck you can afford with such a loose cannon rolling around.
They are behind and it's worse than even this site reflects. http://polls2012.blogspot.com/
@Mikio, Silver's column summarizing all the different forecasts reported two remarkable things. 1) The range of probability-of-reelection estimates was astounding (from 2% to 98%, IIRC). 2) The estimates based on economic conditions all predicted an Obama defeat, while the ones based on polls predicted an Obama victory.
I don't think an incumbent has won with the economy in this kind of shape since FDR. OTOH, the media have never been so deeply in the tank.
I should state here that I am slightly uncomfortable with Paul Ryan as Romney's pick for his running mate, based on Ryan's support for stupid amendments to the US Constitution, like defining "marriage" and banning flag burning. As much as like Ryan's economic expertise and focus on the most important issues facing our central government, I am uneasy with his activist social conservatism and his support for meddling with our constitution in favor of marginal social issues. Romney actually has a reasonable record of avoiding legislating social issues, so I sincerely hope Ryan follows his example and leaves the religious Statism behind and focuses, as he has been, on actually important things.
I know that certain commenters think that Mormonism is some sort of grave threat to our country, but it seems that activist Catholics (Edward Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, John Roberts etc) have done more damage to the cause of small government than any Mormon could.
"If we don't do what we can to keep this close, right now at this crucial moment, we risk letting the other side run away with it."
If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat
http://www.amazon.com/Its-Close-They-Cant-Cheat/dp/0785263195
My default mode is pessimism (works well - either I get proven right or get pleasantly surprised), but optimism is becoming unstoppable.
It's difficult to fathom anyone being optimistic about a second term for Barack Obama. If that dreadful prediction comes to pass, then what will be unstoppable is our national decline into oblivion.
Of course maybe that's what your sort actually wants.
Obama-Biden are playing chess
The strategy of gobbling up everything in sight while complaining that the other side is cheating?
Not so much "Obama-Biden playing chess". More like "kids playing Hungry Hungry Hippos".
Cultist? Pretty strong and opinionated, don't you think? On the other hand, if we can elect a communist to power..... Anybody is fair game.
I was wondering if you've seen this:
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/07/31/white-house-insider-how-mitt-romney-mentally-castrated-the-obama-campaign/
This guy claims that 1) the Romney camp leaked their own internal polls to the Obama camp, and 2) these polls show that Romney is doing a lot better than the public polls indicate, which threw the Obama campaign into utter panic.
Bagoh wins the best description of a dying Democratic dinosaur post in a run away.
As I've stated earlier, the attacks on Rpmney are not a sign of desperation, it is merely par for the course for the Chicago Way. Look at every race Zero has won, and tell me why he would change a winning formula.(the obvious answer is found in P,T. Barnum, but Zero, and his "crew", aren't that smart).
As far as slow Joe, I consider him to be the brighter of the 2. He at least knew the limits of his competency.
"It's difficult to fathom anyone being optimistic about a second term for Barack Obama."
Of course this is true, and I don't see anyone that voted for him being either optimistic about the election, or what they expect if he wins.
What exactly would they be excited about? Just think how crazy a cheer of "four more years" sounds. Four more years of what? The money is all spent already, nothing he did worked in the slightest, he has irreparably broken nearly every promise he made to his base, and he's embarrassed them repeatedly. Maybe they're all masochists.
Otherwise, I don't get it, and I don't see it in people I know who liked him. They don't wanna talk about him at all. Hell, he doesn't even want to talk about himself anymore, and that's got to be a whole new experience for him.
Two, count em, two autobiographies, and now he only wants to talk about someone else? I'm not sure he's even gonna vote for himself.
As I listent to them, right wingers seem to have given up their fear mongering re the "billion dollar" BHO campaign that would devastate the underfunded Rs.
?
As I listent to them, right wingers seem to have given up their fear mongering re the "billion dollar" BHO campaign that would devastate the underfunded Rs.
I don't think that was the objection. I think it had more to do with how much of that "billion dollars" came from outside the US.
AV,
Cultist? Pretty strong and opinionated, don't you think? On the other hand, if we can elect a communist to power.....
That's what bothers me - we're in this anything-goes Twilight Zone:
They elect a communist, we elect a cultist - what's next?
It's like we've lost our fucking minds,...
That Ulsterman Report link sounds bogus to me. The guy talks like someone out of central casting, and doesn't match any actual White House insider in a position to know the stuff he claims to know.
Palladian,
I think that the point was to make more dough for the Rs.
But, you can continue to believe that they were only motivated by their patriotic devotion to free and fair elections (and apple pie, and mom, and bunnies) sans foreign (Moooslim?) saboteurs.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, pbj, at least have the decency to make them delicious, high-quality words, perhaps with a shaving of black winter truffle. Don't cram my gullet with a bunch of cheap, processed words you picked up at the Ariana Huffington convenience store.
Aren't you devoted to free and fair elections?
It's funny how many "progressives" balk at that concept. I wonder why?
It was either that or Taco Bell.
[Note to self: next time go to the Bell.]
Does a leftards demagoguery never end?
"They elect a communist, we elect a cultist - what's next?"
We could try an atheist, but someone would claim that guy wants to make eugenics national policy or some such crazy overblown shit.
Obama had no other history to counter his "specialness", but Romney has plenty. He might belong to a cult, but if you told me George Washington was grand pooba of his Mason lodge and wore a funny hat, I'd say, he'll still make a damned good President. He's more than that.
