Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 09:33:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 02, 2012, 08:45:30 PM
Expectation management. All campaigns try to lower the bar by which they'll be judged - Romney's a striking and unusual exception - so that any performance can be called a victory, or at least not a defeat.
Not all campaigns do it-- certainly not to the extent that Obama has in the past few days. And it's like much like him to be humble.
No, it really is the norm. Ben Smith joked that normal pre-debate spin is 'I'll just be happy if my guy doesn't vomit blood and flat-out murder our opponent with an axe.' Raz is right about Bush-Kerry, here's an article from the NYT in 2004:
QuoteTHE DEBATES: TWO CICEROS
With the post-convention-poll-bounce thing now over (Senator John Kerry did not really get one; President Bush very likely did), it is time to start speculating about an arguably more important phenomenon: the post-debate poll bounce.
The first debate is proposed for Oct. 5 and conventional wisdom has long held that it is the only one that matters. Rarely has the clear victor of the first presidential debate gone on to defeat in the election.
Not surprisingly, aides to both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush are wasting no time trying to lower expectations for their man while raising them for the other guy. There was no greater beneficiary of this tactic than Mr. Bush, for whom expectations were so low in 2000 that political observers were primed to declare him the winner barring no insurmountable gaffes. That is essentially what happened.
The downside for Mr. Bush this time is that his performance in 2000 has won him a reputation for being, in his own way, an excellent debater. Mr. Kerry's aides are playing that for all that it is worth. "He's a very good debater," Joe Lockhart, Mr. Kerry's new press secretary, said of Mr. Bush. "He's got a track record now," saying that no one who has watched the 2000 debates "could say that he doesn't have real talent."
Asked about Mr. Kerry's chances at the debates, Mr. Lockhart said, "He'll be fine."
That, Republicans say, is putting it mildly. Mr. Bush's handlers have not, as yet, agreed to the debate schedule, and they are quick to point out that Mr. Kerry has been known as an ace behind a lectern since his days at Yale, where his debate coach was reported to have called him the best debater he had ever trained - other than Bill Buckley.
"John Kerry, as everybody knows, has debated and debated and debated," said Matthew Dowd, Mr. Bush's top campaign strategist. "He's the best debater since Cicero."
JIM RUTENBERG
As I say Romney's expectation management has been odd. Christie was probably the least helpful surrogate since Ferraro when he said 'I have absolute confidence that when we get to Thursday morning, George, all you're going to be shaking your head, saying it's a brand-new race' (the two problems with that is that it raises expectations and is an acknowledgement that, currently, Romney's losing the race).
Since then I've read conflicting reports over whether that was the line Christie was meant to be pushing or not. Subsequently the Romney campaign's playing it down, Paul Ryan was saying how this was Romney's first time on this sort of stage, others have commented on how good Obama was in 2008.
I'm not sure about that though, I think Clinton won more of the debates than Obama. But like Romney in the primary debates he always did enough to not lose. He did win the McCain debates though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 02, 2012, 10:02:37 PM
No, it really is the norm. Ben Smith joked that normal pre-debate spin is 'I'll just be happy if my guy doesn't vomit blood and flat-out murder our opponent with an axe.' Raz is right about Bush-Kerry, here's an article from the NYT in 2004:
Yeah, I know Bush did it, both in 2000 and 2004. But I don't recall Gore or Kerry or Obama 2008 doing it.
Smells like another election megathread is necessary!
So did Seedy come up with the title or shelf? It looks like a Seedy title.
Black Lincoln? Jesus Seedy. Way to devalue one of the greatest presidents your little state full of traitors ever had.
Lincoln freed the slaves, destroyed the agrarian aristocracy that was trying to hold his country back, established the equality before the law of the various peoples in the US, faced down the great powers of the world who would have loved to see the US destroyed and bested the surrender monkeys in his own party.
Obama sold out his attempt at a major reform to the medical lobbyists, got treated like a house nigger by the Congressional leadership of his own party, hasn't really made a dent in the lunatic-insano Tea Party and hasn't bombed China.
You act like I care what a foreigner like you thinks, Flanneled Martinus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 07:36:52 AM
You act like I care what a foreigner like you thinks, Flanneled Martinus.
I guess I'll just have to succor the deep pain in my soul by living the life you wish you lived, in the country you wish you lived in.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 07:40:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 07:36:52 AM
You act like I care what a foreigner like you thinks, Flanneled Martinus.
I guess I'll just have to succor the deep pain in my soul by living the life you wish you lived, in the country you wish you lived in.
Still doesn't change the fact that you're not American.
You see, there are three types of Canadians: French Canadians, normal Canadians like Jacob, Malthus and BB, and then there are the self-loathing wannabe Americans in Alberta like you that French Canadians and normal Canadians can both agree that are the biggest dickheads in the country.
So keep wishing you were born an American and not in the national equivalent of "Miscellaneous".
"Alas, I wish I was American so I could have no health care, get screwed by big business, be poor and have to deal with black criminals"
Yeah. For sure. :rolleyes:
When I start touting Pierre Trudeau in my avatar, then you can talk smack. Until then, you're a pretender not a contender, Milhouse.
When I had a Jellicoe avatar, did I want to be British?
Anyway, instead of Canadians shitthreading, back to the topic: the debate tonight--or, as Colbert put it last night, "The Thrilla Between Chocolate and Vanilla"
QuotePresidential debate could shed light on energy issues
Wednesday's presidential debate offers one of the final chances to pin down the candidates on the energy issues that have loomed so large in this campaign — from gasoline prices and green jobs to the Keystone XL pipeline and Solyndra.
On some of the biggest issues, President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been content to evade the specifics.
Obama, for example, has never offered a detailed response to more than 18 months of Republican attacks about how his administration handled the failed $535 million Solyndra loan guarantee — aside from his defense that all decisions were based on the "merits." And Romney has left plenty of wiggle room in his shifting stances through the years on what, if anything, the government should do about global warming or incentives for renewable energy.
Debate moderator Jim Lehrer could also explore the wide gulfs between the nominees' competing energy visions — Obama's emphasis on green jobs and his call for repealing oil industry tax breaks versus Romney's promises to dramatically expand oil drilling and repeal Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
In some areas, the candidates' rhetoric has been quite similar, including their discussions of energy independence and an all-of-the-above energy policy — even though they disagree on what exactly those words mean. And although Romney has pledged to approve Keystone on Day One of his presidency, plenty of observers expect that the pipeline would win approval in a second Obama term, as well.
So what should Lehrer ask Wednesday night? POLITICO compiled this list of suggestions with the help of environmentalists, industry representatives, independent experts, campaign surrogates and congressional staff from both parties.
The debate's setting in Colorado could offer an ideal backdrop: It's a politically purple bellwether state that has been a hotbed for green energy as well as oil and gas.
1. Climate change
Questions for Romney: How do you explain the seemingly dramatic shifts in your position on climate change since you were governor of Massachusetts? As governor, you worked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and opposed a coal-fired power plant because it "kills people." And you initially supported a regional cap-and-trade program although you ultimately declined to sign on to the program. Today, you oppose cap and trade and have criticized Obama's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. What specifically would you do to address climate change?
Questions for Obama: Your administration has proposed a climate change regulation for new power plants that opponents say will contribute to the death of the coal industry. How do you defend the regulations? And will your administration propose additional measures to address climate change in a second term, including rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants? Lastly, if it were politically feasible, would you again pursue cap-and-trade legislation?
Question for both: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says July was the hottest month in the contiguous United States since record-keeping began in 1895. Do you see this and other extreme weather as the result of climate change?
2. Renewable energy
Questions for Romney: Your campaign has said you oppose the extension of the production tax credit for wind energy, which expires at the end of the year. But you have never discussed wanting to kill the tax credit in interviews or on the campaign trail. Why not? Backers say ending the tax credit would cost thousands of jobs, many in key battleground states, such as Iowa and Colorado. Are they wrong?
Questions for Obama: Can you explain what exactly went wrong with Solyndra, and would your administration approve that $535 million loan guarantee if you could do it over again? Why did your energy secretary override objections from staffers at the Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget to prop up the company despite its financial problems? Also, why is your administration falling short — so far — on your promise to create 5 million green jobs over 10 years?
3. Regulations
Questions for Romney: As president, how would you balance economic concerns with those affecting public health? Are there any existing or pending EPA regulations that you believe should move forward unabated? Which ones should go back to the drawing board or never be implemented?
Questions for Obama: When do the environment and public health come first in enacting regulations, and when should worries about jobs prevail? Which proposed regulations from your first term did you think would have gone too far? What regulations would be priorities in your second term?
4. Oil drilling and Keystone
Questions for Romney: You want to vastly expand oil and gas drilling, but what public lands or waters, if any, would you keep off limits? How would you ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling is done safely? Would you keep in place the offshore drilling safety and environmental standards the Department of the Interior has implemented since the Deepwater Horizon disaster as well as the Obama administration's reorganization of the scandal-ridden Minerals Management Service?
Questions for Obama: TransCanada has submitted a new Keystone route for consideration, and you have already approved the southern route connecting Oklahoma to Texas. Aren't you essentially signaling that you would approve Keystone's northern portion early on in your second term?
Given the length of time it has taken to make final decisions on both Keystone and Shell Oil's Arctic drilling plans, isn't it simply taking too long for these kinds of projects to win approval? How would your administration improve oil and natural gas production specifically on federal lands?
5. Hydraulic fracturing and the natural gas boom
Question for Romney: Should the federal government serve any role in ensuring hydraulic fracturing is done safely, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, such as those in Colorado?
Question for Obama: Will you expand federal regulation of fracking?
6. All of the above
Questions for both: You express support for increased domestic oil and gas production as well as recognizing large benefits from energy efficiency and renewable energy. How specifically would you compel a divided Congress to act?
Both of you have talked about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but the president has proposed regulations that critics say would kill the coal industry, and Romney has stated positions undercutting green power. How do you reconcile these inconsistencies to develop a long-term energy policy?
With major tax reform looming as an issue in the next Congress, what energy tax policies will you pursue to keep energy-related job growth going in the next four years?
So every four years do the major news outlets just copy & paste the headline "Polls Tighten on Eve of Debate"?
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
So every four years do the major news outlets just copy & paste the headline "Polls Tighten on Eve of Debate"?
Hey they have to get people to tune in for debate coverage somehow.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
So every four years do the major news outlets just copy & paste the headline "Polls Tighten on Eve of Debate"?
Hey they have to get people to tune in for debate coverage somehow.
I'll be watching it this evening because my daughter wants to watch it. :blink: If I'm not really careful, that girl will end up in politics. :glare:
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 08:42:33 AM
When I had a Jellicoe avatar, did I want to be British?
No that just means you want to suck dreadnought cock. If you'd had Adm Cunningham or Harold McMillan then we might think you wanted to be British.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 08:07:37 AM
"Alas, I wish I was American so I could have no health care, get screwed by big business, be poor and have to deal with black criminals"
Yeah. For sure. :rolleyes:
Odd, I've never had any of that happen to me.
I wonder if this debate would help anyone decide who to vote for at this point? Is there people out there still undecided?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 07:36:52 AM
You act like I care what a foreigner like you thinks, Flanneled Martinus.
He is right though in this instance. Obama hasn't really done much worthy of note beyond being the first black president. Hell, arguably he's actually harmed race relations.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:01:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 09:38:03 AM
So every four years do the major news outlets just copy & paste the headline "Polls Tighten on Eve of Debate"?
Someone at NSA has just tagged you as a radicaliser. :ph34r:
Hey they have to get people to tune in for debate coverage somehow.
I'll be watching it this evening because my daughter wants to watch it. :blink: If I'm not really careful, that girl will end up in politics. :glare:
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:08:24 AM
Hell, arguably he's actually harmed race relations.
How? By his sheer shittiness as President?
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 10:19:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:08:24 AM
Hell, arguably he's actually harmed race relations.
How? By his sheer shittiness as President?
In the same way as Martin Luther King did. By disturbing white people.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:08:24 AM
Hell, arguably he's actually harmed race relations.
Yes, his attempts at voter repression throughout Florida, Ohio and Pennsyltucky have arguably harmed race relations.
The only thing he'd done was elevate how much this nation hates black people by getting all uppity and acting out of his place.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 10:19:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:08:24 AM
Hell, arguably he's actually harmed race relations.
How? By his sheer shittiness as President?
In the same way as Martin Luther King did. By disturbing white people.
Yeah what Raz said. Race seems to be rearing its ugly head as a discussion point all over the place. :(
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 08:07:37 AM
"Alas, I wish I was American so I could have no health care, get screwed by big business, be poor and have to deal with black criminals"
Yeah. For sure. :rolleyes:
Odd, I've never had any of that happen to me.
I've had all but the black criminal thing happen to me. :(
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:01:14 AM
I'll be watching it this evening because my daughter wants to watch it. :blink: If I'm not really careful, that girl will end up in politics. :glare:
I'm having to turn off anything political on the radio or TV in front of my 4-year old because he's asking too many questions. He's asked me multiple times if Obama is a "bad guy" and I tell him no, I'm sure he's a good person. So he asks me why I'm not on "Obama's team", trying to paint me into a corner, and I tell him I just think Romney would be a better president. Gotta love that age-- it's all good vs. evil.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:42:22 AM
I've had all but the black criminal thing happen to me. :(
I had a CD stolen out of my car once-- saw them doing it. Joke was on them because it was from an Argentine ska band. It was a copy of the original cd I kept at home, so no sweat off my back.
I remember being very confused during the 1984 election. I couldn't figure out who was the bad guy, Mondale or Reagan, and I was convinced for a short time that if Reagan won we would all die in nuclear war before my Dad set me straight. If I knew then what I know now the answer would have been obvious.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 10:59:33 AM
I remember being very confused during the 1984 election. I couldn't figure out who was the bad guy, Mondale or Reagan, and I was convinced for a short time that if Reagan won we would all die in nuclear war before my Dad set me straight. If I knew then what I know now the answer would have been obvious.
I grew up in a die-hard GOP household but politics almost never came up. The only thing remotely political I remember is that in the late 70s my parents had a ceramic coffee mug in the shape of a peanut with a goofy Jimmy Carter-esque mouth on it. I asked my mom what it was and she said it was a way of making fun of the president, but quickly pointed out that it's not nice to make fun of people and that we should respect the president :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:59:17 AM
Joke was on them because it was from an Argentine ska band.
That had to sound as bad as it sounds.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
I grew up in a die-hard GOP household but politics almost never came up.
My parents were hardcore Nixonians, and Mom was even a Goldwater Girl volunteer. And then the GOP went church mouse crazy in the post-Reagan era, and that was that.
Damn you, debate scheduling!
One time showing of Black Narcissus at the art house downtown tonight at the same time. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 11:16:14 AM
Damn you, debate scheduling!
One time showing of Black Narcissus at the art house downtown tonight at the same time. :(
That's just bait, isn't it :glare:
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:01:14 AM
I'll be watching it this evening because my daughter wants to watch it. :blink: If I'm not really careful, that girl will end up in politics. :glare:
She may even become our first hispanic President, assuming Romney loses. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 11:09:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:59:17 AM
Joke was on them because it was from an Argentine ska band.
That had to sound as bad as it sounds.
To the fellows who stole the CD, absolutely. But Los Fabulosos Cadillacs is a very good band. About the only Argie music act I like.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 11:14:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
I grew up in a die-hard GOP household but politics almost never came up.
My parents were hardcore Nixonians, and Mom was even a Goldwater Girl volunteer. And then the GOP went church mouse crazy in the post-Reagan era, and that was that.
We're all still Reagan Republicans. Before that I guess my parents were just generic Republicans. Three of my grandparents were Republicans (Hoover Republicans?) but my mom's dad was an old school Democrat-- and by far the most conservative in my family.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 11:16:14 AM
Damn you, debate scheduling!
One time showing of Black Narcissus at the art house downtown tonight at the same time. :(
Why would you be interested in the debates? You already know who to vote for, and you have everybody's soundbites down by heart. I'm sure if Romney steps on his own dick again, it'll dominate the news cycle for the next week, so what's the big deal about catching it live?
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
Why would you be interested in the debates? You already know who to vote for, and you have everybody's soundbites down by heart. I'm sure if Romney steps on his own dick again, it'll dominate the news cycle for the next week, so what's the big deal about catching it live?
Because Mittensfail live pleases me. You just can't get that mojo on rerun.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:56:16 AM
... Gotta love that age-- it's all good vs. evil.
:lol: Does it mean large segments of the American Populus have a mental age of 4?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2012, 11:43:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:56:16 AM
... Gotta love that age-- it's all good vs. evil.
:lol: Does it mean large segments of the American Populus have a mental age of 4?
G.