As I've stated earlier, the attacks on Rpmney are not a sign of desperation, it is merely par for the course for the Chicago Way.
This is true. Every campaign Obama has ever been in (i.e. every campaign he has ever won) has been fought like this.
Maybe it's just finally too much for even the MSM to overlook and totally collude with (the charge of felony, the Reid accusation, the cancer wife ad). Maybe it's just that by now his opponents know very well what they're up against, what to expect, and they're not playing dead. Maybe it's just that he finally (for the first time) has a record that he has to account for. But something feels different this time.
I'm not at all complacent, but I sure as hell am not defeatist. R/R may not win but they surely can win. Every streak has its end. I'm enthusiastically rooting for November to be the end of Obama's.
Palladian,
Don't cram my gullet with a bunch of cheap, processed words you picked up at the Ariana Huffington convenience store.
Arriana Huffington - another cultist, running our lives, causing unnecessary arguments, increasing the partisanship, and driving us to ruin while she gets rich from the confusion.
Don't you people get it yet?
I've hated Ariana Huffington ever since the mid 1990s, when I read her shitty, hack-job biography of that commie Pablo Picasso.
Don't you people get it yet?
I guess "we people" don't get it — why don't you repeat it 10,000 more times while telling us that we're stupid? I'm sure that will help!
Every streak has its end.
The Obama administration sure has been a streak- on our national underwear.
OK, was that dirty politics?
bagoh20,
Obama had no other history to counter his "specialness", but Romney has plenty. He might belong to a cult, but if you told me George Washington was grand pooba of his Mason lodge and wore a funny hat, I'd say, he'll still make a damned good President. He's more than that.
bagoh, as long as you separate him, in your mind, from the cult he's served for a lifetime, you'll never actually see who you're voting for.
Mitt Romney is no George Washington. He's the guy who stayed quiet while the several Salt Lake Olympics scandals (bribery, doping from "supplements" provided by Mormons) was quietly swept under the rug by a Mormon judge before the whole "church" leadership could be indicted.
I swear, you guys know NOTHING about this cult - or this man - you seem determined to defend.
And that's the issue now:
If you guys hadn't dropped your critical faculties, that would one thing, but you've gone straight-up crazy.
Oh - a guy's running for the Republican nomination - we don't have to vet him!
Oh - a guy's running for the Republican nomination and he's part of a cult - we don't have to vet them either!
After hearing about all the bullshit you hated about Obama and his election, you should all just shut-the-fuck-up now, because you've got no credibility left, now that you're doing the exact same thing.
You don't care about the man, or his friends, or his church, or what dirt they've committed - you just want your guy.
Well, start waving your Yes! We! Can! placards, because you're the delusional suckers this time,...
Also, it should be noticed, that even though Zero has spent is campaign into the red, and the MSM swinging off his nutsack, AAAND Romney spending small amounts to keep his name in the papers, all Zero has managed to do is achieve a tie.
When the R&R team start to spend real amounts of cash on real amounts of ads, the Zero campaign, run by the Legion of Doom, and the MSM will fall like wheat before the scythe from the focused messaging.
As stated before Zero and his campaign only recognize 1 style of campaigning. Slash and burn destruction.
Americans, like Wisconsinites of a year ago, will tire of that very quickly.(like we tire of everything very quickly)
@Crack
You do realize that the complaints of "cultism" were applied to JFK and Catholicism when he was running for president, right? The complaint being how could a Catholic be trust as president when he is bound to follow the dictates of the Pope. I'm not suggesting Mormonism is anything but... just pointing out the juxtaposition, and how people were wrong.
Being a Catholic, everyone else is the cultist(well maybe not the Jews) but we go back to big Heysoos first.(in fairness to full disclosure I am a lapsed Mackeral Snapper)
@Crack
Here's something. I don't like Romney. I don't care for Ryan that much. But if the choice is Zero, or a crazed cultist that knows how to get shit down, I'm going with the crazed cultist.
In a race between 2 men and a bear you don't have to out run the bear, just the other guy.
If the Dem's had nominated a sock, I'd vote for him over Romney, but instead they nominated the demonstably worst president in history. Anything else is pure speculation.
The people jumping from the windows during 9/11 were insane, until you consider the alternative. Die by slow incineration, or by sudden deceleration trauma...so who was crazy?
My point is that it doesn't matter anymore who vets whom. The die is cast, and we have to ride it out.
To the grammer police...did I get my tenses right vis a vie "who vets whom", or should it have been "whom vets who"?
Carnifex,
@Crack
You do realize that the complaints of "cultism" were applied to JFK and Catholicism when he was running for president, right? The complaint being how could a Catholic be trust as president when he is bound to follow the dictates of the Pope. I'm not suggesting Mormonism is anything but... just pointing out the juxtaposition, and how people were wrong.
Yes, but we KNOW Romney's taken an oath to serve his "church" first, so there's no comparison. He's taking advantage of your ignorance of what it means to be a Mormon.
What I find fucked-up is - even after you know these things - you're still going for it!
It's crazy.
Being a Catholic, everyone else is the cultist(well maybe not the Jews) but we go back to big Heysoos first.(in fairness to full disclosure I am a lapsed Mackeral Snapper)
Does this sound like the big Heysoos to you?
No - it's the work of a common con man. Not even a delusion of "holiness" or benevolence. Just some clown seeing what he could get away with.