Yes. Are we still "in the throes of a theocracy" as you said a few years ago? ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 11:19:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:01:14 AM
I'll be watching it this evening because my daughter wants to watch it. :blink: If I'm not really careful, that girl will end up in politics. :glare:
She may even become our first hispanic President, assuming Romney loses. :D
Meh. She's not Hispanic. She doesn't even know what
casones (aka
chonies) are. :contract:
And I truly hope and pray that we don't have to wait for my 13-year-old daughter to grow up and come of age before we have a woman - or an Hispanic - sitting on the throne of the US of A.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
And I truly hope and pray that we don't have to wait for my 13-year-old daughter to grow up and come of age before we have a woman - or an Hispanic - sitting on the throne of the US of A.
I think we'll get by somehow.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
And I truly hope and pray that we don't have to wait for my 13-year-old daughter to grow up and come of age before we have a woman - or an Hispanic - sitting on the throne of the US of A.
I think we'll get by somehow.
Probably, but it really doesn't say much for social growth by this country if we have to, does it?
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:58:32 AM
Probably, but it really doesn't say much for social growth by this country if we have to, does it?
Well we are only going to have between 4 to 7 Presidents before she is old enough to be elected. Surely not every single minority will be represented by that time.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:58:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 11:54:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
And I truly hope and pray that we don't have to wait for my 13-year-old daughter to grow up and come of age before we have a woman - or an Hispanic - sitting on the throne of the US of A.
I think we'll get by somehow.
Probably, but it really doesn't say much for social growth by this country if we have to, does it?
I didn't realize that the office of the President was supposed to be some sort of indicator of social growth. Why is it such a horrible thing if a man wins the office?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 03, 2012, 12:17:43 PM
I didn't realize that the office of the President was supposed to be some sort of indicator of social growth. Why is it such a horrible thing if a man wins the office?
I didn't say it was. I said it would be bad if ONLY men won the next 4-7 elections. It would be even worse if ONLY white men won. The country is made up of more than that, and it would be nice to see that diversity at the highest eschelon of our nation. It will indicate that gender and race are no longer stoppers when running for The Big Office here. (And please don't try to claim that it hasn't been in the past nor that it won't be in the future. :rolleyes: )
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
(And please don't try to claim that it hasn't been in the past nor that it won't be in the future. :rolleyes: )
:rolleyes:
A hispanic woman in the White House? I suppose the US government could cut costs by using illegals as maids.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
diversity
:bleeding:
Help me understand why that's a dirty word.
We are a diverse nation with a variety of perspectives. The fact that the vast majority of those leading our country have been of a single demographic is a major issue for me, regardless of what demographic that is. It would distress me if we had only been led by only Hispanic women or Asian men or Samoan transsexuals for that matter during the course of our history, too.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 11:16:14 AM
Damn you, debate scheduling!
One time showing of Black Narcissus at the art house downtown tonight at the same time. :(
Why would you be interested in the debates? You already know who to vote for, and you have everybody's soundbites down by heart. I'm sure if Romney steps on his own dick again, it'll dominate the news cycle for the next week, so what's the big deal about catching it live?
Same reason it's more fun to watch your sports team play live than it is to watch the highlight reel on the sports and news shows later.
Look I think diversity is great as a goal. Naturally our institutions should be open to all who have the ruthlessness and lack of ethics required. But I just think it is a bit overplayed as a virtue. Like somehow our institutions will be more sensitive and more virtuous once we have everybody represented. I really doubt it will make a bit of difference in how those institutions operate. The assholes who run them may look different but they are basically the same sort of creature. Nancy Pelosi and Obama may be of different race and gender but they seem identical to the white dudes who preceded them in every important respect that I can see.
White men über alles. Or failing that, men über alles.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 12:39:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 12:23:14 PM
diversity
:bleeding:
Help me understand why that's a dirty word.
We are a diverse nation with a variety of perspectives. The fact that the vast majority of those leading our country have been of a single demographic is a major issue for me, regardless of what demographic that is. It would distress me if we had only been led by only Hispanic women or Asian men or Samoan transsexuals for that matter during the course of our history, too.
Valmy pretty much covered it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
Look I think diversity is great as a goal. Naturally our institutions should be open to all who have the ruthlessness and lack of ethics required. But I just think it is a bit overplayed as a virtue. Like somehow our institutions will be more sensitive and more virtuous once we have everybody represented. I really doubt it will make a bit of difference in how those institutions operate. The assholes who run them may look different but they are basically the same sort of creature. Nancy Pelosi and Obama may be of different race and gender but they seem identical to the white dudes who preceded them in every important respect that I can see.
I don't think meri is arguing diversity for diversity's sake. She's saying that minorities getting elected to high offices reflect the positive social changes the country has gone through.
QuoteIt will indicate that gender and race are no longer stoppers
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
Look I think diversity is great as a goal. Naturally our institutions should be open to all who have the ruthlessness and lack of ethics required. But I just think it is a bit overplayed as a virtue. Like somehow our institutions will be more sensitive and more virtuous once we have everybody represented. I really doubt it will make a bit of difference in how those institutions operate. The assholes who run them may look different but they are basically the same sort of creature. Nancy Pelosi and Obama may be of different race and gender but they seem identical to the white dudes who preceded them in every important respect that I can see.
Oh, absolutely! But the nation will have grown enough to vote based on who was the most ruthless/ethically devoid rather than on who wore high heels or who needs suntan lotion or not.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
Oh, absolutely! But the nation will have grown enough to vote based on who was the most ruthless/ethically devoid rather than on who wore high heels or who needs suntan lotion or not.
And may we all live to see that day.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
Oh, absolutely! But the nation will have grown enough to vote based on who was the most ruthless/ethically devoid rather than on who wore high heels or who needs suntan lotion or not.
And may we all live to see that day.
Hey, I'll take what I can get. :sleep:
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
Look I think diversity is great as a goal. Naturally our institutions should be open to all who have the ruthlessness and lack of ethics required. But I just think it is a bit overplayed as a virtue. Like somehow our institutions will be more sensitive and more virtuous once we have everybody represented. I really doubt it will make a bit of difference in how those institutions operate. The assholes who run them may look different but they are basically the same sort of creature. Nancy Pelosi and Obama may be of different race and gender but they seem identical to the white dudes who preceded them in every important respect that I can see.
There is a fair amount of literature regarding how law schools became more tolerable places once Female students and then professors came on the scene - they were simply unwilling to put up with the kind of bs males were willing to put up with and dish out all those years in the absence of females.
Take that example and multiply it across society.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
Nancy Pelosi and Obama may be of different race and gender but they seem identical to the white dudes who preceded them in every important respect that I can see.
I'm not sure I'd even describe Nancy Pelosi and Obama as similar.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
There is a fair amount of literature regarding how law schools became more tolerable places once Female students and then professors came on the scene - they were simply unwilling to put up with the kind of bs males were willing to put up with and dish out all those years in the absence of females.
Take that example and multiply it across society.
In that case I look forward to society functioning better in the future.
Back in '92, 6-year-old me loathed George Bush. My #1 issue was spotted owls.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
There is a fair amount of literature regarding how law schools became more tolerable places once Female students and then professors came on the scene - they were simply unwilling to put up with the kind of bs males were willing to put up with and dish out all those years in the absence of females.
Take that example and multiply it across society.
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment. I'm not sure that applies to politics, though.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment.
Yeah but does that make for better functioning lawyers though? And does that have a civilizing effect on the functioning of the law system itself?
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 02:44:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment.
Yeah but does that make for better functioning lawyers though? And does that have a civilizing effect on the functioning of the law system itself?
I thought he was just talking about law schools. Can't speculate on how that affects lawyers or the law system. I just know there are too damned many lawyers.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment. I'm not sure that applies to politics, though.
I'd like to find out. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 02:55:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment. I'm not sure that applies to politics, though.
I'd like to find out. :)
We already have women in many political offices so couldn't we just take a look at that? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 02:55:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment. I'm not sure that applies to politics, though.
I'd like to find out. :)
We already have women in many political offices so couldn't we just take a look at that? :huh:
I would argue that the culture in politics changes as you get further up the food chain. It would be nice to see what the House and Senate would be like with a true representation of the population in them.
That being said, there was some annecdote around here about the difference between the local School Board from 30 years ago (all men) and now (~50/50 men/women). Apparently, it's a kinder, gentler School Board today, and they've pretty much erradicated the systemic racism that was policy in the earlier years. There have been, of course, a number of other factors that have changed (and a lawsuit), but a woman I know on the School Board likes to say it's all because of the estrogen present now. :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:53:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 02:44:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
I think the presence of a certain number of women tends to have a civilizing effect on an environment.
Yeah but does that make for better functioning lawyers though? And does that have a civilizing effect on the functioning of the law system itself?
I thought he was just talking about law schools. Can't speculate on how that affects lawyers or the law system. I just know there are too damned many lawyers.
:mad:
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 03:06:02 PM
I would argue that the culture in politics changes as you get further up the food chain. It would be nice to see what the House and Senate would be like with a true representation of the population in them.
Well while 17% isn't representative of the population in general, you'd think that'd be enough to draw some conclusions, no?
I mean if it does make things better that is great since we are going to do it anyway for social justice and all that good stuff. I guess I think the common denominator is our humanity and that is going to continue to contribute to the same sorts of problems we always have had.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2012, 03:13:47 PM
:mad:
You know if there were fewer lawyers, you'd probably get paid more.
Based on Maggie, Golda and Indira I kind of admire and fear successful female politicians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 03:56:57 PM
Based on Maggie, Golda and Indira I kind of admire and fear successful female politicians.
What about Sarah? (Palin)
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 02:24:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
There is a fair amount of literature regarding how law schools became more tolerable places once Female students and then professors came on the scene - they were simply unwilling to put up with the kind of bs males were willing to put up with and dish out all those years in the absence of females.
Take that example and multiply it across society.
In that case I look forward to society functioning better in the future.
To a large extent I think it already does.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2012, 03:13:47 PM
:mad:
You know if there were fewer lawyers, you'd probably get paid more.
It's not just what's best for Barrister. -_-
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 04:04:56 PM
To a large extent I think it already does.
Well I don't see it.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
What about Sarah? (Palin)
Speaking of Palin, did you know that ~14m more people watched the 2008 Vice Presidential debate than watched the first 2008 Presidential debate? That's pretty sad.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 03:56:57 PM
Based on Maggie, Golda and Indira I kind of admire and fear successful female politicians.
What about Sarah? (Palin)
He didn't say anything about successful reality tv stars.
Quote from: Kleves on October 03, 2012, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
What about Sarah? (Palin)
Speaking of Palin, did you know that ~14m more people watched the 2008 Vice Presidential debate than watched the first 2008 Presidential debate? That's pretty sad.
People choosing their TV viewing based on perceived entertainment value ?
Anyway, when does the debate start, in GMT+1 please. :bowler:
Yeah, listening to McCain and Obama debate would probably put people to sleep. Though I wouldn't be surprised if McCain fell asleep himself.
Just heard on CNN that Romney has proposed a $17K cap on deductions.
The problem with diversity is that is too often a code word for minority/female set-asides. I.e. quotas.
What are the odds for Mittens saying something like "you people" to solidify Garbon's vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 05:27:55 PM
Just heard on CNN that Romney has proposed a $17K cap on deductions.
Works great for Mittens. Only penalizes those poor smucks who make their money earning wages. Doesnt touch those who can get paid through dividends, share options etc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 05:28:20 PM
What are the odds for Mittens saying something like "you people" to solidify Garbon's vote.
:huh:
I'm not sure I follow.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 05:30:07 PM
Works great for Mittens. Only penalizes those poor smucks who make their money earning wages. Doesnt touch those who can get paid through dividends, share options etc.
I think a person who has nothing but unearned income is still allowed to claim deductions. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 05:34:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 05:30:07 PM
Works great for Mittens. Only penalizes those poor smucks who make their money earning wages. Doesnt touch those who can get paid through dividends, share options etc.
I think a person who has nothing but unearned income is still allowed to claim deductions. :hmm:
You are missing the big point which is that a cap on deductions affects those who earn taxable incoming through wages more then people who earn income through more tax advantageous means.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 05:41:50 PM
You are missing the big point which is that a cap on deductions affects those who earn taxable incoming through wages more then people who earn income through more tax advantageous means.
I'm not missing the point. I'm thinking it's wrong.
A cap on deductions affects those who have been able to deduct high amounts more than people who haven't. :smarty:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 05:59:44 PM
A cap on deductions affects those who have been able to deduct high amounts more than people who haven't. :smarty:
Exactly. Generally people who have large mortgage interest payments, big medical bills, and give a lot to charity.
I'm strangely unexcited about tonight's debate. These debates are like NASCAR races: they're largely very tedious affairs that are made exciting only by the possibility of a spectacular crash. I don't think Romney is going to shit himself on live TV, and I won't be too excited in seeing Obama do it if that happens.
Yeah, the fun part about the debate is finding live bloggers and message boards watching them and follow the reactions to whatever is going on.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 06:05:50 PM
I'm strangely unexcited about tonight's debate.
That's completely normal. The strange thing is that you think you should be excited. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 04:35:22 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 03:56:57 PM
Based on Maggie, Golda and Indira I kind of admire and fear successful female politicians.
What about Sarah? (Palin)
He didn't say anything about successful reality tv stars.
She was a state governor and vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket. That qualifies as successful politician to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 05:30:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 05:27:55 PM
Just heard on CNN that Romney has proposed a $17K cap on deductions.
Works great for Mittens. Only penalizes those poor smucks who make their money earning wages. Doesnt touch those who can get paid through dividends, share options etc.
Mittens makes so much money, I don't think he can even conceive the value of $17,000. It needs two more zeros for him to even comprehend the concept.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 06:24:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 05:30:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 05:27:55 PM
Just heard on CNN that Romney has proposed a $17K cap on deductions.
Works great for Mittens. Only penalizes those poor smucks who make their money earning wages. Doesnt touch those who can get paid through dividends, share options etc.
Mittens makes so much money, I don't think he can even conceive the value of $17,000. It needs two more zeros for him to even comprehend the concept.
To be fair, it seems his minimum bets are about $10,000 so I'm sure $17,000 registers somewhere in the Romnocracy.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
To be fair, it seems his minimum bets are about $10,000 so I'm sure $17,000 registers somewhere in the Romnocracy.
$10K is country club couch change to sink the putt on the 4th green, so perhaps it does.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
She was a state governor that never completed her first and only term and vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket that lost. That qualifies as an unsuccessful politician to me.
FYP.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
To be fair, it seems his minimum bets are about $10,000 so I'm sure $17,000 registers somewhere in the Romnocracy.
:mellow: You guys seem to be a little lost on the concept of capping deductions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 06:44:06 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
To be fair, it seems his minimum bets are about $10,000 so I'm sure $17,000 registers somewhere in the Romnocracy.
:mellow: You guys seem to be a little lost on the concept of capping deductions.
I'm all for caps for rich people, but $17,000 sounds arbitrary. How was it arrived at? A percentage of projection? An average? To what income ceiling? Single or married? Up to $250K income earners? What, then?
I think capping deductions is a band-aid solution that misses the problem, like almost all caps do. If you have to use capping, then you probably fucked up somewhere in one of the previous steps.
If people are taking too many deductions, then maybe deductions should be looked at rather than just saying "all right, we'll let you bullshit, but only by so much". Invariably you'll run into cases where huge deduction are completely warranted (if, for example, you're an amateur gambler who wins and loses thousands each night), but the cap is going to lead to >100% tax on profits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 06:47:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 06:44:06 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
To be fair, it seems his minimum bets are about $10,000 so I'm sure $17,000 registers somewhere in the Romnocracy.
:mellow: You guys seem to be a little lost on the concept of capping deductions.
I'm all for caps for rich people, but $17,000 sounds arbitrary. How was it arrived at? A percentage of projection? An average? To what income ceiling? Single or married? Up to $250K income earners? What, then?
Tune in and see!
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 06:55:38 PM
Tune in and see!
QuoteBen Ginsberg, Romney's campaign legal counsel, said at a Politico Live 2012 debate event in Denver that Romney will provide more details "in the next five weeks."
:lol: Of course.
One other thing: the concept of simplifying the tax code, and the concept of putting in more caps in the tax code, are kind of contradictory. Caps create all sorts of discontinuities, and discontinuities are exactly the things that makes things very not simple to analyze.
EDIT: Or lack-of-smoothness, I forgot which math term applies here.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 06:58:03 PM
One other thing: the concept of simplifying the tax code, and the concept of putting in more caps in the tax code, are kind of contradictory. Caps create all sorts of discontinuities, and discontinuities are exactly the things that makes things very not simple to analyze.
Who said anything about simplifying the tax code? The Romney/Ryan (modified) plan called for lowering tax rates and offsetting that with elimination of "loopholes" so that the plan would be revenue-neutral. Democrats have been complaining for months (with good reason) that the plan was very short on specifics about what loopholes would be cut. Here he puts something specific on the table and guys get so freaked out you start to make up objections.
The US tax code is chock-full of discontinuities. Tax brackets, estate tax waivers, IRA limits, etc.
I am not making up an objection. I'm saying that caps are fucking stupid. As for simplifying the tax code, I can't be assed to point to the source, but I was under impression that it was Mitt's soundbite as to how he would get more tax revenue.
OK, from Bloomberg BidnessWeek
QuoteMitt Romney's idea for capping individuals' tax deductions at $17,000 would impose a burden that would fall hardest on the wealthiest taxpayers, who make the most use of the breaks.
The Republican presidential nominee suggested the idea of capping deductions this week as an option to help pay for his proposed 20 percent cut in income tax rates and elimination of the alternative minimum tax. The cap would be one piece of a three-part concept for broadening the tax base, said a campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the policy options in more detail.
"This is targeting high-income people and would hit them pretty hard," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
The effects of such an idea would vary greatly depending on details that Romney didn't include when he floated it. He didn't say how such an idea might apply to tax breaks that aren't deductions, such as the child tax credit and the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance. He also didn't say whether the $17,000 cap would apply per individual or per married couple.
The aide said today that the deduction ceiling would be part of a three-pronged set of limits on tax breaks. The $17,000 cap would include deductions and credits, said the aide. Among the undecided issues is how to handle the fact that a $1,000 credit, which is a subtraction from a tax bill, is different from a $1,000 deduction, which is a subtraction from income.
Three Caps
A second ceiling would apply to personal exemptions and a third cap would apply to the health-care exclusion.
The amount and details of the limits could be changed to meet Romney's targets for revenue and distribution of the tax burden. The aide emphasized that the three-cap idea is only one option being considered.
Romney and President Barack Obama are holding the first of their three debates today in Denver.
"Governor Romney's tax reform plan will jump-start economic growth, cut the tax burden on the middle class, and lower tax rates across-the-board," Amanda Henneberg, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said in a statement. "He will pursue revenue and distributional-neutrality in reforming the tax code. There are a range of policy options, Governor Romney referenced one illustrative example, to achieve these goals."
Ben Ginsberg, Romney's campaign legal counsel, said at a Politico Live 2012 debate event in Denver that Romney will provide more details "in the next five weeks."
Tax Burden
By itself, a deduction cap probably wouldn't raise enough money to offset the cost of the tax-rate cuts Romney is proposing and prevent the tax burden from shifting from top earners to others.
In an August paper, the Tax Policy Center found that almost all tax breaks for annual income exceeding $200,000 would have to be eliminated to offset the rate cuts for that group.
Romney's deduction cap alone would fall short of that mark, because it would allow some itemized deductions. Romney said there could be a lower cap on deductions for higher-income households.
"This by itself will not solve the problem," Williams said.
For individual tax filers, the effect would differ depending on their financial situations. The heaviest users of tax breaks would pay more. Others would benefit more from the rate cuts.
The largest deductions in the current tax code are those for charitable contributions, home-mortgage interest and state and local taxes.
Limiting Benefits
Capping the total of itemized deductions would effectively limit the benefits of those tax breaks. The standard deduction, used by tax filers whose deductions don't exceed that level, is $11,900 for a married couple in 2012.
Romney's idea echoes a proposal from Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University economist who advises him. Feldstein has proposed capping deductions not at a flat dollar amount but as a percentage of adjusted gross income.
Only about 30 percent of taxpayers itemize their deductions, according to the Tax Policy Center, and they are concentrated in the higher income groups. About 80 percent of the benefits of deductions go to the top 20 percent of taxpayers, and about one-quarter of the benefits go to the top 1 percent, Williams said.
Including the health insurance exclusion in the proposal would change it significantly, because those benefits aren't part of income now, and that break is enjoyed by many in the middle class.
Obama Proposal
Obama proposed caps on itemized deductions paired with tax rate increases, not rate cuts. Obama's plan would limit the benefits of deductions, credits and other tax breaks of individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000 to a 28 percent rate. That plan hasn't advanced in Congress.
The Obama campaign said Romney's suggestion of a cap on deductions means he would constrain tax breaks used by millions of middle-income Americans.
"Many families deduct much more than $17,000 now," the campaign said in a release on its website.
It cited Internal Revenue Service statistics that show in 2009 more than 6 million taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of between $75,000 and $100,000 had deductions for mortgages, state and local taxes and charitable giving averaging $17,328. There were 9.7 million taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 who deducted an average of $28,999 for mortgage interest alone, according to the campaign.
Limiting the effect on those families " would simply mean that Romney would be farther away from paying for his tax cuts," the campaign said.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:04:01 PM
There is a fair amount of literature regarding how law schools became more tolerable places once Female students and then professors came on the scene - they were simply unwilling to put up with the kind of bs males were willing to put up with and dish out all those years in the absence of females.
Take that example and multiply it across society.
I'm pretty sure that American society has included females since its inception.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 03:56:57 PM
Based on Maggie, Golda and Indira I kind of admire and fear successful female politicians.
What about Sarah? (Palin)
Alas, not successful enough :(
OK, it's almost game time. I hope Mittens has worked on his zingers, so they actually seem spontaneous and not like he's been practicing them all month.
Starched Mormon millionaires don't do canned humor well, you know.
Obama won the handshake.
Obama wins the Necktie Match-Up immediately. Nice and complimentary to the background, solid, subdued.
Mittens did good going with red, but never should've worn stripes.
Are we really saving money on "two wars" if we're just going to immediately spend that money elsewhere? :hmm:
Romney made a funny.
I thought this from James Fallows is good:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/slugfest/309063/?single_page=true
I agree on Romney's tie.
So far my bullshit count is Romney - 1, Obama - 1.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 03, 2012, 08:07:30 PM
Romney made a funny.
At least his make-up is better tonight, and not the Univision "Montalban" look.
God I hate debates in front of audiences when the audiences can't behave like an audience. Let them shout, cheer and jeer - let them, for once in their lives, behave with the tasteless wild abandon of Congress.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 08:09:50 PM
God I hate debates in front of audiences when the audiences can't behave like an audience. Let them shout, cheer and jeer - let them, for once in their lives, behave with the tasteless wild abandon of Congress.
No way. It would turn into a non-stop applause-athon.
For your reference:
A call out to Biden's "buried" line.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:05:44 PM
Obama wins the Necktie Match-Up immediately. Nice and complimentary to the background, solid, subdued.
Mittens did good going with red, but never should've worn stripes.
You ever consider working in the fashion industry?
Are any of the next two debates going to be town hall-style? Or are we going with a Harvard Debate Society format on all 3?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:13:44 PM
Are any of the next two debates going to be town hall-style? Or are we going with a Harvard Debate Society format on all 3?
Next one is town hall-style.
That Town Hall crap makes me gag.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 08:16:44 PM
That Town Hall crap makes me gag.
:lol: But Clinton did it sooooo well. :wub: I FEEL YOUR PAIN :LIPBITE:
Did he just call his five boys liars? :(
Mitt owning it right now. Brb switching my vote to mittens.
I think Romney's doing very well. I'm not sure where this leaves his tax policy though.
Obama just borrowed a Clinton line - he needs to do that a lot more.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 08:18:29 PM
Mitt owning it right now.
Agreed.
And out comes Professor Obama, too. That's not going to go over well.
Obama looking a bit weak.
Obama's jokes are falling very flat.
Quote from: Kleves on October 03, 2012, 08:14:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:13:44 PM
Are any of the next two debates going to be town hall-style? Or are we going with a Harvard Debate Society format on all 3?
Next one is town hall-style.
Here we go:
Quote
October 3, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney Live Stream (Begins around 8pm et)
Topic: Domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.
The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.
October 11, 2012
Vice Presidential
Vice President Joe Biden and Representative Paul Ryan Topic: Foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan
Moderator: Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent)
The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
October 16, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)
The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
October 22, 2012
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)
The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 08:18:24 PM
Did he just call his five boys liars? :(
He's just shoring up the "Boys From Brazil" bloc.
Romney is doing very, very well here.
The moderator is ridiculous.
Obama is running as Bill Clinton. Probably a smart idea.
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 08:21:00 PM
Obama looking a bit weak.
Yeah, he's a bit flat and seems a bit rote.
Mittens is definitely more animated tonight, but he's been animated in debates before, and that just winds up leading to the eventual snarkiness.
Obama should've watched more Gingrich in debate prep.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 08:13:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:05:44 PM
Obama wins the Necktie Match-Up immediately. Nice and complimentary to the background, solid, subdued.
Mittens did good going with red, but never should've worn stripes.
You ever consider working in the fashion industry?
Just in my own wardrobe.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 03:06:02 PM
I would argue that the culture in politics changes as you get further up the food chain. It would be nice to see what the House and Senate would be like with a true representation of the population in them.
That being said, there was some annecdote around here about the difference between the local School Board from 30 years ago (all men) and now (~50/50 men/women). Apparently, it's a kinder, gentler School Board today, and they've pretty much erradicated the systemic racism that was policy in the earlier years. There have been, of course, a number of other factors that have changed (and a lawsuit), but a woman I know on the School Board likes to say it's all because of the estrogen present now. :D
Perhaps, but I wouldn't use that example as an argument in favor in light of what's happened to our schools in that time. I'm sure the decline isn't related to women on the school board, but it's probably a good idea to use a different example. :P
I'm still trying to figure out how Romney is going to pay for what he's talking about, though, and balance the budget.
They both seem to hammering on about the same couple of points.
The "if we have to borrow from China" spending lithmus test. :bleeding:
That is slipping into "idiot sound bite" mode.
Oh, BS! "With all respect" my ass. <_<
Killing PBS? Didn't know China was funding PBS.
Too funny. Just lost the Antique Roadshow bloc, you sinister fuck.
CNN has a Colorado Undecided Voters ticker on their screen. Colorado women like Obama; the men, not so much.
Mittens is getting snarky. Needs to dial that down.
Obama apologizes for going over his time limit. STOP APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA. :mad:
"Governor Romney has ruled out revenue."
"Absolutely!"
Meanwhile, the Spanish Embassy just turned the channel.
So.. balance the budget and cut taxes? :blink: How the fuck is it possible do that?? I agree with Obama on this. Romney is counting on paying our bills by creating jobs, but what if that doesn't happen??
"In a revenue neutral way" :lol:
And Obama has hit his stride...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:30:31 PM
Killing PBS? Didn't know China was funding PBS.
Too funny. Just lost the Antique Roadshow bloc, you sinister fuck.
All five of them.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 03, 2012, 08:43:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:30:31 PM
Killing PBS? Didn't know China was funding PBS.
Too funny. Just lost the Antique Roadshow bloc, you sinister fuck.
All five of them.
HEY NOW
Ooo, Obama pulled Ryan's healthcare plan into it. Took longer than I expected.
It's so fucking obvious that Romney has never had to deal with finding insurance or not being able to afford it.
Mittens threatens Jim Lehrer's job, then bullies him when he tries to moderate the debate. Bet he's already got him slated for baptism when he's dead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 08:52:00 PM
Mittens threatens Jim Lehrer's job, then bullies him when he tries to moderate the debate. Bet he's already got him slated for baptism when he's dead.
Poor Jim is the real loser in this debate.
Romney rather likes the sound of this own voice, really insistent on interrupting and having the last word.
Obama, rather likes his own pauses.
Note to PBS: next election, no moderators with early onset Alzheimers.
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 08:55:42 PM
Romney rather likes the sound of this own voice, really insistent on interrupting and having the last word.
Obama, rather likes his own pauses.
Obama's talked two minutes more than Romney so far. He's just more polite about continuing on than Romney is.
Is it really early? Dude is like a hundred, isn't he?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 08:56:04 PM
Note to PBS: next election, no moderators with early onset Alzheimers.
You should import a Paxman. :bowler:
The men/women split in Colorado is pretty intense. The women really like Obama while the men like Romney. Especially during the conversation on Obamacare.
And there's no question that I am now, thoroughly, an Obama girl myself.
That "you interrupted me" bit didn't look good for Obama.
OH SNAP THE HARRY REID-NANCY PELOSI AXIS
Quote from: Kleves on October 03, 2012, 09:01:28 PM
That "you interrupted me" bit didn't look good for Obama.
I thought it was handled pretty well. It was obviously a joke.
And I'm sorry, but a state congress and senate made up of 87% Democrats is not "bi-partisan". It's pretty much strong-arm tactics. :lol:
Unfortunately, after an hour, I see no real home runs hit by either candidate so far.
Romster started brightly, Obama slowly got into the game but has caught up. It's a wash so far.
Romney won taxes and regulations. Obama won entitlements. Obama's losing healthcare.
More importantly Obama's got this wrong. He needs meaningless anecdotes of someone from Peoria complaining, rather than mentioning 'healthcare economists' :bleeding: And he should be beating Romney over the head with that 1-10 revenue/spending line.
The one worry for Romney is I don't know that this looks credible on all the points. A lot of this comes down to who you believe and right now I think there's a credibility issue on his line about re-funding Medicare and revenue neutral tax cuts - it doesn't sound like what anyone will have heard from any Republican this year. It's the right strategy though, as is his compassion in this and that he returns everything to jobs. This should be, for him, an election about jobs above all else.
The foreign policy one will be more interesting, especially in the light of current events in the Middle East.
"Mr. President, you're no Abe Lincoln."
I had to pause to put my little girl to bed so I'm about 20 minutes behind, but from what I've seen Willard seems more polished and confident. I agree no home runs, but this debate format seems to play more to Willard's strengths.
And this should be Lehrer's last ever debate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 09:10:12 PM
The one worry for Romney is I don't know that this looks credible on all the points. A lot of this comes down to who you believe and right now I think there's a credibility issue on his line about re-funding Medicare and revenue neutral tax cuts - it doesn't sound like what anyone will have heard from any Republican this year. It's the right strategy though, as is his compassion in this and that he returns everything to jobs. This should be, for him, an election about jobs above all else.
I was a little surprised that Mittens was willing to wade in so deeply into Obamacare myself, particularly since he's been so opaque on his own plan: yeah, he wants to keep the "best parts" like pre-existing and let the states buy in (which they are able to do now anyway), and yet repeal it. Don't get that. Why Obama didn't just say, "well, I already did it, the Supreme Court upheld the issue, and it is now the law of the land. Case closed."
WHO IS THIS OLD ANNOYING MAN?
It's like the Third Republic. Why are all the debate moderators septuagenarians? Because the octogenarians are dead.
Obama's education policy is an unsung success. Romney's doing well on education so far.
But I think Obama ultimately won healthcare.
I like this Romney answer. Good compassionate conservatism - though I did hope the 'pursuit of happiness' riff would be to announce his sudden support for gay marriage.
Quote"Mr. President, you're no Abe Lincoln."
'Mr President, my ancestors fled Abe Lincoln to live their polygamous lives. My ancestors, feared Abe Lincoln. Mr President, you're no Abe Lincoln.'
QuoteI was a little surprised that Mittens was willing to wade in so deeply into Obamacare myself, particularly since he's been so opaque on his own plan: yeah, he wants to keep the "best parts" like pre-existing and let the states buy in (which they are able to do now anyway), and yet repeal it. Don't get that. Why Obama didn't just say, "well, I already did it, the Supreme Court upheld the issue, and it is now the law of the land. Case closed."
I think Obama's response on Romney's opaqueness was his best yet. He should be saying something similar to every question. I know what Romney's message is in this debate - I don't know what Obama's is yet.
Oooh. A bit of class war. Weak class war attack though.
Here's an issue. Romney - in this debate - has said he wants to increase funding to the military and to Medicare, his tax reform will be revenue neutral and he won't cut education. How can he be credible on the deficit?
Also his 'I'm all for green jobs' line is very good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 09:18:01 PM
I was a little surprised that Mittens was willing to wade in so deeply into Obamacare myself, particularly since he's been so opaque on his own plan: yeah, he wants to keep the "best parts" like pre-existing and let the states buy in (which they are able to do now anyway), and yet repeal it. Don't get that. Why Obama didn't just say, "well, I already did it, the Supreme Court upheld the issue, and it is now the law of the land. Case closed."
He'll kick himself for not doing that very thing come tomorrow morning.
What IS Romney going to cut? He's yet to say a single thing that he's going to cut....
Oh wait. It seems that he's going to cut green energy funding. Brilliant. :frusty:
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 09:15:23 PM
I had to pause to put my little girl to bed so I'm about 20 minutes behind, but from what I've seen Willard seems more polished and confident. I agree no home runs, but this debate format seems to play more to Willard's strengths.
I agree it fits Mittens more, and he came out more "emotionally invested" than the POTUS, but I think we all kinda knew that going in. Obama's a bit of a cold fish in this format, but Mittens has done well in reigning in his snarkiness, except when it comes to beating up on PBS employees.