THAT'S who you're electing to run the country,...
Palladian, you're a dirty pundit.
To the grammer police...did I get my tenses right vis a vie "who vets whom", or should it have been "whom vets who"?
"Grammar"
-- The Spelling Police
Carnifex,
The die is cast, and we have to ride it out.
I know, but that doesn't make it any better.
It's like watching those right-wing nutjobs who support Israel because they're hoping for armageddon.
Just sheer madness.
It was nuts when the Left did it, but now?
You guys really know how to hurt a guy,...
Yes, but we KNOW Romney's taken an oath to serve his "church" first
I'm still a little fuzzy on the part where I should want Obama to be President instead.
Chip S. -
@Mikio, Silver's column summarizing all the different forecasts reported two remarkable things. 1) The range of probability-of-reelection estimates was astounding (from 2% to 98%, IIRC). 2) The estimates based on economic conditions all predicted an Obama defeat, while the ones based on polls predicted an Obama victory.
Really? Hmm, got a link to that? Here’s an Aug. 11th article I was going by and in it he says, well, pretty much the opposite:
The forecast model I developed for FiveThirtyEight, which accounts for state and national polls and the condition of the economy but not other factors, estimated as of Friday that Mr. Obama was about a 70 percent favorite to win re-election.
If they are so behind, why are not some of the other polls reflecting this? Overall they show a very close race.
Do you suppose they ever cringe, just a little bit maybe, at the words they allow the campaign flacks to push out of their mouths?
History will not remember you and your kind well, Joe Biden (you second tier weasel.)
See, I told you I was suffering from a stroke! :-)
I agree Crack. My objections to Romney have been numerous, though all based on his policies. Much as I dislike Zero for his. Their religion is something I really don't give a crap about. Most(all?) religions have their dark ages.
Alas there is no perfect candidate. So we pick our poison, and hope we,like the Dread Pirate Roberts ingested enough Iocaine powder to make us resistant.
Oh! Just remembered...Drudge has a kink to a story about Zero's funder in Chicago being half empty, even though tickets were only $51. The writer tries to cover for Zero saying he thought it looked plenty full, and that the campaign didn't expect too many anyway. Sure.
Made the mistake of trying to read the comments, and now I need to go pluck my eye's out.
Yes, but we KNOW Romney's taken an oath to serve his "church" first
So what?
What is he going to do? Make the LDS the national church and force us all to convert?
Give massive amounts of government money to the church?
Force us all to wear funny underwear?
Mandate that everyone prepare for emergencies and help one another?
Lem, I didn't click your link @11:29pm until now-- haha, good one.
I almost never voluntarily watch video of Obama now. That clip made me realize I've developed extremely low tolerance for him. Even a minute of his speechifying (and especially when he's being "cute") feels like a lot. I'm allergic.
If the Dems want to attacks Romney over MormonismI hope the Rs respond full bore with videos of Obamas preacher shouting "God Damn America" from the pulpit.
Seems that people who are not going to vote love Obama and people who are going to vote only liked Romney, till this weekend. No a big group who hate Obama but were not all that fired up will be broken glass Romney-Ryan voters. Time to start ignoring the "registered voter" pools and only look at the "likely voter" polls, and also ignore any that let people say 'I don't know".
Funny how all the trolls are doing nothing but spreading FUD. No argument about how great their guys are.
And as for Halo Joe's email, if "more wealthy, right-wing ideologues lining up to support the Romney-Ryan ticket", it's because they want to beat all the wealthy, Left-wing ideologues who have abandoned Choom.
David said...
If they are so behind, why are not some of the other polls reflecting this? Overall they show a very close race.
Look under the hood. Most of the media polls are skewed anywhere between 5 and 10, even 20 points in favor of the Demos.
It's very important to keep this campaign clean, from this point on, of high-cost attack ads after we've spent so much money already on them. This much, and not a dollar more, in deceptive advertising.
Crack mentioned the Twilight Zone.
You know who really must feel they're in the Twilight Zone? The guy who wakes up every morning, rolls over and sees Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
"Maybe it's just finally too much for even the MSM to overlook and totally collude with (the charge of felony, the Reid accusation, the cancer wife ad)."
-- Part of it is he is trying to smear -Romney.- They are trying to make -Romney- seem like he's this evil, malevolent man. Even people who dislike him as a person recognize he is relatively honest (for a politician), means well and lives a squeaky clean life. You can't smear him.
Not only that, but I've never seen Romney -angry.- When he did his take downs of Gingrich and Santorum in the primary, it was just business. He seems to actually be pissed off at the direction this election has taken. Re-watch his handling the heckler and his introduction of Paul Ryan. He wants to run an issues campaign, I think he's most comfortable there.
All the personal stuff has been sort of petty, but business. Now, I think, it is personal.
I should state here that I am slightly uncomfortable with Paul Ryan as Romney's pick for his running mate, based on Ryan's support for stupid amendments to the US Constitution, like defining "marriage" and banning flag burning. As much as like Ryan's economic expertise and focus on the most important issues facing our central government, I am uneasy with his activist social conservatism and his support for meddling with our constitution in favor of marginal social issues. Romney actually has a reasonable record of avoiding legislating social issues, so I sincerely hope Ryan follows his example and leaves the religious Statism behind and focuses, as he has been, on actually important things.
Palladian’s comments about social conservatism are noted. Please bear with me for some broad generalizations but here goes. I realize that the blogosphere is heavily occupied by either Libertarians who disdain Christians when they think about them at all, and by Leftists who hate Christians. So Palladian’s comments about Ryan’s religious beliefs are not going to get much pushback because most people here agree. Let me for the record say that if you want to win this fall, you had damn well better swallow your distaste for us long enough to say “thank you.” Because without the people who go to church on Sunday and believe that much of the trouble we’re in as a country has moral and ethical issues as the root cause rather than economic ones are a BIG part of Romney & Ryan's base.
The “underclass” was not created initially by financial incentives but the destruction of the moral argument against unwed pregnancy. It was all done so that the poor girl who found herself in a family way would not be shunned. How’s that working out for you?
Getting over 10% of the American people on government assistance was preceded by the moral acceptability of living at the expense of others. It was done to give those who were destitute through no fault of their own could hold their heads up. Like the result?
Re-defining marriage means that two people who love each other should not be discriminated against because they are of the same sex. And we know that only good can come of this, don’t we? And why are you so hung up on the number two and the word “people?”
So Palladian, here’s to your “uneasiness.” And “meddling” with the Constitution sounds pretty bad. But if I can be so bold, you guys have been meddling with things (little things like culture and morality) that precede the Constitution and you’re pretty happy to do so. Please ignore the mess you’ve left behind. Thanks for your vote.
Mikio said...
And the Ryan pick doesn't appeal to swing voters --
And your proof of this silly projection would be _______?
phx said...
Good luck. So far I think they've been outfoxing the right, the right playing checkers; Obama-Biden are playing chess...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
I bet they are!!!
Wow. I mean, wow.
The people on the other side who are trying to buy this election are putting nasty, deceptive TV ads on the air
Really slow Joe?
Because it was just last week that the Obama campaign was forced to admit that they were running a despicable ad that portrayed Romney as killing some former steelworker's wife.
Really? Hmm, got a link to that? Here’s an Aug. 11th article I was going by and in it he says, well, pretty much the opposite
Mikio @ 1:59: Chip S. is referring to this Nate Silver column, "Models, Models, Everywhere."
Nate Silver does not say the opposite. There is an astonishing range of electoral outcomes based on the different models out there. Silver says his poll takes account of other polls but that doesn't mean that other polls are aligned with his.
Models work until they don't, including Silver's.
History will spit on Biden for serving with the Usurper. History will also spit on those that should have known, and alerted the public--- like the "law prof". While she mindlessly climbs around in canyons, and looks down on the world from the Ivory Tower of tenured academia, the Republic was stolen from us. She should be ashamed, as should ALL of the supposed "lawyers" she has taught. No wonder none of them did anything.
Any model that includes polls with samples skewing +10 or even +8 Dem (or Rep) is not a model to be taken seriously. I haven't followed Silver. Is he using good polls or every poll? If he's using every one, his results are tainted and not worth looking at.
Nate Silver is a one hit wonder.
Anyone want to guess how he fared in forecasting the WI recall?
Mikio said...
And the Ryan pick doesn't appeal to swing voters -- it's just RW masturbation.
Actually, your continued references to Nate Silver are nothing more than masturbation.
But thanks for projecting, clown.
Biggest load of crap
right here:
"It's like watching those right-wing nutjobs who support Israel because they're hoping for armageddon.
That is the biggest lefty/right crap sandwich going.
Moneyrunner's point is well-taken, but he restricts it too much too unwed pregnancy. The whole concept of "If it feels good, do it" is more than that; it's a complete rejection of moral precepts with the aim of getting as many people to make bad life choices (booze, drugs, not working, etc.) which will put them in thrall to the Welfare State.
The problem Libertarians (those who aren't Lefties who don't feel guilty about wanting to hold on to their money) don't wish to address is that, to get the society they'd prefer, you have to change the culture and, to do that, you have to push back on social issues.
Palladian said...
it seems that activist Catholics (Edward Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden, John Roberts etc) have done more damage to the cause of small government than any Mormon could.
Anybody who thinks the Kennedys, Pelosi, and Biden are Catholics doesn't know the faith.
As for Roberts, the book is still out on him for the moment as far as I'm concerned.
“Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: Math.”
All The GOP needs to do with Biden is push play: Biden in his own words. Comedy gold.
"Like many today, I heard Wasserman-Shults in full attack mode. I only had audio, but it sounded like she may have herniated a nut. It was mean, angry, strenuously forceful, like a dinosaur struggling in a tar pit, sinking, bellowing, but unable to get traction as it used every tool that has usually worked in the past. Then, just a few bubbles oozed up, and a stench wafted by that smelled of something past it's expiration date."
What a great mental picture. I'll get a lot of mileage out of this when I'm am forced to watch CNN at the doctor's office.
Crack: we KNOW Romney's taken an oath to serve his "church" first
You mean like that Senate Majority Leader Harry (Morman) Reid who has been 3rd in line of succession t the Presidency for the last 6 years?
I seem to have forgotten all your maniacal warnings here at Althouse about Reid....
How do you explain that Crack? Why is Reid's cult okey-dokey but Romney's is not?
Technically, isn't it not the majority leader in the Senate but a position? I didn't think it was Reid.
oh geez. It keeps getting worse and worse for team Math-hate.
Every campaign Obama has ever been in (i.e. every campaign he has ever won) has been fought like this.
He lost a US Congress primary to Bobby Rush.
The President Pro Tempore of the Senate is next after the Speaker of the House. I believe that's the longest serving member of the majority party, who is ____?