I really don't see this debate moving the needle much, except maybe a slight bump for Mittens for those who've never watched him. I think the next two debates should definitely be much more interesting, and could really move the numbers much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Here's an issue. Romney - in this debate - has said he wants to increase funding to the military and to Medicare, his tax reform will be revenue neutral and he won't cut education. How can he be credible on the deficit?
Yeah I mentioned this during the Convention. It makes no sense.
Obama has no real killer instinct in this format.
Weak close, Mr. President. Self-effacement works, but the rest of it sucked.
How does Romney think America is going to be able to afford all of that military spending ?
This just in: Fox News is reporting a resounding Romney victory, "landing a number of punches".
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
How does Romney think America is going to be able to afford all of that military spending ?
Doesn't matter. Defense budget has nothing to do with the federal budget.
Now for the good part: CSPAN phone-ins.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 09:35:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
How does Romney think America is going to be able to afford all of that military spending ?
Doesn't matter. Defense budget has nothing to do with the federal budget.
:D
CNN gives the win to Romney.
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
How does Romney think America is going to be able to afford all of that military spending ?
By cutting PBS. :D
Romney won and was very good. But I don't think Obama lost - which is a bit like his strategy in the debates with Clinton and Romney's this year, that may be enough.
God Sky News has got some idiotic woman in a bar in Shirlington, Virginia. 'You're an independent, undecided woman voter, who do you think won that?' 'I don't know.'
CNN breaks down the speaking time for the two candidates during the debate: Obama spoke for 45 minutes and 50 seconds, Romney for 38 minutes and 32 seconds.
I agree with the BBC US correspondent's assessment:
Quote
Mark Mardell BBC North America editor tweets: #debates Few will doubt Romney had the best of that debate animated, engaged and interrupting an over cautious President
Interesting though, the undecided woman said she liked Romney's lines but didn't explain how he would do it.
Carvill is saying that it felt like Romney was happy to be there and Obama wasn't so thrilled. I kind of agree with him. And all of the pundits on CNN are saying that Obama was far too professorial. I agree with both comments.
I have to admit, I didn't think I'd hear a Presidential debate invoking "state's rights" in this day and age.
Got to tilt the debate to Romney myself, mainly because he showed up and the President didn't.
Romney took control of the debate, beat up the moderator, and addressed the President directly. Obama really failed to even bother to attack Romney on any of his well-known weaknesses, and it wasn't like Mittens didn't leave anything out there to attack.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 03, 2012, 09:37:43 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
How does Romney think America is going to be able to afford all of that military spending ?
By cutting PBS. :D
:lol:
Romcon did well. He knew he had to go on the attack tonight and he delivered. Obama was too cautious and didn't press Romney when he could have. Also he seemed a little tired.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 09:44:31 PM
I have to admit, I didn't think I'd hear a Presidential debate invoking "state's rights" in this day and age.
Got to tilt the debate to Romney myself, mainly because he showed up and the President didn't.
Romney took control of the debate, beat up the moderator, and addressed the President directly. Obama really failed to even bother to attack Romney on any of his well-known weaknesses, and it wasn't like Mittens didn't leave anything out there to attack.
Hey, maybe he knows something is going to happen within the next 2-3 weeks which is going to be a game changer ? :ph34r:
Yes, poor debates.
:lol:
They're now critiquing Leher. "The audience wants to hear from the candidates, not the moderator." Well, that's what they got tonight.
Reality Check says Romney said over and over again that he would not add to the deficit, but since Romney never explained how, it gets a grade of "incomplete".
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 09:46:37 PM
Hey, maybe he knows something is going to happen within the next 2-3 weeks which is going to be a game changer ? :ph34r:
:contract: :contract: :contract:
A Libyan surprise (http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21684692), perhaps?
Romney clearly had a very good night, but I don't really see where "Romney won the debate" is coming from. Yes, he swung more confidently than Obama, but at the end of the night, it was a 0:0 draw. For me personally, the only successful punch was Obama criticizing Romney plan of giving a choice between vouchers and Medicare, because that would lead to an extremely retarded adverse selection, but I doubt that more than 1% of the people understood that.
Romney clearly had a very good night. Did Obama? If the answer's 'no', then that's why Romney won :)
What is the format for the next two debates anyway?
Romney can have the debates, because Obama is going to win the election.
Obama has this locked up because two groups of people are stupid: The people who think that the Tea Party is good idea, and women who vote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
Romney clearly had a very good night. Did Obama? If the answer's 'no', then that's why Romney won :)
To win a debate, you actually have to make a damaging point successfully. Being more poised while failing to land a punch doesn't get you a victory over an opponent who is less well poised while failing to deliver a punch. Or, in soccer match terms, the team that got more corner kicks and free kicks close to the penalty area in a 0:0 game still doesn't win.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 09:51:31 PM
Reality Check says Romney said over and over again that he would not add to the deficit, but since Romney never explained how, it gets a grade of "incomplete".
DIdn't he say that the deficit as it stands is unacceptable and immoral? Something about robbing from the next generation?
Seems weird to say that and then promise to maintain the deficit as it stands.
I dunno, DG. I think Obama really missed an opportunity with the taxes, with Social Security, and letting Mittens hammer him on that $700-whatever billion stolen-from-Medicare-to-fund-Obamacare myth without so much as return fire.
And the biggest thing was he left Mittens off the hook when he said he wasn't proposing a $5 trillion deficit bump with his tax cuts, which is simply an outright lie. Never bothered to challenge Mittens at all on it.
Obama had a real chance, should he have come out with a killer instinct, to shut the door on this election, and he didn't.
But I wonder how much flak Mittens will get from the Tea Partiers and the Grover Norvequist types. In a lot of ways, Mittens pretty much took a left turn out there tonight and either 1) dispensed of some of the party platform or 2) outright lied.
A debate isn't like a football match though, your other metaphor's better. It's like a boxing match, with the audience (and punditocracy) as judges. There's always a winner, and even if you don't knock your opponent out you can win on points - which Romney did.
I think the real issue is whether this is 2004 or 1980.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
Obama has this locked up because two groups of people are stupid: The people who think that the Tea Party is good idea, and women who vote.
I don't follow your logic here. Obama will win because stupid people are voting against him and for him? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 10:04:14 PM
I dunno, DG. I think Obama really missed an opportunity with the taxes, with Social Security, and letting Mittens hammer him on that $700-whatever billion stolen-from-Medicare-to-fund-Obamacare myth without so much as return fire.
And the biggest thing was he left Mittens off the hook when he said he wasn't proposing a $5 trillion deficit bump with his tax cuts, which is simply an outright lie. Never bothered to challenge Mittens at all on it.
Obama had a real chance, should he have come out with a killer instinct, to shut the door on this election, and he didn't.
But I wonder how much flak Mittens will get from the Tea Partiers and the Grover Norvequist types. In a lot of ways, Mittens pretty much took a left turn out there tonight and either 1) dispensed of some of the party platform or 2) outright lied.
Again, in soccer terms, Obama missed a penalty shot. Yes, you definitely are not at your best when you get a penalty shot and miss it, but a 0:0 game is still a draw. I agree that the apparent decision for Obama to look presidential rather than hammer Mitt was not the optimal strategy.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
Romney can have the debates, because Obama is going to win the election.
Obama has this locked up because two groups of people are stupid: The people who think that the Tea Party is good idea, and women who vote.
:hmm:
You think voting for Obama is stupid? Because it looks like Obama has locked up the Soccer Mom vote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 10:05:40 PM
A debate isn't like a football match though, your other metaphor's better. It's like a boxing match, with the audience (and punditocracy) as judges. There's always a winner, and even if you don't knock your opponent out you can win on points - which Romney did.
I think the real issue is whether this is 2004 or 1980.
There's always somebody declared a winner, but it's really only a win if it affects voters' minds.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 10:05:40 PM
A debate isn't like a football match though, your other metaphor's better. It's like a boxing match, with the audience (and punditocracy) as judges. There's always a winner, and even if you don't knock your opponent out you can win on points - which Romney did.
I think the real issue is whether this is 2004 or 1980.
I don't buy it. If every debate has to have a victor, then most debate "victories" are meaningless, because marginal decisions aren't going to move shit, and so you devalue the term.
QuoteDENVER (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Americans lost consciousness on Wednesday night between the hours of 9 and 10:30 P.M. E.T., according to widespread anecdotal reports from coast to coast.
The sudden epidemic of sleepiness prevented voters from watching more than a minute or two of the first Presidential debate between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, which the few observers who remained awake have called the most tedious in American history.
Moderator Jim Lehrer's opening instruction to the audience that they remain silent proved unnecessary, since within minutes most of them sat with their heads tipped forward, drool visibly dangling from their mouths.
Mr. Obama began the debate with a high-risk tactic that seemed designed to alienate huge swaths of the country—the use of math and facts—but ultimately his words seemed unlikely to turn off many viewers, who were soon off on their journey to dreamland.
Mr. Romney's much-trumpeted "zingers" were nowhere in evidence, except for a mystifying non-sequitur attack on PBS's Big Bird.
The only fireworks came at the very beginning of the debate, when Mr. Obama congratulated his wife, Michelle, on their twentieth wedding anniversary, drawing this response from Mr. Romney: "I disagree with your decision to marry Michelle. On Day One, I'll reverse it."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 10:04:14 PM
And the biggest thing was he left Mittens off the hook when he said he wasn't proposing a $5 trillion deficit bump with his tax cuts, which is simply an outright lie. Never bothered to challenge Mittens at all on it.
:huh:
He hammered that home several times early on in the debate.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 10:06:25 PMI agree that the apparent decision for Obama to look presidential rather than hammer Mitt was not the optimal strategy.
He didn't look presidential. He looked tired. Especially at the point when he was saying how he was raring to fight for the American people, he looked exhausted and beaten. Romney on the other hand seemed full of ideas and engaged.
Obama won't make the same mistakes again, but just to make sure he should be spending a lot of time with Bill.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:10:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 10:04:14 PM
And the biggest thing was he left Mittens off the hook when he said he wasn't proposing a $5 trillion deficit bump with his tax cuts, which is simply an outright lie. Never bothered to challenge Mittens at all on it.
:huh:
He hammered that home several times early on in the debate.
Not in the way that wins debates.
D4Gul unwilling to cede even mini-victory to Romney? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 10:09:23 PM
I don't buy it. If every debate has to have a victor, then most debate "victories" are meaningless, because marginal decisions aren't going to move shit, and so you devalue the term.
Most debate victories are meaningless. Kerry won all the debates in 2004. Clinton won more than she lost in 2008. Debate's don't matter because of who wins or loses but because they illuminate something about the men running for office.
The debates that did matter, in my view, were 1960, 1976, 1980, 1992 and 2000.
As I say I don't think Obama lost this debate in a significant way - in the way, say, Gore did in 2000 or Carter did in 1980. I think it's more like 2004, he lost the debate like Bush but it doesn't necessarily matter.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:13:46 PM
D4Gul unwilling to cede even mini-victory to Romney? :hmm:
If you force me to pick a winner, with no draws allowed, then of course Mitt wins. But, as I said, I think that's a silly way to decide debates. Not all the debates are going to be decisive either way. A lot of them are just entirely forgettable in a week's time.
MENBC is pissed.
The biggest way that Romney won this debate was in coming off like a decent, likable guy. It was the biggest thing he was lacking before tonight.
Papa Joe's up next, taking on the little whippersnapper "I don't have time to give you all the math" from Wisconsin, but as we know from 1988, the Veep debates don't affect the outcome.
Unless Paul Ryan winks at the camera.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:15:40 PM
MENBC is pissed.
You should've seen the first 5 minutes immediately after the debate. *This* close to Maddow breaking out the defib paddles for Big Ed. :lol:
Chris Matthews put the debate loss completely on the President.
I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.
Pretty sure David Ploof is a robot of some sort.
:huh: I guess people are seeing something I'm not. On a victory scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being "Old Bush looks at watch" or "Gore sighs", this one was a solid 1.
Obama's Intrade odds dropped 8% after debate. :huh: Still not seeing it.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:21:11 PM
Pretty sure David Ploof is a robot of some sort.
Well, to his credit, he's more of a West Wing staffer than a campaign puppy. At least he's not the god awful blonde bitch bimbo.
I'd fuck the living fuck out of her, but she's no campaign megaphone.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 10:19:48 PM
I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.
I think it's interesting. It was a pitch to the centre. This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy).
It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.
I really like CNN's balanced way of handling this debate, as well as the election in general. Probably the best I've seen yet.
Flash poll they did of registered voters who watched the debate: 67% say Romney won, 25% say Obama won.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 10:18:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 10:15:40 PM
MENBC is pissed.
You should've seen the first 5 minutes immediately after the debate. *This* close to Maddow breaking out the defib paddles for Big Ed. :lol:
Chris Matthews put the debate loss completely on the President.
A decade or so ago, when Chris Matthews was a fair bit less partisan, I thought he'd make a great debate moderator. Nowadays though, if Mitt Romney blew him off like he did Lehrer, Chris would have run up to the podium and beaten Mitt down with a tire iron.
Anderson Cooper would make an amazing moderator. Can I vote for him? :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 10:24:26 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 10:19:48 PM
I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.
I think it's interesting. It was a pitch to the centre. This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy).
It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.
Romney leaving his "tack to the center" till the debates is an interesting strategy. Minus any more campaign foul ups, I can see Romney momentum snowballing into the general election.
Also, I think this late in the game most of the party will swallow up anything Mitt says in the debates.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 10:24:26 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 10:19:48 PM
I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.
I think it's interesting. It was a pitch to the centre. This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy).
It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.
At this point this late in the game, I think Romney's decided to eschew the frothing nutbags on his side of the aisle and trying to position himself for indie voters.
But he has no where else to go but up at this point. But I will agree that he seemed to discard some basic tenets he's been campaigning on. Whether that works or has blowback by the rest of the GOP and more calls of chameleonism, we'll see.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 10:24:26 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 10:19:48 PM
I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.
I think it's interesting. It was a pitch to the centre. This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy).
It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.
I think just appearing as an adversary to Obama was enough for the Republican base.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:27:30 PM
Anderson Cooper would make an amazing moderator. Can I vote for him? :wub:
He was a good moderator in the Republican primaries. Brisk, kept things moving. Didn't ramble.
I agree with this from Alex Massie (at the Spectator, but a British former Washington correspondent):
QuoteMitt Romney hammers Barack Obama in the first presidential debate
2 CommentsAlex Massie 4 October 2012 4:00
Everyone says that the debates don't change the dynamics of a presidential race very often. President Barack Obama better hope that remains the case this year. Last night's debate wasn't even close. Mitt Romney thumped Obama in Denver. It was, as they say, an old-fashioned ass-kicking. Any Democrat who pretends otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to kid you.
Will it shift the dynamics of the election? Perhaps not. The best Obama's supporters could say last night is that the President avoided the kind of blunder that might hand Romney an obvious advantage. Maybe so but that kind of defensive mindset seemed somehow to have seeped into Obama last night. He seemed sluggish, even lethargic, hesitant, distracted and oddly unable to land any heavy punches on Romney. Much of the time he was pictured on the split-screen with his head down. Doubtless he was scribbling notes but it had the effect of making him look weary and disheartened. Defeated or despondent, even.
Obama's answers were so bad that even when tossed a softball such as "What's your view of the role the federal government can play?" he stumbled on his answer and failed to give any kind of credible – far less inspiring – call to federal arms. With the possible exception of a highly technical exchange on Medicare I'm not sure he won a single round.
Romney by contrast was back to his best. The 27 debates he endured against his Republican challengers in the spring proved good preparation for this contest. He was consistently sharper and quicker to the punch than Obama and much, perhaps even most, of the time his blows were heavier too. Hell, he even managed to come close to being funny from time to time. This was as likeable as Mitt can get.
A trivial observation that nevertheless set the tone: Obama told us that the debate was happening on his wedding anniversary. Somehow he contrived to flub this and Romney, responding to this news, managed to be funnier and more gracious about the Obamas anniversary than the president was himself.
Not once did Obama really manage to discombobulate a challenger who, frankly, looked leaner, fitter and hungrier for the fight. Even when given obvious opportunities to counter-attack – on Paul Ryan's budget or on entitlements for instance – Obama pulled his punches. Heck, he never once mentioned the magic number: 47%. And when he complained about tax "loopholes" for oil companies and corporate jets he rather invited the response: well, you've been president for four years so couldn't you have done something about that?
But if you play not to lose you often end up losing. That was Obama's problem this evening. Now it may not matter in grand electoral terms but Democrats have cause to be appalled by Obama's performance while Republicans will leave Denver believing, at least for a day or two but perhaps for longer than that, they're right back in this and that Mitt has a little bit more than just a puncher's chance.
It wasn't that Romney was super-persuasive but he consistently had a better range of facts, figures and examples to illustrate his points than Obama had to put flesh on his. If this was a debate between a management consultant and a law professor then the former proved better equipped for the task at hand. Obama had 10% more speaking time but said (it seemed) 30% less than Romney.
There was an unusual amount of substance mixed in with all the usual nonsense. That's fine. On some of it – on Dodd-Frank for example – Romney made a convincing case. Other parts of his presentation were less persuasive. Romney said he wouldn't cut the "share" of taxes paid by the wealthy. Perhaps not but his budget plan suggests he actually will. He placed great faith in magic tax-cutting beans too and denied he'd cut any tax that increased the deficit. Even so, it was notable how Romney tacked to the centre in this debate. This was reasonable Romney and a Mitt who could understand your disappointment and even almost feel your pain.
Well, good people can agree to disagree on the truth of that. But as any old debater will let you know you can get away with any old twaddle so long as it ain't challenged by your opponent. And Obama didn't challenge Romney very much, very often or very effectively. No wonder Romney dominated the debate.
I'm not sure there were any true stand-out moments. There was certainly nothing that will be added to the (pretty short!) list of classic presidential debate moments. Nevertheless, Romney was poised, sharp and seemed want to be president. Obama was passive and sluggish and seemed almost bored of the job.
That's how it seemed in pure debating terms anyway. The politics of it are a different matter. But if you saw a convincing debating case for four more years then you're a better, more acute man than me Gunga Din.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 10:27:49 PM
Romney leaving his "tack to the center" till the debates is an interesting strategy. Minus any more campaign foul ups, I can see Romney momentum snowballing into the general election.
Double-edged sword. Campaigning as one candidate for ages, and then suddenly turning into another candidate? We'll see.
QuoteAlso, I think this late in the game most of the party will swallow up anything Mitt says in the debates.
What's more important to them: campaigning on their platform, or beating the President? We know the answer to that one.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
Romney clearly had a very good night. Did Obama? If the answer's 'no', then that's why Romney won :)
To win a debate, you actually have to make a damaging point successfully. Being more poised while failing to land a punch doesn't get you a victory over an opponent who is less well poised while failing to deliver a punch. Or, in soccer match terms, the team that got more corner kicks and free kicks close to the penalty area in a 0:0 game still doesn't win.
I gave up on understanding how this stuff worked when Gore wiped the floor with Bush during the debate on policy, but it was a disaster for Gore because he was sighing when Bush said really dumb crap. That, and when Bush's "fuzzy math" line actually worked for him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 10:27:49 PM
Romney leaving his "tack to the center" till the debates is an interesting strategy. Minus any more campaign foul ups, I can see Romney momentum snowballing into the general election.
Double-edged sword. Campaigning as one candidate for ages, and then suddenly turning into another candidate? We'll see.
QuoteAlso, I think this late in the game most of the party will swallow up anything Mitt says in the debates.
What's more important to them: campaigning on their platform, or beating the President? We know the answer to that one.
Republicans love a winner more than anything else. I know, I used to be one.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 10:33:16 PM
I gave up on understanding how this stuff worked when Gore wiped the floor with Bush during the debate on policy, but it was a disaster for Gore because he was sighing when Bush said really dumb crap. That, and when Bush's "fuzzy math" line actually worked for him.
Yeah, on paper, Gore wins those debates hands-down in the transcripts.
But as we all know, debates aren't played out on paper. They're played out inside the television screen, by really tiny debaters. And Obama looked really tiny tonight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 10:40:36 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 10:33:16 PM
I gave up on understanding how this stuff worked when Gore wiped the floor with Bush during the debate on policy, but it was a disaster for Gore because he was sighing when Bush said really dumb crap. That, and when Bush's "fuzzy math" line actually worked for him.
Yeah, on paper, Gore wins those debates hands-down in the transcripts.
But as we all know, debates aren't played out on paper. They're played out inside the television screen, by really tiny debaters. And Obama looked really tiny tonight.
I have trouble watching these things. The pressure the debaters are under must be unreal. It is like lining up to kick a do or die field goal in the super bowl, except the kick takes 1.5 hours.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 10:45:37 PM
It is like lining up to kick a do or die field goal in the super bowl, except the kick takes 1.5 hours.
Meh, I prefer the boxing metaphors myself. And not only did Obama not land any punches, he covered up and absorbed the hits without swinging. He was: a black Gerry Clooney :(
The Washington Post's post-mortem
Quote* The grimness of Barack Obama: There's a fine line between sober/serious and grim/uninterested when it comes to the optics of these debates, and the incumbent was on the wrong side of it Wednesday night. Whether it was his habit of looking down for the majority of Romney's answers or the pique he displayed when debate moderator Jim Lehrer interrupted him, Obama looked like he'd prefer to be somewhere else. In many ways what Obama seemed to be doing was taking on the persona he used to much success in 2008 when he was careful to show he was ready for the job. But, now that he has been in the job for four years, Obama's demeanor came across far less well. Remember that voters see their vote for president as electing a leader not just a set of policy positions. And, Obama the glum is not the leader people want to vote for.
* Romney's prepared competence...and more: If the main goal for Romney in this debate was to show he could stand on stage with the president and handle a wide-ranging discussion on economic policy, he did so with flying colors. Romney's strength as a debater — as demonstrated during the GOP primaries — is his ability to recall massive amounts of information with little seeming effort and he did that time and again on Wednesday night. Romney didn't just deliver a sort of hyper-competence, however. He was at times funny — his quip at the beginning of the debate about the president spending his wedding anniversary at a debate was a good one — and delivered plenty of quotable moments ("you pick the losers", "you're entitled to your own airplane and your own house") that will be replayed again and again in the after-action analysis.
* Numbers, numbers and more numbers: For the first half of the 90 minute debate, it appeared as though Obama and Romney were trying to one-up one another with how deeply they could go into the numbers behind certain policies. The goal for each man was clear; Obama wanted to show that Romney's math doesn't add up, Romney wanted to hold the incumbent accountable for the spending decisions he has made in the first four years. But, our strong sense is that for undecided voters watching the debate most of that segment passed in a blur of numbers, giving them no broader sense of what the candidates want to do — and why. Moderator Jim Lehrer seemed content to let the two men go down the numbers wormhole, perhaps believing that such a conversation was what the public wants from the two men. And maybe it is. But we would be surprised.
* No Bain, no "47 percent": Inarguably, Obama came into tonight's debate with more obvious set-piece attacks on Romney. But, he seemed to be disinterested in using them. He made no mention of either Romney's "47 percent" comment or Romney's work with Bain Capital — two demonstrably difficult topics for the former Massachusetts governor. Our guess is that Obama and his team made the calculated decision not to hit Romney on either matter because a) it wouldn't look presidential and b) it's already penetrated deep into the political consciousness of the electorate. Maybe so. But does it ever hurt to repeat the attacks that have been proven to work against your opponent?
As one of my friends posted on twitter, Obama is waiting till last debate to mention 47%, Bain till last debate as he realizes how short the public memory is :lol:
67% of the CNN poll thought Romney won. That's the highest ever number in one of their post-debate polls.
Well, I went all-in on Fake Intrade, putting all of my fake $5,000 on Obama. I think this 9% post-debate dip is a vast over-reaction. I put my fake money where my fingers are.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 11:00:44 PM
67% of the CNN poll thought Romney won. That's the highest ever number in one of their post-debate polls.
A lot of the flash polls and twitters I've seen: Biggest winner? Romney. Biggest loser? Big Bird.
The one place where Obama clearly lost was in getting the last word in. After the first segment, IIRC, he let Romney close regardless of who started. Definitely doesn't speak well of his assertiveness when dealing with opposition.
Biggest observation I've seen tonight was from Steve Schmidt:
Romney now has momentum, the most important thing he needs to do in the next two weeks is not do or say something stupid on the campaign trail, which is by no means a sure thing the way this campaign has managed itself.
I think the biggest counter-punch opportunity lost for Obama was when Mitt Romney was talking about poor souls who need to be supported. He should've countered with "Yes, you say that to American people now, but that's not what you said to your rich donors behind closed doors. Did you mean what you said then, or do you mean what you say now?"
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:15:49 PM
I think the biggest counter-punch opportunity lost for Obama was when Mitt Romney was talking about poor souls who need to be supported. He should've countered with "Yes, you say that to American people now, but that's not what you said to your rich donors behind closed doors. Did you mean what you said then, or do you mean what you say now?"
Personally, I would've ended the debate with the PBS thing.
"Governor Romney, my campaign and your Republican opponents have made a lot of mileage over your role with Bain Capital and, whether the criticism is considered warranted or not, as a 'vulture capitalist', but you've just elevated the bar on cold humanity by axing Sesame Street. Congratulations on establishing a new personal low."
Thank you Denver, and good night.
:hmm: I'd go with my zinger.
Wow, 11% drop on Intrade now. I've never felt more frustrated at being unable to trade there. The crowd is nuts.
Maybe he should have gone with both?
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:30:40 PM
Wow, 11% drop on Intrade now. I've never felt more frustrated at being unable to trade there. The crowd is nuts.
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor? He would be evenish nationally and in the swing states, and is still at 35%.
If this is a signal for future debates, whatever bump Romney gets probably won't be temporary.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:30:56 PM
Maybe he should have gone with both?
He could've gone with
something. I mean, jeez. There was nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
If this is a signal for future debates, whatever bump Romney gets probably won't be temporary.
Expectations will matter though. Anything will be an improvement for Obama (and in 2008 he improved a lot), while Romney's set the bar high. He may have Clegged.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:03:17 PM
Well, I went all-in on Fake Intrade, putting all of my fake $5,000 on Obama. I think this 9% post-debate dip is a vast over-reaction. I put my fake money where my fingers are.
No kidding. I wish I had the seed money to get in on this action.
Oh, and I guess could legally bet on things.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
Are you pricing that in? His chances go to 0% if that happens.
I know you hate national polling, but the RCP average has Obama +3.1% right now, and Romney is considered to have just won the first debate. 65-35 odds doesn't strike me as crazy.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
Oh then it's over for Romney. Biden would've been magnificent tonight.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 11:47:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
Oh then it's over for Romney. Biden would've been magnificent tonight.
I would have loved to have seen a Biden/Romney debate tonight.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 11:56:28 PM
I would have loved to have seen a Biden/Romney debate tonight.
I will guarantee that Papa Joe will not appear tired or disinterested with Cheese Boy.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:30:56 PM
Maybe he should have gone with both?
Nah, Seedy's was too much.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2012, 11:58:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:30:56 PM
Maybe he should have gone with both?
Nah, Seedy's was too much.
I had to temper it, as I doubt my preferred method of profanity-laced debate techniques would go over well with 60 million people. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 03, 2012, 11:57:57 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 03, 2012, 11:56:28 PM
I would have loved to have seen a Biden/Romney debate tonight.
I will guarantee that Papa Joe will not appear tired or disinterested with Cheese Boy.
This is going to be one helluva weird debate, that's for damn sure at least.
Must have been one hell of a debate by Mitt Romney
https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/253693165264056321
As I was busy, I ignored the whole debacle. I have one question though: How many people will legitimately change their votes over the debate's outcome? Is there any reasonable number there? I just don't see it. Aside from giving the news shows, papers, and people bullshit to babble over till the next annoying talking point pops up, what the hell is the point of these?
It's not a question of people directly changing their vote. It's part of a narrative.
The biggest point is it gives Romney supporters and activists some belief that their uy may win. That belief was disappearing quickly and when it's gone, you're fucked.
So I'd say it's a pretty big deal and the intrade changes are at least partly justified.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 10:07:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2012, 09:59:32 PM
Romney can have the debates, because Obama is going to win the election.
Obama has this locked up because two groups of people are stupid: The people who think that the Tea Party is good idea, and women who vote.
:hmm:
You think voting for Obama is stupid? Because it looks like Obama has locked up the Soccer Mom vote.
Not at all. I think he's a less capable candidate than Romney, but I think that's balanced out by the fact that Romney's friends are abhorrent.
I just think that women are foolish with their votes, and shouldn't have them.
You guys have got to check out The Onion's post-mortems as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
If this is a signal for future debates, whatever bump Romney gets probably won't be temporary.
Expectations will matter though. Anything will be an improvement for Obama (and in 2008 he improved a lot), while Romney's set the bar high. He may have Clegged.
Nice on, but after the 2015(?) election, to have Clegged will mean something else.
Apparently Obama's vaunted pre-debate prep consistented principally of raiding Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin stash.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 07:51:41 AM
You guys have got to check out The Onion's post-mortems as well.
QuoteBiden Implores Obama To 'Rub One Out' Before Debate
Not a post-mortem, but :lol:
I watched woody woodpecker cartoons instead of the debate.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 04, 2012, 09:55:18 AM
I watched woody woodpecker cartoons instead of the debate.
I put on the networks and heard what sounded like Jeffrey Lebowski talking about tax policy. Then I realized it was the President talking. Then I switched back to the YES Networks because watching the Yankees pile onto the Bosox was far more entertaining. Massachusetts Mircale that.
Once again, Dr. Tyson puts it all in perspective:
Neil deGrasse Tyson - @neiltyson - Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive.
Is this what comes from playing not to lose?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 10:42:54 AM
Once again, Dr. Tyson puts it all in perspective:
Neil deGrasse Tyson - @neiltyson - Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive.
I cant believe Obama did worse than the guy that said "I love BigBird"
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 10:43:58 AM
Is this what comes from playing not to lose?
Something like that.
But the POTUS needs to be better prepared.
Then again, when your opponent does a complete about-face on most of his policies that he's been campaigning on for the last 11 months, right then and there, what are you going to do in a prepared debate format? Wing it? Very few Presidents can do that, and Obama isn't one of them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2012, 10:44:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 10:42:54 AM
Once again, Dr. Tyson puts it all in perspective:
Neil deGrasse Tyson - @neiltyson - Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive.
I cant believe Obama did worse than the guy that said "I love BigBird"
I can't believe Obama did worse than the guy who said "I love Big Bird" while shipping him off to the broiler farm.
Goddamn, what a classless cunt. :lol:
QuoteAnn Coulter hit President Barack Obama close to home over his performance in Wednesday night's debate.
"Obama was depressed and looking down," the conservative commentator said Thursday morning on Fox News's "Fox and Friends." "You could see, at the end of that debate, he knew, anniversary or not, Michelle wanted to go home with Mitt."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 10:55:29 AM
Goddamn, what a classless cunt. :lol:
QuoteAnn Coulter hit President Barack Obama close to home over his performance in Wednesday night's debate.
"Obama was depressed and looking down," the conservative commentator said Thursday morning on Fox News's "Fox and Friends." "You could see, at the end of that debate, he knew, anniversary or not, Michelle wanted to go home with Mitt."
:lol:
And Big Al Gore addresses Obama's tired performance on what the NFL has known since 1960; it's a shitty road game for you if you're not acclimated to Mile High Stadium.
QuoteFormer Vice President Al Gore floated an interesting theory for President Obama's widely panned debate performance: Denver's thin air.
"Obama arrived in Denver at 2 PM today — Just a few hours before the debate started," Gore said Wednesday on his Current TV network. "Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust -- I don't know," Gore said.
I remain amused by Mitt 'The deficit is immoral! It is unacceptable! But understand I am going to fund Medicare and the Military.'
Somebody who is going to fund Medicare and the Military obviously does not find the deficit immoral or unacceptable since those are among the primary culprits. And cutting funding for PBS as some sort of stand against the deficit is...a joke surely. How can somebody who said that kind of garbage be applauded for winning a debate? He should be ruthlessly mocked. But again it does not matter how idiotic you are so long as you look better than the other guy.
If this is Mitt on a good day I would hate to see him on his bad days. Obama is a total failure as a leader but this clown would be no upgrade. Even his empty promises suck.
He should have had an oxygen tank there. That would've looked good on TV.
edit: I remember Dennis Miller doing a live show (on MTV?) in Denver back in the 90s. He had to take quick oxygen hit about 15 minutes into his show. Everyone in the crowd started laughing at him for it & he came back with a Milleresque retort: "Yeah. Get a fucking climate."
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 10:31:18 PM
I agree with this from Alex Massie (at the Spectator, but a British former Washington correspondent):
Quote
On some of it – on Dodd-Frank for example – Romney made a convincing case.
Actually, Romney made a complete ass of himself on Dodd-Frank, but luckily for him the regulations are too complex for most of the electorate to catch on.
He has two criticisms of D-F:
#1
QuoteLook, we have to have regulation of Wall Street. That -- that's why I'd have regulation. But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. . . . We need to get rid of that provision, because it's killing regional and small banks
This is off-the-wall absurd. The systemically important financial institution rules in Dodd-Frank are not a benefit to the designated institutions, they are a burden, which is why institutions on the cusp are trying to avoid designation. Getting designated doesn't increase your chance of any government support. What it does do is increase capital requirements and add significant additional regulatory compliance burdends and administrative oversight. In no way does it or could it have any negative impact on "regional and small banks." Regional and small banks are declining in numbers for the same reason they have been steadily declining for decades: because the US legacy banking system was extraordinarily fragmenented and there is a long-term trend to consolidation via M&A, something you think a PE guy would appreciate.