@ Matthew
"he has been the Senate Majority Leader since January 2007, having previously served as Minority Leader and Minority and Majority Whip."
Actually you are correct, President pro tempore of the Senate is not necessarily the Sen Majority leader.
Doesn't change the fact that we've heard nothing from Crack about Mormanism and Reid over the last 6 years.
"I believe that's the longest serving member of the majority party, who is ____?"
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
@creeley23--Thx for explaining things to Mikio.
@Mikio--To explain things further, in the table in Silver's post linked for you by creeley23, the top 3 forecasts are from models that use economic variables only as their predictors. The others use some mix of those plus polling data, except for Helmut Norpoth's, which is unique and pretty amusing.
@Meade--You can't see their internal polls, but you observe their responses to them. As one of the forecasters cited by Nate Silver has advised candidates:
If you are predicted to win, talk about the economy and own it. If you are predicted to lose --- find something else onto which the election can be reset.
Fen, I think Inouye's getting ready to retire.
He has to be pushing 90.
“Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: Math.”
This is why I love Ryan so much.
As for the comments about libertarians hating social conservatives, can we not at least agree that maybe now is not the time to work on social issues? And while we're at it, maybe government is not the place to work through it either. As far as I can tell, government policies are generally not helpful in repairing social issues.
I think the 'get the government out of the way' philosophy probably works well for moral issues, as things like welfare have only harmed traditional families. So on this point, I would think liberatarians and social conservatives might be on equal footing, and why we are all sharing the same tent.
From my perspective, Mr Romney's choice of Mr Ryan takes "social issues" off the table--yes they are important, but most can be solved at the state (and cultural) level. The Romney v Obama is now clearly about the direction of the government--this, it seems to me, to be choice in November. Obama or Romney--voters choose.
Obama or Romney--voters choose.
Like this bumper sticker over at LI:
Freedom or Free Stuff
Your choice.
You only get one.
They are actually behind.
They think they are ahead.
They are pretending that they are behind.
Then, just a few bubbles oozed up, and a stench wafted by that smelled of something past it's expiration date."
Classic.
That note is exactly what one would expect from leftists. Regardless of the internal polling.
"We are the crusaders!"
"We are the david against the Goiliath Evil People trying to crush us!"
"The only way for you, victimized little people is to pick up the banner, and make a difference"
"It's so close"
It's simply a fall back to the old ways, now that "Hope and Change" have failed. It failed because of all the evil special interests out there.
As much as like Ryan's economic expertise and focus on the most important issues facing our central government,
Hahaha. Ryan's economic expertise involves zero of his budgets passed. In 13 years, he passed two bills. One naming a post office, and the other a change how hunting arrows are taxed. This is the right's wunderkind?
Who else are "right-wing ideologues" going to support?
Now if Biden said "even more wealthy, left-wing ideologues"; that would be news.
Yes, but we KNOW Romney's taken an oath to serve his "church" first, so there's no comparison. He's taking advantage of your ignorance of what it means to be a Mormon.
What I find fucked-up is - even after you know these things - you're still going for it!
It's crazy.
So there are two choices. Let's say it came down to your vote, Crack. Are you saying you would vote for that Cultist Obama over Cultist Romney?
Or are you going to reject the premise so you can sit in the background and throw shit?
Garage: Actually, Ryan passed a budget through the House recently.
How's Obama's budget doing?
I think the Obama camp are nervous about the small dollar donations rolling into the Romney camp.
It's 1200 days now that the Senate Dems haven't even submitted a budget?
Ryan still has a better record.
Hey Garage - you might want to take a look at this:
The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans preserve traditional Medicare
"The Obama campaign, upon learning of the Paul Ryan pick, went straight for the jugular. Ryan’s plan “would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors,” said Obama spokesman Jim Messina this morning. But that’s not true.
As we’ve documented extensively at The Apothecary, the Wyden-Ryan Medicare plan—so named because it was coauthored by progressive Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.)—only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age, and gives those younger individuals the option of remaining in the traditional Medicare program, or choosing a comparable private-sector insurance plan.
The policy-wonk term for this approach is “competitive bidding,” an idea that originated with Democrats. The Wyden-Ryan plan is nearly identical to one that was introduced a few weeks earlier by Mitt Romney."
Sunlight, math and truth. The democrat's worst nightmare!
Oh well, at least the democrats have mediscare.
Shit, garage, do you ever even bother to check the bullshit HuffPo is peddaling?
"Looking through the Library of Congress’s records, I counted 71 bills or amendments that Ryan has sponsored 71 bills or amendments and 971 bills that he has co-sponsored. That’s a lot of legislation, and some of it is pretty interesting.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
Also, some of his signature work was a little thing called a Federal Budget. Maybe you can compare that to Pres. Obama's own budget record: "Not once has he laid out a proposal to save either Social Security or Medicare. His last two budgets were so unserious, they have had three votes in Congress, the total vote tally, 0 - 610. They have been so unserious not a member of President Obama's own party have given them their vote." link
Moneyrunner, a huge chunk of the so-called libertarian "atheists" should properly be referred to as "anti-theists". They go far beyond disdain into outright hatred. And those same so-called libertarians are just fine with using state power to run religion completely out of the public square. Don't support providing abortion in your Catholic hospital? They have no problem with taking your tax money to fund their programs and then telling your hospital it can't accept Medicare.
garage mahal said...