#2
QuoteDodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that's not qualified, there are big penalties. Except they didn't ever go on to define what a qualified mortgage was.
It's been two years. We don't know what a qualified mortgage is yet
Dodd-Frank is an awfully long piece of legislation, but still . . . the definition is right in there. Section 1412, now codified at 15 USC 1639c(b)(2)(A). As a former management consultant, Romney (or his staff) should have the ability to search a PDF.
The only thing he could possibly be referencing is that the Bureau of Consumer Protection has the ability to narrow the definition further by rule; they also have the ability to relax the requirements for smaller loans in rural areas. These rules haven't been promulgated yet, in part because of the political football over the agency. But in the meantime, the definition is known and banks are free to lend in reliance on it.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
He should have had an oxygen tank there. That would've looked good on TV.
Only if he had been wearing eye-black at the time.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 11:04:36 AM
If this is Mitt on a good day I would hate to see him on his bad days.
Just wait; there are two weeks to go before the next debate.
Mittens is doing the right thing by not doing interviews or talk shows between now and then so he doesn't fuck this up, but his campaign will do something stupid as usual. It has proven time and again that it can't go three days without doing something stupid.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 10:21:23 PM
:huh: I guess people are seeing something I'm not. On a victory scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being "Old Bush looks at watch" or "Gore sighs", this one was a solid 1.
I haven't seen the debate, but the consensus among Polish pundits (including leftist ones) is that Romney mopped the floor with Obama.
Now, they are Polish so they could very well be stupid and wrong.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2012, 11:08:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
He should have had an oxygen tank there. That would've looked good on TV.
Only if he had been wearing eye-black at the time.
Now that was a missed opportunity. He could have scored more Anniversary points by writing something witty and romantic on them.
Biden is going to get his ass kicked. Jesus I'm depressed.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 04, 2012, 11:20:12 AM
Biden is going to get his ass kicked. Jesus I'm depressed.
Joe Biden has debated everyone from Dukakis to Gephardt, Al Gore to Jesse Jackson, from Gary Hart to Andrew Young. He's dealt with Obama, Hillary and the Grizzly Mom with Lipstick.
I think he can deal with a 42 year old math wonk who says he doesn't have time to discuss math.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 04, 2012, 11:20:12 AM
Biden is going to get his ass kicked. Jesus I'm depressed.
He could have a moment of clarity and surprise everyone. He's getting a bit, eh, you know, but IIRC debates were always his forte.
As the challenger does Romney get intel briefings?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 04, 2012, 11:28:10 AM
As the challenger does Romney get intel briefings?
Yeah, Romney and Ryan started receiving national security briefings right before the convention.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 11:13:14 AM
Now that was a missed opportunity. He could have scored more Anniversary points by writing something witty and romantic on them.
Sonnet 43 it would say
Then everybody would be outraged at Obama throwing his literature beliefs in our faces.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
He should have had an oxygen tank there. That would've looked good on TV.
edit: I remember Dennis Miller doing a live show (on MTV?) in Denver back in the 90s. He had to take quick oxygen hit about 15 minutes into his show. Everyone in the crowd started laughing at him for it & he came back with a Milleresque retort: "Yeah. Get a fucking climate."
The more I think about it, the more it does make sense: hell, NFL teams move up their travel days to go to Denver, if only to get a good 24 or, in the case of the playoffs, 48 hours to get acclimated to the Denver altitude.
And then you've got a President landing at 2:30 in the afternoon that day? Oh yeah, and he's a smoker? I'mma jus' sayin' [spock]It would explain a great many things.[/spock]
That'd be good news, if true. Obama's expectations would be low enough that just not struggling to breathe would be an improvement. And Romney's a fucking retard when it comes to foreign policy.
Fact checks on the debate: (http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/)
Quote
Summary
We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
- Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won't add to the deficit.
- Romney again promised to "not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans" and also to "lower taxes on middle-income families," but didn't say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
- Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have "gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years." That's true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
- Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is "going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
- Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won't add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
- Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
- Obama again said he'd raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the "rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president." Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama's health care law.
- Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have "seen their income come down by $4,300." That's too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama's first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
- Obama again touted his "$4 trillion" deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said "up to" 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are "out of work" when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can't find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed. And he again said Obama "cut" $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow.
LOL, John Sununu was talking about the debate performance last night, said that Obama's performance was proof that that the President is "lazy".
Andrea Mitchell offers him a chance to walk it back; "Are you actually calling the President of the United States 'lazy'?"
Big John: "Yes I am!"
I just early-voted at the county Board of Elections on the other side of downtown. Pretty sure I was the only person voting for Romney, if you know what I mean.
I did not vote a straight ticket-- I voted for a Libertarian in one race and I think in one of the non-partisan races the gal I voted for may have at one point in her life been a Democrat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 12:22:39 PM
LOL, John Sununu was talking about the debate performance last night, said that Obama's performance was proof that that the President is "lazy".
Andrea Mitchell offers him a chance to walk it back; "Are you actually calling the President of the United States 'lazy'?"
Big John: "Yes I am!"
He does play a lot of golf.
For some reason Ike PR people thought it was good that he be seen playing golf, I guess with his heart problems it was supposed to enourage the country he was still healthy and not dead or something. But in actuality it means him playing golf is one of the most remembered things of his Presidency.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 12:27:23 PM
I just early-voted at the county Board of Elections on the other side of downtown. Pretty sure I was the only person voting for Romney, if you know what I mean.Quote
No, we don't know what you mean. Please tell us.
QuoteI did not vote a straight ticket-- I voted for a Libertarian in one race and I think in one of the non-partisan races the gal I voted for may have at one point in her life been a Democrat.
Any interesting ballot initiatives?
Quote•Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won't add to the deficit
Actually, no - as long as Romeny offers only unspecified "promises" about offsets, it is entirely fair game to point out what the impact would be if those pixies and fairies fail to materialize.
Now to be fair, Romney did raise an intriguing idea at the debate: an absolute cap of $25 or 50K on claimable deductions. At face value that would create a kind of turbocharged AMT, and it would get him part of the way towards offsetting the fiscal impact of the rate cut. But he undercut the idea by throwing out as a possibility without standing behind it. In fact, I don't think he would do it because it would involve a big hit to the charitable deduction which is likely to upset key parts of his base and prove DOA in the House.
Unless and until he is willing to stand by concrete proposal for offsets, IMO the only fair and sensible analysis is to assume that there won't be any.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
No, we don't know what you mean. Please tell us.
No.
Quote
Any interesting ballot initiatives?
Issue 1 was a proposal to automatically have a constitutional convention every 10 years. I have no idea what that would accomplish, so I voted no.
Issue 2 would change the redistricting process to mimic the "California Model", where judges appoint a 12-member board. It's supposed to "take politics out of the process" but that's an unachievable goal. I got into a fun argument with some Issue 2 activist at a folk/bluegrass concert a few weeks ago over this. Emphatically voted NO-- I darkened the box in so much I almost tore through the paper.
And I voted yes on both county renewal levies to supplement funding to old people, crazies, and drug addicts. I'm getting soft in my old age :mellow:
Quote from: Queequeg on October 04, 2012, 11:20:12 AM
Biden is going to get his ass kicked. Jesus I'm depressed.
Your agony: delicious.
Don't count out uncle joe.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 12:43:27 PMIssue 1 was a proposal to automatically have a constitutional convention every 10 years. I have no idea what that would accomplish, so I voted no.
I think some kook throws that one in there in practically every state. :lol:
QuoteIssue 2 would change the redistricting process to mimic the "California Model", where judges appoint a 12-member board. It's supposed to "take politics out of the process" but that's an unachievable goal. I got into a fun argument with some Issue 2 activist at a folk/bluegrass concert a few weeks ago over this. Emphatically voted NO-- I darkened the box in so much I almost tore through the paper.
Well, if the choice is between judges and boards, and letting the elected representatives do it themselves...well...
QuoteAnd I voted yes on both county renewal levies to supplement funding to old people, crazies, and drug addicts. I'm getting soft in my old age :mellow:
My, my. He does have a heart. And it's still beating.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 12:22:39 PM
LOL, John Sununu was talking about the debate performance last night, said that Obama's performance was proof that that the President is "lazy".
Andrea Mitchell offers him a chance to walk it back; "Are you actually calling the President of the United States 'lazy'?"
Big John: "Yes I am!"
Not only is he lazy, but he is also uppity.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F1%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FPresidentialDebate.jpg&hash=60903cc2da9f20f911f46679cbec721fa2756db6)
Michelle's a big lady.
Quote from: Kleves on October 04, 2012, 02:55:40 PM
Michelle's a big lady.
Her brother is gigantic.
edit: apparently he's only 6'2". But he looks like a big mofo.
May explain why she never seems to stand up straight. It drives me insane the way she slouches. <_<
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 12:43:27 PM
Issue 1 was a proposal to automatically have a constitutional convention every 10 years. I have no idea what that would accomplish, so I voted no.
Issue 2 would change the redistricting process to mimic the "California Model", where judges appoint a 12-member board. It's supposed to "take politics out of the process" but that's an unachievable goal. I got into a fun argument with some Issue 2 activist at a folk/bluegrass concert a few weeks ago over this. Emphatically voted NO-- I darkened the box in so much I almost tore through the paper.
And I voted yes on both county renewal levies to supplement funding to old people, crazies, and drug addicts. I'm getting soft in my old age :mellow:
I am going to laugh if this passes by one vote and your ballot was spoiled for colouring outside of the box.
Quote from: Viking on October 04, 2012, 03:23:15 PM
I am going to laugh if this passes by one vote and your ballot was spoiled for colouring outside of the box.
I kept within the box, just like how they taught me to color within the lines in pre-school :showoff:
But yeah if it passes by one vote feel free to laugh.
I'm laughing right now because you let the activist get you so worked up over some non-issue. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2012, 03:32:19 PM
I'm laughing right now because you let the activist get you so worked up over some non-issue. :P
YOU GOT ME THERE. I had fun with the old gal. Got her to admit that she had no problems with the process when it favored Democrats, and kept her occupied for a few minutes.
No mention by the fact check guys of subsidies for outsourcers. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:44:47 PM
No mention by the fact check guys of subsidies for outsourcers. :hmm:
Yeah I keep hearing about that. Obviously that would be pretty damning if true. But it probably is not really true, only true in some stupid politician way. I was amused Obama brought it up...you know...the guy who could have done something about it the last four years.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:44:47 PM
No mention by the fact check guys of subsidies for outsourcers. :hmm:
Obama brought it up today at one of his rallies, but didn't go into any specifics.
I think that was my favorite MittMoment from last night.
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 03:53:16 PM
Obama brought it up today at one of his rallies, but didn't go into any specifics.
I think that was my favorite MittMoment from last night.
Probably mine as well, but I was also thinking that a lot of the public could have interpreted Willy's comments as sincere confusion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Probably mine as well, but I was also thinking that a lot of the public could have interpreted Willy's comments as sincere confusion.
Only if it got spun that way, which from what I've seen it hasn't. He was pretty assertive and I think that helped.
That seemed like dangerous territory to me, referring to his accountants. Why would he check with his accountants about subsidies for outsourcing? It could've so easily become "I don't know anything about that subsidy, and I think I know a thing or two about outsourcing to China."
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
That seemed like dangerous territory to me, referring to his accountants. Why would he check with his accountants about subsidies for outsourcing?
To see if Obama's repeated claims were true?
QuoteDENVER—Following last night's nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was "acting like such a goddamned pussy up there." "Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?" asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was "genuinely worried" that maybe somebody had "cut Daddy's balls off" right before he took the stage. "What happened, Dad? Were you on your period or something? Maybe the next time you're in front of the entire country for an hour and a half you should try not letting another man spank you on the ass like that." Sources added that Obama's youngest daughter then offered to help the president go "look for [his] dick, because apparently it's gone missing."
:lol:
How long before an Iranian news agency picks up that story?
Quote from: Kleves on October 04, 2012, 05:49:55 PM
How long before an Iranian news agency picks up that story?
I hear they're busy test-launching their own satire site.
Quote from: DGuller on October 04, 2012, 05:42:39 PM
QuoteDENVER—Following last night's nationally televised presidential debate, President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Sasha reportedly asked her father why he was "acting like such a goddamned pussy up there." "Daddy, how come you were being such a little bitch?" asked the sixth-grader, who told the president she was "genuinely worried" that maybe somebody had "cut Daddy's balls off" right before he took the stage. "What happened, Dad? Were you on your period or something? Maybe the next time you're in front of the entire country for an hour and a half you should try not letting another man spank you on the ass like that." Sources added that Obama's youngest daughter then offered to help the president go "look for [his] dick, because apparently it's gone missing."
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 04, 2012, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 04, 2012, 05:49:55 PM
How long before an Iranian news agency picks up that story?
I hear they're busy test-launching their own satire site.
:pinch:
67.2 million watched debate'The total viewership, which includes 12 networks, was a 28 percent increase over the first presidential debate in 2008 between then-Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, which drew 52.4 million viewers. 63.2 million watched Obama and McCain's second debate; 56.5 million watched their third.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/million-watched-debate-nielsen-137576.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/million-watched-debate-nielsen-137576.html)
QuoteThe rating includes total viewers for ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, Univision, PBS, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CurrentTV and CNBC between 9 p.m and 10:30 p.m. ET, and for Telemundo's airing on tape-delay. It does not include online viewership.
The highest-rated presidential debate in U.S. history was a 1980 debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, which had 80.6 million viewers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F20121006_debate15_0.jpg&hash=999d0e2ef1d57d6187e13b5c88d51fa2cd451486)
White chicks and colored boys; must be Northern Virginia.
MSNBC is hilarious tonight.
Interesting note from a former Reagan campaign staffer. Apparently the incumbent has always lost the first debate (Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton). He put it down to the fact that no-one likes debate prep, but no-one can really tell the President he has to do it and he can normally come up with a good excuse for getting out of it.
Is it me, or is Al Gore morphing into Boris Yeltsin....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FPolitics%2Fgore_toronto_092812.jpg&hash=d60486959774be08eb0820780a6c6b3fd187d87a)
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 04, 2012, 08:59:32 PM
Is it me, or is Al Gore morphing into Boris Yeltsin....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FPolitics%2Fgore_toronto_092812.jpg&hash=d60486959774be08eb0820780a6c6b3fd187d87a)
crazed sex poodle
Not just you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 07:14:51 PM
White chicks and colored boys; must be Northern Virginia.
If it wasn't for the blurred TV video of the debate in the back, I'd have sworn that was a still for some yet-to-be-released prime time network apocalyptic drama involving young people.
Just saw a bbc news piece about reaction in a Levittown,PA bar to the debate.
Pretty much a blue collar bar full of regular patrons, interesting that their views on what needs to be done in the US and their take on the debate were far more nuanced and thoughtful than you'd expect, if you'd just relied on the politicians/pundits to frame the issues.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 04, 2012, 08:31:07 PM
Interesting note from a former Reagan campaign staffer. Apparently the incumbent has always lost the first debate (Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton). He put it down to the fact that no-one likes debate prep, but no-one can really tell the President he has to do it and he can normally come up with a good excuse for getting out of it.
I specifically remember the first debate in 1984. Reagan looked totally lost, and the media jumped on the "is he too old" bandwagon. Made it up in the second one in spades, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2012, 09:29:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2012, 07:14:51 PM
White chicks and colored boys; must be Northern Virginia.
If it wasn't for the blurred TV video of the debate in the back, I'd have sworn that was a still for some yet-to-be-released prime time network apocalyptic drama involving young people.
They were shocked by Obama's flaccid performance.
Lol :lol:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/dept-of-timing-bin-laden-film-edition-137587.html?hp=r5
:D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsynd.imgsrv.uclick.com%2Fcomics%2Fjd%2F2012%2Fjd121003.gif&hash=b851290b5009d6cbea278abdfe102c9bc7b77a87)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2Ftake-jim-lehrer.gif&hash=4d0b05fd318688757190135c8e92304b02ba99a8)
Romney has now said 47% comment was completely wrong.
"I was against the 47% of Americans before I was for them."
Talk about really bringing on the "flip-flop" commentary! Who was it that was deemed a waffle during the 1990s? Can we dig those cartoons up and just re-brand them?
So some commentators are hinting that Obama was distracted, perhaps with something he was told before the debate--perhaps a national security issue.
On the radio I heard again (it was mentioned here already I think) it was the altitude that affected Obama because he flew in just a few hours before.
There was definitely something going on. Hopefully he can get back on track next time.
Quote from: Josephus on October 05, 2012, 08:24:10 AM
So some commentators are hinting that Obama was distracted, perhaps with something he was told before the debate--perhaps a national security issue.
I wish he'd bomb somebody. The news is: boring.
Quote from: Josephus on October 05, 2012, 08:24:10 AM
So some commentators are hinting that Obama was distracted, perhaps with something he was told before the debate--perhaps a national security issue.
I've also heard it was a soon-to-break (today or Monday) news story from a major news publication about a huge Obama fundraising scandal. Which smells of BS, but not significantly more so that all the other proposed excuses for Obama's poor performance.
I loved Jon Stewart making fun of Obama's performance in the debate and the Democrat spin of it on the Daily Show. :lol:
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
On the radio I heard again (it was mentioned here already I think) it was the altitude that affected Obama because he flew in just a few hours before.
This was one of the most desperate excuses. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2012, 07:54:14 AM
Romney has now said 47% comment was completely wrong.
Wrong as in misquoted/misinterpreted or mistaken?
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2012, 09:41:45 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
On the radio I heard again (it was mentioned here already I think) it was the altitude that affected Obama because he flew in just a few hours before.
This was one of the most desperate excuses. :lol:
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
I have on multiple occasions & it didn't bother me that much. But everybody is different
Maybe Obama got an early indication of a drop in unemployment rate to 7.8%, and he was preoccupied with trying to figure out how the fuck did that happen.
Maybe Obama was trying not to act too excited because he was afraid it would give Jim Lehrer a heart attack.
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2012, 09:41:45 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
On the radio I heard again (it was mentioned here already I think) it was the altitude that affected Obama because he flew in just a few hours before.
This was one of the most desperate excuses. :lol:
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
Eh? 5000 ft is just 1500 meters. There are cable cars that go up more than that within 10 minutes without people feeling sick.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:32:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
I have on multiple occasions & it didn't bother me that much. But everybody is different
Translation: Obama's a pussy. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2012, 09:41:45 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
On the radio I heard again (it was mentioned here already I think) it was the altitude that affected Obama because he flew in just a few hours before.
This was one of the most desperate excuses. :lol:
Right, which is why NFL teams have adjusted their travel schedules in advance to play in Denver in order to acclimate to the altitude for decades. Imagine a smoker showing up on the same day. I'd be sleepy, too.
Interesting how Romney decided to arrive in Denver 4 days earlier, though.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:32:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
I have on multiple occasions & it didn't bother me that much. But everybody is different
Do you smoke?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:09:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:32:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
I have on multiple occasions & it didn't bother me that much. But everybody is different
Do you smoke?
But Obama told everyone he quit a year ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055912/He-tobacco-free-Obamas-doctor-confirms-president-quit-smoking.html
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2012, 12:15:46 PM
But Obama told everyone he quit a year ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055912/He-tobacco-free-Obamas-doctor-confirms-president-quit-smoking.html
Uh huh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wddrA7SJYGo#t=506s
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2012, 09:41:45 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
On the radio I heard again (it was mentioned here already I think) it was the altitude that affected Obama because he flew in just a few hours before.
This was one of the most desperate excuses. :lol:
Right, which is why NFL teams have adjusted their travel schedules in advance to play in Denver in order to acclimate to the altitude for decades. Imagine a smoker showing up on the same day. I'd be sleepy, too.
Interesting how Romney decided to arrive in Denver 4 days earlier, though.
It is different if you are in an athletic competition. Playing your typical NFL game is probably a bit more aerobically taxing than talking for 90 minutes.
I think aircraft are only pressurized to 10,000 ft. Everyone is different, but Denver probably isn't that high for most people. If anything, Romney getting there 4 days earlier and Obama a few hours may show the focus each had on debate prep. Obama has a day job after all.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 05, 2012, 12:23:11 PM
It is different if you are in an athletic competition. Playing your typical NFL game is probably a bit more aerobically taxing than talking for 90 minutes.
I think aircraft are only pressurized to 10,000 ft. Everyone is different, but Denver probably isn't that high for most people. If anything, Romney getting there 4 days earlier and Obama a few hours may show the focus each had on debate prep. Obama has a day job after all.
I wasn't addressing it as a point of failure for his performance; he did that all on his own. :lol: I was addressing the issue of his noticeable tiredness and physical lethargy.
Then again, John Sununu said it was because he's "lazy" and "not so bright", so maybe it's just because he's, you know, a nigger.
Christ Allmighty - can't a guy just have an "off" day? Why does there need to be an excuse for everything?
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Christ Allmighty - can't a guy just have an "off" day? Why does there need to be an excuse for everything?
Yes, but why did he have an "off" day? That's the question that we're trying to answer.
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
No.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
I think this is the most likely explanation.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
Past experiences prove otherwise. It's not that he was just "off". It was that he's typically very good in those venues. Which is why there is so much confusion about this time.
When I went to Denver, it took me two days to acclimate to the elevation. I felt like crap. Now, I was anemic at the time, but I was also 18 years old and fairly athletic. I can easily see how arriving when he did could make him look so exhausted.
It doesn't explain his bad performance, but it could explain why he looked so rough and sluggish.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
Did you write this?
QuoteThe real Obama disappoints
By Ed Rogers
There is a great deal of weeping and gnashing of teeth among Obama supporters this morning because in their view, their man didn't do well in last night's debate. But President Obama didn't do poorly, he was just Obama. The left still projects its ideals of what a leader and a good candidate should be onto Obama, even though he has proved to be deficient as a president in both style and substance. Obama has been overrated for a long time. He was pitch-perfect in 2008 because of the times, but now he has a record to defend, explaining to do and a certain level of performance that is required. Last night, he wasn't up to the challenge.
What did Obama supporters expect? There is no defense for Obama's performance in office. And his whole campaign has been about distraction, which he can't artfully talk about face-to-face with Romney.
Andrew Sullivan, like my colleague Carter Eskew, is an intellectually honest and detached political observer. His analysis, along with that of Carter's, couldn't be more crystal clear. Sullivan, live-blogging the debate, said, "Obama is missing energy. optimism, passion." He also noted that the debate was "a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look."
The Obama campaign must be reeling. Obama doesn't admit mistakes, so there will be someone internally who will receive the blame for the president's poor performance. Also, I assume that externally, the left and the campaign will attack the debate itself — and the moderator — although that will be difficult, as Obama talked for four minutes longer than Romney did.
Dan Balz of The Post, writing on the debate immediately after its conclusion, said, "The debate was generally civil and proved to be one of the most substantive and detailed in recent memory." Balz's unbiased analysis stands in stark contrast with that of the New York Times, which has already started in its effort to belittle the entire affair, calling the debate an "unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity."
So what will Obama and his allies do now? There will be a huge appetite by the Obama campaign and the left to change the subject. Romney and Paul Ryan must be very sure-footed on the stump and very careful in the interviews they give. Any miscue or small gaffe will give the Obama forces what they need to open a new line of attack on Romney. If Romney and Ryan are focused and poised for the next few days, then the effects of last night's debate will be even more significant for Campaign 2012.
However, in campaigns, nothing is ever as good or as bad as it appears. The media tend to slosh from one extreme to the other. So Romney hasn't become a giant overnight, and Obama hasn't blown it. The fundamental change produced by last night's debate wasn't a change at all. The real Romney, who is informed, cheerful and well-prepared, finally got his chance for a one-on-one contrast with the dour, smug, overly self-confident, one-dimensional performer that is Obama. The race is very fluid and will likely remain that way until the very end.
The reality that the Obama campaign is waking up to this morning is that the next few days will probably be the most difficult to date in the president's charmed career.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:25:53 PM
Then again, John Sununu said it was because he's "lazy" and "not so bright", so maybe it's just because he's, you know, a nigger.
If a lazy and stupid guy rises to the top of 300m people, what does that say about the rest of us? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 05, 2012, 12:23:11 PM
It is different if you are in an athletic competition. Playing your typical NFL game is probably a bit more aerobically taxing than talking for 90 minutes.
I think aircraft are only pressurized to 10,000 ft. Everyone is different, but Denver probably isn't that high for most people. If anything, Romney getting there 4 days earlier and Obama a few hours may show the focus each had on debate prep. Obama has a day job after all.
I wasn't addressing it as a point of failure for his performance; he did that all on his own. :lol: I was addressing the issue of his noticeable tiredness and physical lethargy.
Then again, John Sununu said it was because he's "lazy" and "not so bright", so maybe it's just because he's, you know, a nigger.
I think the word he was looking for was "shiftless".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:09:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 11:32:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
Have you ever gone from 100 ft above sea level to 5000 ft above sea level in a matter of hours? It doesn't just drain you; it almost makes you feel sick. :x
I have on multiple occasions & it didn't bother me that much. But everybody is different
Do you smoke?
No, just cigars. I had been smoking cigarettes (temporary habit) my first time I flew to Denver, though.
My first day at 7800 feet (Ouray CO) was a bit tough even with proper hydration, the next day I went to 13,100 just fine (good thing I did not hike up :D).
Quote from: alfred russel on October 05, 2012, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:25:53 PM
Then again, John Sununu said it was because he's "lazy" and "not so bright", so maybe it's just because he's, you know, a nigger.
If a lazy and stupid guy rises to the top of 300m people, what does that say about the rest of us? :hmm:
What does that say about us? That we reelected him in 2004.
Obama actually lost the debate because Mitt cheated: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140435/-Did-Mitt-use-crib-notes-for-the-debate
Conservative blogs have been suggesting Obama had an ear piece in. No one has a monopoly on stupid.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 01:13:38 PM
Obama actually lost the debate because Mitt cheated: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140435/-Did-Mitt-use-crib-notes-for-the-debate
That's ridiculous. <_<
Mitt won because he was the better debater that night. It's stupid to say otherwise. I still feel like he didn't clarify a whole lot, but he was more likable, more direct, and certainly more engaged than Obama.
Besides, who walks into a debate without note cards? That would just be beyond stupid.
Quote from: Kleves on October 05, 2012, 12:55:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
Did you write this?QuoteThe real Obama disappoints
By Ed Rogers
There is a great deal of weeping and gnashing of teeth among Obama supporters this morning because in their view, their man didn't do well in last night's debate. But President Obama didn't do poorly, he was just Obama. The left still projects its ideals of what a leader and a good candidate should be onto Obama, even though he has proved to be deficient as a president in both style and substance. Obama has been overrated for a long time. He was pitch-perfect in 2008 because of the times, but now he has a record to defend, explaining to do and a certain level of performance that is required. Last night, he wasn't up to the challenge.
What did Obama supporters expect? There is no defense for Obama's performance in office. And his whole campaign has been about distraction, which he can't artfully talk about face-to-face with Romney.
Andrew Sullivan, like my colleague Carter Eskew, is an intellectually honest and detached political observer. His analysis, along with that of Carter's, couldn't be more crystal clear. Sullivan, live-blogging the debate, said, "Obama is missing energy. optimism, passion." He also noted that the debate was "a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look."
The Obama campaign must be reeling. Obama doesn't admit mistakes, so there will be someone internally who will receive the blame for the president's poor performance. Also, I assume that externally, the left and the campaign will attack the debate itself — and the moderator — although that will be difficult, as Obama talked for four minutes longer than Romney did.
Dan Balz of The Post, writing on the debate immediately after its conclusion, said, "The debate was generally civil and proved to be one of the most substantive and detailed in recent memory." Balz's unbiased analysis stands in stark contrast with that of the New York Times, which has already started in its effort to belittle the entire affair, calling the debate an "unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity."
So what will Obama and his allies do now? There will be a huge appetite by the Obama campaign and the left to change the subject. Romney and Paul Ryan must be very sure-footed on the stump and very careful in the interviews they give. Any miscue or small gaffe will give the Obama forces what they need to open a new line of attack on Romney. If Romney and Ryan are focused and poised for the next few days, then the effects of last night's debate will be even more significant for Campaign 2012.
However, in campaigns, nothing is ever as good or as bad as it appears. The media tend to slosh from one extreme to the other. So Romney hasn't become a giant overnight, and Obama hasn't blown it. The fundamental change produced by last night's debate wasn't a change at all. The real Romney, who is informed, cheerful and well-prepared, finally got his chance for a one-on-one contrast with the dour, smug, overly self-confident, one-dimensional performer that is Obama. The race is very fluid and will likely remain that way until the very end.
The reality that the Obama campaign is waking up to this morning is that the next few days will probably be the most difficult to date in the president's charmed career.
Wow, Looks like Obama lost the Conservative hack vote.
derspeiss, I know you're in full-on Republican mode while you're here (and you pretty much have to be defensive around here), but I have a question for you. As a Romney supporter, are you happy with how he's handled himself during this election cycle? In particular, how he's represented his ideas and how he's handled the pressure over the past year or so.
I'm not asking for the talking points that I can find on the typical Conservative website/paper/social site. You're an intelligent man. I'd really like to know your personal likes and dislikes of the man. I'd like to know if you're supporting him because he's the lesser of two evils, in your opinion, or if you're supporting him because you honestly think that he'll make a good (or great) president. (I know that there are plenty of Obama supporters who believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils rather than because he's going to be a great president in round two. I know few Republicans who are willing to say one way or another how they feel about Romney without resorting to Fox News talking points. I really want to know.)
For the record, I honestly don't feel like I know enough about what Romney really wants to do to have an opinion on him. What I do know isn't pleasant, but I know that it's a very small part of the picture and I'd like to know more.
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 12:52:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Maybe Obama just sucks eh? Anybody think of that?
Past experiences prove otherwise. It's not that he was just "off". It was that he's typically very good in those venues. Which is why there is so much confusion about this time.
When I went to Denver, it took me two days to acclimate to the elevation. I felt like crap. Now, I was anemic at the time, but I was also 18 years old and fairly athletic. I can easily see how arriving when he did could make him look so exhausted.
It doesn't explain his bad performance, but it could explain why he looked so rough and sluggish.
Doesn't bother me at all.
Of course, most elevation changes I experience are down, not up. :P
Maybe if I visit PDH or something.
Hell, I have a tough enough time with getting in and out of the Jeep, let alone the three flights of stairs to my front door. I would probably pass out during the final approach to DEN.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 02:59:28 PM
Hell, I have a tough enough time with getting in and out of the Jeep, let alone the three flights of stairs to my front door. I would probably pass out during the final approach to DEN.
Fat, old and out of shape is no way to go through life, son.
:P
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 03:04:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 02:59:28 PM
Hell, I have a tough enough time with getting in and out of the Jeep, let alone the three flights of stairs to my front door. I would probably pass out during the final approach to DEN.
Fat, old and out of shape is no way to go through life, son.
I like to think I've earned it.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 05, 2012, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 12:25:53 PM
Then again, John Sununu said it was because he's "lazy" and "not so bright", so maybe it's just because he's, you know, a nigger.
If a lazy and stupid guy rises to the top of 300m people, what does that say about the rest of us? :hmm:
Not sure about the rest of us, but it says that America Is A Great Country and even the lazy stupid niggers can become presidents.
Speaking as someone from Central Southern England, it's possible to get to over 1000 ft above sea level, if I travel around 90 miles. :gasp:
That is enough of that commie metric shit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
Maybe if I visit PDH or something.
Hell, I drop down 2000 feet when I visit Denver.
Quote from: PDH on October 05, 2012, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 05, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
Maybe if I visit PDH or something.
Hell, I drop down 2000 feet when I visit Denver.
Al-Qaeda say that when they visit Mali.
Who is she?
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 02:44:31 PM
derspeiss, I know you're in full-on Republican mode while you're here (and you pretty much have to be defensive around here), but I have a question for you. As a Romney supporter, are you happy with how he's handled himself during this election cycle? In particular, how he's represented his ideas and how he's handled the pressure over the past year or so.
How he's represented his ideas? Up until this week, not too happy about it. As I mentioned when I disagreed with Hans a few months ago, Romney absolutely has to make a clear case for himself. The way presidential elections go these days, voters seem less willing to dump incumbents (regardless of how bad the first 4 years were) unless the challenger presents clear, strong arguments. My take is that he just started to make his case in the first debate. I hope he can build on that momentum.
I think he did a stellar job handling pressure in the primaries, and I think that experience made him a stronger candidate in the general election. I definitely think the primaries helped sharpen him for Wednesday's debate, for example.
I wish he hadn't ducked the "Romneycare" attacks during the primaries. If I were him I'd tout it as an experiment that was worth trying in the context of a fairly liberal northeastern state and that one of the great things about our federal system is that you can try out such things at the state level to either prove or disprove their worthiness for other states to adopt. In a sense his strategy worked in that he eventually won the primary, but I think he could have done a better job taking that issue away from his primary opponents.
Whether he wins or loses, I think to this point he's run a much better campaign than McCain did.