Hahaha. Ryan's economic expertise involves zero of his budgets passed.
Um:
House Vote 277 - Passes Ryan Budget Bill
You're fucking retarded.
garage mahal said...
Hahaha. Ryan's economic expertise involves zero of his budgets passed. In 13 years, he passed two bills. One naming a post office, and the other a change how hunting arrows are taxed.
You missed this, idiot:
By a mostly party-line vote, the House of Representatives approved Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” budget resolution today by a count of 228-191
How does it feel to be a not-that-bright, easily misled dupe?
I think what Garage, and others saying the same thing, are hoping is that people will associated "passed" with "signed into law." Ryan's job isn't to get the Senate to do theirs, which most people understand.
Over the last two years, how many bills, including budget bills, have been written by the US congress, put forth, and were shot down by Harry's Reid's Senate?
Look it up, Garage. I dare you.
and yes - Huffpo doesn't count as a reliable source.
"Harry Reid's senate"
Hahaha. Ryan's economic expertise involves zero of his budgets passed.
House has passed budgets every year. Harry Reid can't be asked to stop touching little boys long enough to do the same in the Senate.
In 13 years, he passed two bills. One naming a post office, and the other a change how hunting arrows are taxed. This is the right's wunderkind?
Can you cite who you got this idiotic talking point from? I'd hate to label you a "fucking moron" because you said it if the term "fucking moronic parrot of a fucking moron" is a more apt term.
Matthew Sablan said...
I think what Garage, and others saying the same thing, are hoping is that people will associated "passed" with "signed into law
Garage isn't capable of understanding any of this. If the PuffingtonPost put up a story saying Ryan wasn't on the House Budget Committee, this drooling dope would come over here and paste it.
Of course there are other liberals who have no problem criticizing Ryan for something Obama did not do.
Over the last two years, how many bills, including budget bills, have been written by the US congress, put forth, and were shot down by Harry's Reid's Senate?
It's not so much that they are shot down.
It's that Reid won't even let them get to the floor.
Hearing some Dems claim that they have to overcome a filibuster on the BUDGET is endlessly amusing.
Mikio said...
And the Ryan pick doesn't appeal to swing voters -- it's just RW masturbation.
Uh oh dumbass, PPP (a Democratic polling firm) just Tweeted:
Ryan's favorability numbers in Ohio are actually *best* with seniors at 38/29
See you in November, clown!
I think you can define not letting house bills see the light of day on the senate floor -- as a "shot down". But that's just me.
Even using garage's measure for legislative productivity, Ryan is 200% better than Obama:
"Still, he has passed one bill signed into law, making Biden's statement False." PolitiFact 1/7/08. "Barack Obama hasn't passed any (bills)."
Joe Biden on Monday, December 31st, 2007 in a campaign event in Ames, Iowa
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls:
Ryan's favorability in Ohio over the weekend: 34% favorable, 33% unfavorable, 33% no opinion
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls:
We find a closer race in Ohio than the last couple polls that have come out there. Full results tomorrow
Garage isn't capable of understanding any of this. If the PuffingtonPost put up a story saying Ryan wasn't on the House Budget Committee, this drooling dope would come over here and paste it.
I have to disagree here. Garage is not dumb, so he is still capable of understanding. He is guilty of either cognitive dissonance or complete dishonesty.
"Ryan's economic expertise involves zero of his budgets passed. In 13 years, he passed two bills. One naming a post office, and the other a change how hunting arrows are taxed. This is the right's wunderkind? "
garage, I don't agree with others that you are stupid or dishonest. You make it harder for me, though, when you ignore facts like Harry Reid's obstruction of anything the House Republican majority, which has passed budgets each year since they took over, sends to the Senate. You have to know this but you do look foolish when you ignore these facts.
So unpopular!
ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. -
Hundreds of people were turned away Monday morning at a St. Augustine campaign stop featuring Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who defended his running mate's Medicare proposal.
The people were not admitted to the event after security screeners couldn't clear them fast enough.
Well, I obviously think garage is dumb.
Not just dumb, dangerously stupid and gullible.
And I think he proves it here every day.
damik..
After thinking about it, you are correct. "Shot down" isn't the right term.
Harry Reid will not give any House Budget a chance to hit the floor for a vote because:
A) Reid doesn't want to risk any democrats voting for any House plan.
B) The plan by democrats is to continue to increase the debt while not having to work within the confines of a budget. It makes debt busting so much easier.
More brazen dishonesty from Garage? Say it isn't so!
It says a lot that Garage's response to the Democrats failing to pass a budget is to just giggle.
Re: garage mahal
GM is a lefty shit-disturber. He is uninterested in sustaining debate and probably incapable of doing so.
He just throws out a line or two packed with snark then darts away. He gets a modest payoff in attention for almost no effort.
I'm surprised people engage him unless his comments provide a platform for something they wanted to say anyway.
Moneyrunner,
THANK YOU for your 06:56.
I wish I could have written that.
@ bagoh20
Like many today, I heard Wasserman-Shults in full attack mode. I only had audio, but it sounded like she may have herniated a nut. It was mean, angry, strenuously forceful, like a dinosaur struggling in a tar pit, sinking, bellowing, but unable to get traction as it used every tool that has usually worked in the past
Damn, that would make one fine YouTube if someone could overlay her audio on top of some vintage film clip of dinosaurs in a tar pit.
Because without the people who go to church on Sunday and believe that much of the trouble we’re in as a country has moral and ethical issues as the root cause rather than economic ones are a BIG part of Romney & Ryan's base.
The secular government is not the forum to correct "moral and ethical issues", nor was the constitution meant to be an instrument of religio-moral correction. Perhaps if you and your horde of supposedly moral churchgoers hadn't spent the past 30 or so years trying to beat the plowshares of secular government into terrible swift swords of religious social engineering, and instead focused your moral attentions in a private-sector sort of way, our culture wouldn't be in its currently decayed moral and ethical state. But the allure of the power of the State proved too much for you, just as it proved too much for the "progressives" to resist in their similarly-misguided attempts to use our once-small and humble central government to "correct" social issues it was never supposed to "correct".
I'll reserve my "thank you" for when the socially conservative voters realize that the federal government is not meant to be a morality correction device, nor a brace to prop up failing religious doctrine. Fortunately Mr Romney seems to be one regular church-goer who understands this, and fortunately he does not seem to be the only one in the Republican party today.
"The secular government is not the forum to correct "moral and ethical issues", nor was the constitution meant to be an instrument of religio-moral correction. Perhaps if you and your horde of supposedly moral churchgoers hadn't spent the past 30 or so years trying to beat the plowshares of secular government into terrible swift swords of religious social engineering, and instead focused your moral attentions in a private-sector sort of way, our culture wouldn't be in its currently decayed moral and ethical state."
To a large degree, I agree with you but there has been considerable degradation of the culture. To the degree that the social conservatives are concerned about that, I'm OK with it. Right now, the emphasis should be on economics but things like education are really a mess.
creeley23 said...
Re: garage mahal
GM is a lefty shit-disturber. He is uninterested in sustaining debate and probably incapable of doing so.
He just throws out a line or two packed with snark then darts away. He gets a modest payoff in attention for almost no effort.
I'm surprised people engage him unless his comments provide a platform for something they wanted to say anyway.
He shot his wad with the Walker recall.
A bitter spiteful little man with no game.
Leave him be.
Calypso Facto said...
Shit, garage, do you ever even bother to check the bullshit HuffPo is peddaling?
He can't since Kos has him riveted with the talking points he needs to bounce and correlate of HuffPo. So by the time he gets here to distill his inanity to us, it's a chaotic garbled mess. Which, coincidentally is the kind of human drech Garbage McDickhead is.
Michael K. wrote:
If you bought an AMC Gremlin, you can trade it in and get something better. It's OK. Of course, you won't get much in trade.
MK has introduced a bit of narrative enhancement (unintended?) Mitt father, George Romney, became CEO of American Motors Corporation in October 1954, just five months after the founding of the company, and steered it towards monumental success through his innovative management style and his concentration on smaller cars when the Big Three were dedicated to ever-increasing hugeness. With Romney as helmsman AMC stock went from $7 to $90 a share. Romney resigned from AMC in 1962 to seek the governorship of Michigan and was replaced by Roy Abernethy, a more conventional executive in all respects. Many historians of the automotive industry trace the downfall of AMC, exemplified by the egregious Gremlin, to policy choices instituted by Abernethy which put AMC into direct competition with Ford, GM and Chrysler on a model-for-model basis.
Based on the overall success of Bain Capital and the 2002 Winter Olympics Mitt seems to have inherited his father's acumen. I hope so. Bain specialized in rescuing moribund enterprises, of which the USA is now one.
"garage, I don't agree with others that you are stupid or dishonest...."
Me neither. It is more likely that he is stupid and dishonest.
Jesus, Crack, get over it already. I don't give a rat's ass if Romney has sex with dogs on the White House lawn (and then sacrifices them to Cthulu) as long as he can put the economy back in decent shape and stop stealing my damn money already.
We're electing a president, not a pope.
...but they never disparage other Americans, private citizens who happen to be Democrats or happen to be donating to the other side. I find the tone of the Obama emails jarring."
Not only naming names but also mobilizing goverment agencies to harass them.
And not just the 1%, either (i.e., Joe Wurzelbacher).
Jay -
And your proof of this silly projection [“the Ryan pick doesn’t appeal to swing voters”] would be _______?
Proof, not necessarily. Logic, however, yes.
1) Conservatives are generally excited with the Ryan pick.
2) Conservatives generally abhor compromise & moderation.
3) Therefore, there's good indication the Ryan pick does not represent compromise & moderation.
4) Swing/independent/moderate voters generally find political compromise & moderation appealing.
5) There's good indication the Ryan pick does not represent political compromise & moderation.
6) Therefore, there's good indication swing/independent/moderate voters generally won’t find the Ryan pick appealing.
creeley23 -
Nate Silver does not say the opposite. There is an astonishing range of electoral outcomes based on the different models out there. Silver says his poll takes account of other polls but that doesn't mean that other polls are aligned with his.
Chip S. -
@Mikio--To explain things further, in the table in Silver's post linked for you by creeley23, the top 3 forecasts are from models that use economic variables only as their predictors.
I’m not disputing the fact you both bring up that there’s an extremely wide variation among pollsters/forecasters. But you’re both ignoring a key part of Silver’s fame and success as a reputable aggregator of such which is his weighting of them accordingly by their historical and recent accuracy, their sample size, etc. And he does factor in economic conditions, which is the opposite of Chip’s insinuation that he doesn’t.
Again, I’m a pessimist at my core. Obviously Romney/Ryan can win. Obviously! All that post-convention money hasn’t even kicked in yet. But to act as if these fairly steady prognostications are essentially meaningless, especially when they all agree in the same direction, as if you’d feel no different if Obama’s and Romney’s numbers were reversed is just sour grapes BS. Look, it’s not astrology and Ouiji boards, and it’s not chemistry and physics, but I’d say the better side of halfway between. So it’s something, not nothing. Admit it. Or don’t. This thread’s due to die soon anyway.
I think that your premise #2 is weak.
Mostly because you use the word "abhor".
It's a weighted word.
What conservatives don't like is when "compromise" is another term for "do it my way or else" and that's typical of the Obama administration (cite: The "compromise" Obama made with religious objectors to birth control and abortion.) Conservatives have nothing against horse trading, they just expect to get a *horse*.
Neither Romney nor Ryan are what many conservatives, Tea Partiers, and certainly libertarians, would *prefer*. They've already made compromises.
Perhaps if you and your horde of supposedly moral churchgoers hadn't spent the past 30 or so years trying to beat the plowshares of secular government into terrible swift swords of religious social engineering, and instead focused your moral attentions in a private-sector sort of way, our culture wouldn't be in its currently decayed moral and ethical state.
That's a good one, but mostly because of the allusions you used in writing it.
Your "equal-opportunity" baiting of right and left is strange to me. On one hand, you never cease to come up with actual right-wing proposals that would affect you personally (anti-gay amendments for one), whereas the larger animus that you reserve for the left doesn't provide you with any ammunition for saying what they have done or have tried to do to you personally. Given the ways glibertarians tied themselves at the hip to the right for so long, maybe you just take the right more personally. Your extensive participation here indicates that you generally like them better.
There's a political point you're missing, though. Over the last 32 years of GOP ascendancy, the economic climate was best under a guy they hated and accused of every ideological smear no less than they did of Obama: Bill Clinton. Under him though, the budget finally reached a surplus. (Necessary for debt repayment). Social issues were placated, true, but only as part of temporary, and eventually unsustainable compromises that eventually broke toward a less hateful and pro-libertarian streak. I listen to Republicans here and wonder if Clinton wasn't their favorite president when it came to actual results. They love Reagan, but mostly there it's about his image and style.
Given all this, please point to one thing that you like so much better about what W. and GHWB actually did than what Clinton did. I keep assuming that there's a foundation of rational ideas underlying your whimsical prose. How deep does it go?
Or are you just addicted to conflict, and a certain set of irrational political assumptions that would certainly drive it?
Jesus, Crack, get over it already. I don't give a rat's ass if Romney has sex with dogs on the White House lawn (and then sacrifices them to Cthulu) as long as he can put the economy back in decent shape and stop stealing my damn money already.
I'll buy the dogs and build the altar.
Synova -
I think that your premise #2 is weak.
Mostly because you use the word "abhor".
It's a weighted word.
Weak shmeak!
*gathers papers at podium, walks back to debate table and sits back down*
What conservatives don't like is when "compromise" is another term for "do it my way or else" and that's typical of the Obama administration (cite: The "compromise" Obama made with religious objectors to birth control and abortion.) Conservatives have nothing against horse trading, they just expect to get a *horse*.
*walks back to podium, does eye roll, walks back to debate table and sits back down*
They've already made compromises.
*walks backs to podium, leans into mic…*
Oh yeah? Name one.
*walks back to debate table, sits down, takes sip of water*
I’m not disputing the fact you both bring up that there’s an extremely wide variation among pollsters/forecasters.
Mikio: You did dispute Chip S. without reservation in your claim that Silver had said:
Really? Hmm, got a link to that? Here’s an Aug. 11th article I was going by and in it he says, well, pretty much the opposite:
Now you're climbing down using the shades of grey that Silver includes some economic conditions vs what I believe was Chip's intended meaning of models using strictly eoncomic conditions.
I'm not impressed.
Also, it's a personal failing on my part, but I truly dislike the online kabuki of "Really? ... Hmm ... pretty much ..." style comments. Those come across to me as insufferable. At least you didn't say, "Ummm..."
Sure, I don't discount the polls that put Obama in the lead. However, I notice that the D/R spread is usually skewed to near-fraudulence. Furthermore, I believe that this is a grand tipping point in American history.
We are in new territory now. I feel no assurance that models based on the past are going to cut it for November.
In 2008 Obama ran as the Son of God with almost no negatives, with cultish support from young people, blacks and the media, in the midst of the most serious economic crisis since the thirties and on the heels of the most unpopular exiting president since Carter and Nixon.
Even so Obama only won with 70 mil votes vs 60 mil for McCain while 100 mil didn't vote.
Now it's four years later. Obama has failed to deliver on anything except Obamacare which is so unpopular he won't mention it on the stump. The economy remains at recession/depression levels despite his promises that he would keep unemployment under 8% and have made decisive progress within three years.
Romney needs 6 mil votes over McCain to beat Obama in November. I can't believe he won't find those votes. I believe he already has them.
@creeley23
Now you're climbing down using the shades of grey...
No, I'm not. Notice I used the words "pretty much" in that initial post you jumped in on which meant I was being less than absolutist from the start and allowing some indeterminate fraction of correctness.
Creeley,
Obama will win in November. I know this because you focus all of your conversation on Obama and none of it on your candidate Mr. Romney & his side-kick Ryan.
Post a Comment