QuoteI'm not asking for the talking points that I can find on the typical Conservative website/paper/social site. You're an intelligent man. I'd really like to know your personal likes and dislikes of the man. I'd like to know if you're supporting him because he's the lesser of two evils, in your opinion, or if you're supporting him because you honestly think that he'll make a good (or great) president. (I know that there are plenty of Obama supporters who believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils rather than because he's going to be a great president in round two. I know few Republicans who are willing to say one way or another how they feel about Romney without resorting to Fox News talking points. I really want to know.)
For the record, I honestly don't feel like I know enough about what Romney really wants to do to have an opinion on him. What I do know isn't pleasant, but I know that it's a very small part of the picture and I'd like to know more.
I'm ashamed to say that one of my main reasons for opposing Romney in 2008 was the Mormon thing. Once the dust settled from the 2008 election I came to around to the opinion that he would have been a better candidate against Obama and a much better president for the time than either Obama or McCain.
At his heart I think Romney is pretty much right in the center of the GOP. I'm a bit to the right of him on many things. I don't think he's another Reagan. But he's way closer to my views than Obama is. On top of that, I think Romney is a superb manager who can get difficult things done and that is what the country needs right now.
You know, that sounds reasonably sensible derspiess.
In other news, CdM will appreciate this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/snoop-dogg-obama-romney-instagram_n_1942724.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 (Snoop releases list of why he's voting for Obama).
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2012, 04:56:59 PM
You know, that sounds reasonably sensible derspiess.
Meri gets all the credit for that one.
Quote from: Jacob on October 05, 2012, 04:57:33 PM
In other news, CdM will appreciate this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/snoop-dogg-obama-romney-instagram_n_1942724.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 (Snoop releases list of why he's voting for Obama).
I agree on many points in both columns.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 04:09:24 PM
On top of that, I think Romney is a superb manager who can get difficult things done and that is what the country needs right now.
Thing is, that's what concerns me about him.
I don't think the CEO model works well in the White House: it's an environment where basic, fundamental convictions work the most in a singular cohesive policy (Dubya), not surrounding yourself with a variety of choices and sitting back, choosing among them; it leads to inconsistency, infighting and messy, often confused policy (Reagan's first term).
If this were 1994 or even 2003, I may very well have liked him. Alas, I believe he's sold his soul. And had it baptized with a bunch of dead Jews.
Meanwhile what we've gotten from Obama...
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Meanwhile what we've gotten from Obama...
General Motors alive, Bin Laden dead.
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Meanwhile what we've gotten from Obama...
Osama dead, DADT removed, and a general reluctance to destroy the government's revenue streams? Seems that'll have to do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
General Motors alive
And it only cost $24 billion and the elimination of creditor legal rights. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Meanwhile what we've gotten from Obama...
General Motors alive, Bin Laden dead.
I wonder if saving GM was a good thing in the long run? And the credit for Bin Laden goes to the CIA and SEALs.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 05, 2012, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 05, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Meanwhile what we've gotten from Obama...
General Motors alive, Bin Laden dead.
I wonder if saving GM was a good thing in the long run? And the credit for Bin Laden goes to the CIA and SEALs.
I guess that means they get the blame for not finding him for ten years.
Funny how Obama actually posited in the 2008 debate, the scenario of having to violate Pakistan sovereignty to go get Bin Laden; it's almost like he knew where he was. :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
General Motors alive
And it only cost $24 billion and the elimination of creditor legal rights. :)
And the alternative was Ford as last man standing? No thanks.
Quote from: mongers on October 05, 2012, 08:37:29 PM
Funny how Obama actually posited in the 2008 debate, the scenario of having to violate Pakistan sovereignty to go get Bin Laden; it's almost like he knew where he was. :ph34r:
You know how those Muslims communicate telepathically. Obama is: MALCOLM X-MEN.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2012, 04:09:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 05, 2012, 02:44:31 PM
derspeiss, I know you're in full-on Republican mode while you're here (and you pretty much have to be defensive around here), but I have a question for you. As a Romney supporter, are you happy with how he's handled himself during this election cycle? In particular, how he's represented his ideas and how he's handled the pressure over the past year or so.
How he's represented his ideas? Up until this week, not too happy about it. As I mentioned when I disagreed with Hans a few months ago, Romney absolutely has to make a clear case for himself. The way presidential elections go these days, voters seem less willing to dump incumbents (regardless of how bad the first 4 years were) unless the challenger presents clear, strong arguments. My take is that he just started to make his case in the first debate. I hope he can build on that momentum.
I think he did a stellar job handling pressure in the primaries, and I think that experience made him a stronger candidate in the general election. I definitely think the primaries helped sharpen him for Wednesday's debate, for example.
I wish he hadn't ducked the "Romneycare" attacks during the primaries. If I were him I'd tout it as an experiment that was worth trying in the context of a fairly liberal northeastern state and that one of the great things about our federal system is that you can try out such things at the state level to either prove or disprove their worthiness for other states to adopt. In a sense his strategy worked in that he eventually won the primary, but I think he could have done a better job taking that issue away from his primary opponents.
Whether he wins or loses, I think to this point he's run a much better campaign than McCain did.
QuoteI'm not asking for the talking points that I can find on the typical Conservative website/paper/social site. You're an intelligent man. I'd really like to know your personal likes and dislikes of the man. I'd like to know if you're supporting him because he's the lesser of two evils, in your opinion, or if you're supporting him because you honestly think that he'll make a good (or great) president. (I know that there are plenty of Obama supporters who believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils rather than because he's going to be a great president in round two. I know few Republicans who are willing to say one way or another how they feel about Romney without resorting to Fox News talking points. I really want to know.)
For the record, I honestly don't feel like I know enough about what Romney really wants to do to have an opinion on him. What I do know isn't pleasant, but I know that it's a very small part of the picture and I'd like to know more.
I'm ashamed to say that one of my main reasons for opposing Romney in 2008 was the Mormon thing. Once the dust settled from the 2008 election I came to around to the opinion that he would have been a better candidate against Obama and a much better president for the time than either Obama or McCain.
At his heart I think Romney is pretty much right in the center of the GOP. I'm a bit to the right of him on many things. I don't think he's another Reagan. But he's way closer to my views than Obama is. On top of that, I think Romney is a superb manager who can get difficult things done and that is what the country needs right now.
Thank you. That is actually exactly what I wanted to know. You've actually made a compelling case for him, and I appreciate your insight. :)
:lol:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/05/maher_rips_obamas_debate_performance_looked_like_he_took_my_million_and_spent_it_all_on_weed.html
Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2012, 12:06:43 AM
You've actually made a compelling case for him,
Compelling? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2012, 12:06:43 AM
Thank you. That is actually exactly what I wanted to know. You've actually made a compelling case for him, and I appreciate your insight. :)
It was more or less my standard stream of consciousness type of post, but thanks anyway :hug:
:D
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/msnbc-debate-fallout/1419929/
Quote from: derspiess on October 07, 2012, 11:51:26 PM
:D
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/msnbc-debate-fallout/1419929/
Oh that shit was funny. :lol:
Gallup poll numbers now out, which include the day after the debate, the day after that, and the day that sub-8% unemployment number was announced. Thus, we will see if the positive jobs headline will halt Romney's momentum this week. VP debate this Thursday.
So far, Obama's 5-point pre-debate lead has been erased.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Ft8ahhh-ho0sosuaddjw0ya.gif&hash=acd187e6040f5271babb64e3b68d44cb7354ff0d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fyw-tuhotheefulsizycwfq.gif&hash=e8a07377a8a6f7b1259c3ca12e70e635f074d5f1)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)
I noticed that the Romney sons are going to be on some late night shows this week.
I find it odd and extremely creepy that all 5 have to show up together everywhere. You'd think Mittens would send them out like Ringwraiths to all points on the map, only to converge later.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 08:24:56 AM
I noticed that the Romney sons are going to be on some late night shows this week.
I find it odd and extremely creepy that all 5 have to show up together everywhere. You'd think Mittens would send them out like Ringwraiths to all points on the map, only to converge later.
Dividing them makes them into individual appearances is boring. Everybody has a son or two.
Put them all together, and people are shocked at the visual existence of 5 sons. The only problem is that they are not super handsome.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 08:32:45 AM
Put them all together, and people are shocked at the visual existence of 5 sons. The only problem is that they are not super handsome.
They're all the same, though. It's like they talk to each other telepathically. It's just creepy when they're together.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fawesomeartofhorror.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fvillage-of-the-damned_2f71527c3721f195bb83dd22cceeec21.jpg&hash=2b336f82b8112a2bc4b5a29039137f559620b04b)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2012, 06:21:29 PM
General Motors alive
the elimination of creditor legal rights. :)
?
what creditor rights were eliminated?
And if that happened, how could it possibly have survived court scrutiny?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 08:32:45 AM
Put them all together, and people are shocked at the visual existence of 5 sons. The only problem is that they are not super handsome.
They're all the same, though. It's like they talk to each other telepathically. It's just creepy when they're together.
Yeah, seriously. You're supposed to strike out on your own at that age, not ride around in a five-seat stroller.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 09:26:21 AM
?
what creditor rights were eliminated?
And if that happened, how could it possibly have survived court scrutiny?
The right not to be blackmailed by the federal government.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 01:12:24 PM
The right not to be blackmailed by the federal government.
Who was blackmailed in the GM bankruptcy?
I know this line has somehow become gospel on the WSJ editorial board and similar places, but the factual underpinning seems curiously absent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:16:59 PM
Who was blackmailed in the GM bankruptcy?
I know this line has somehow become gospel on the WSJ editorial board and similar places, but the factual underpinning seems curiously absent.
The Obama administration threatened to publish the names of those holders of GM bonds who refused the terms of the restructuring.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
Quote from: Phil 5
So far, Obama's 5-point pre-debate lead has been erased.
[
:whistle:
Quote from: alfred russel on October 08, 2012, 01:25:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
Quote from: Phil 5
So far, Obama's 5-point pre-debate lead has been erased.
[
:whistle:
Those are RCP averages. You know what I think about that meaningless babble.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 01:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 01:16:59 PM
Who was blackmailed in the GM bankruptcy?
I know this line has somehow become gospel on the WSJ editorial board and similar places, but the factual underpinning seems curiously absent.
The Obama administration threatened to publish the names of those holders of GM bonds who refused the terms of the restructuring.
Why did that frighten them? I wouldn't care. Were they gonna sic the UAW baseball bat patrol on them or something?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 08, 2012, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 08:32:45 AM
Put them all together, and people are shocked at the visual existence of 5 sons. The only problem is that they are not super handsome.
They're all the same, though. It's like they talk to each other telepathically. It's just creepy when they're together.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/paul-ryan-knocked-over-by-pack-of-rambunctious-rom,29529/
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 01:29:51 PM
Those are RCP averages. You know what I think about that meaningless babble.
Actually, I've been mislead by a link to RCP. That was actually just one tracking poll, which is an even more meaningless number (especially if it was cherry-picked rather than taken at random). The RCP averages point to a 2-2.5% post-debate swing, which is exactly what 538 indicates as well.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 01:29:51 PM
Those are RCP averages. You know what I think about that meaningless babble.
Actually, I've been mislead by a link to RCP. That was actually just one tracking poll, which is an even more meaningless number (especially if it was cherry-picked rather than taken at random). The RCP averages point to a 2-2.5% post-debate swing, which is exactly what 538 indicates as well.
The RCP average still has a bunch of polls from before the debate built in.
Lets take a step back.
1)What do you think the national polls are right now?
2) If the only information I was able to provide right now were the popular vote total percentages, what is the threshold you would consider to be 50-50?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 08, 2012, 02:07:39 PM
Lets take a step back.
1)What do you think the national polls are right now?
2) If the only information I was able to provide right now were the popular vote total percentages, what is the threshold you would consider to be 50-50?
1) The best model I have indicates it's 51-48. I'll go with that.
2) I think Obama being behind by 0-1 points would be an electoral college toss-up.
Sounds reasonable.
The question is, what are the chances that Romney can make ~3.5% in just under a month. He is probably reasonably close to the margin of error in any event. I don't know what the historical trends are, but I would guess swings of 3.5% are not uncommon in the last month. I also don't know whether people usually break toward the challenger or incumbant.
All the polls I've seen have been either +1 Mittens, +1 Chicago Book Cookers, or a toss-up.
Will Obama: win the electoral college but lose the popular vote?
Quote from: Kleves on October 08, 2012, 02:36:26 PM
Will Obama: win the electoral college but lose the popular vote?
Hmmmm...that might get the Republicans to finally support ending it. I hope so.
I still do not understand why people are so excited about Romney after that debate. All his ideas were either horrible, vague, or completely unfeasible.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 02:40:49 PM
I still do not understand why people are so excited about Romney after that debate. All his ideas were either horrible, vague, or completely unfeasible.
I'm speaking very generally here because I don't quite agree with your characterization of Romney in the debate, but are you shocked that a significant portion of the electorate values style over substance?
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 08, 2012, 02:36:26 PM
Will Obama: win the electoral college but lose the popular vote?
Hmmmm...that might get the Republicans to finally support ending it. I hope so.
...with equal pushback from Democrats. It'd be 2000 in reverse.
But I would still support the electoral college system in any case.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 08, 2012, 02:24:08 PM
Sounds reasonable.
The question is, what are the chances that Romney can make ~3.5% in just under a month. He is probably reasonably close to the margin of error in any event. I don't know what the historical trends are, but I would guess swings of 3.5% are not uncommon in the last month. I also don't know whether people usually break toward the challenger or incumbant.
Lower than it seems, IMO. There is a solid bedrock that each candidate has, and it isn't going to be swayed by Obama farting during the debate. The first 1% swing is always going to be much easier than the next 1% swing. I also doubt that history would be much of a guide, since people nowadays make up their mind earlier and with conviction.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:46:48 PM
I'm speaking very generally here because I don't quite agree with your characterization of Romney in the debate, but are you shocked that a significant portion of the electorate values style over substance?
Good point, once I listened to the Nixon-Kennedy debate and was amazed anybody ever though Nixon didn't wipe the floor with him.
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:48:00 PM
...with equal pushback from Democrats. It'd be 2000 in reverse.
But I would still support the electoral college system in any case.
A system designed to make sure the small states do not get ignored...but in practice means everybody gets ignored except for Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania? I fail to see its merits aside from age.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 03:25:53 PM
A system designed to make sure the small states do not get ignored...but in practice means everybody gets ignored except for Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania? I fail to see its merits aside from age.
Agreed. It's a complete anachronism, and it disenfranchises states that aren't one of the few ones designated as "battleground".
I kind of like the electoral college, but all electors in all states should be divided proportionally (w/ perhaps the winner being awarded an extra vote or two).
The Electoral College should be like a real college, with parties and football games.
Quote from: Kleves on October 08, 2012, 03:33:52 PM
I kind of like the electoral college, but all electors in all states should be divided proportionally (w/ perhaps the winner being awarded an extra vote or two).
This is a compromise I could live with. I still do not understand what is so great about it. And if it is so great why don't States adopt it on a county by county level? Clearly a system that is liked should be used for every election.
The only advantage I hear is that supposedly if every vote was counted equally nobody would bother to campaign anywhere but LA, Chicago, and New York and this makes the small states more important. Since it does nothing of the sort I am waiting for the other reason it is a system I should like.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 03:48:02 PM
This is a compromise I could live with. I still do not understand what is so great about it. And if it is so great why don't States adopt it on a county by county level? Clearly a system that is liked should be used for every election.
Several states used to, and the Supreme Court made them stop as it violated equal protection (rural areas getting more representation discriminated against urban--and often minority--voters).
Quote from: alfred russel on October 08, 2012, 03:53:59 PM
Several states used to, and the Supreme Court made them stop as it violated equal protection (rural areas getting more representation discriminated against urban--and often minority--voters).
Wait the Electoral College is Unconstitutional for States? Talk about arbitrary bullshit.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 03:56:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 08, 2012, 03:53:59 PM
Several states used to, and the Supreme Court made them stop as it violated equal protection (rural areas getting more representation discriminated against urban--and often minority--voters).
Wait the Electoral College is Unconstitutional for States? Talk about arbitrary bullshit.
Nah, it makes perfect sense. If the Electoral College wasn't actually written into the constitution, it would be unconstitutional.
The case is Gray v. Sanders, ending Georgia's "county-unit" system.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=372&invol=368
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 03:31:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 03:25:53 PM
A system designed to make sure the small states do not get ignored...but in practice means everybody gets ignored except for Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania? I fail to see its merits aside from age.
Agreed. It's a complete anachronism, and it disenfranchises states that aren't one of the few ones designated as "battleground".
Except not at all. They're always free to vote for the other guy, and that changes the equation.
Still, you guys deserve to have these problems. Instead of going with the perfect Westminster system, you folks elected to fail at governing.
Quote from: ulmont on October 08, 2012, 03:58:28 PM
Nah, it makes perfect sense. If the Electoral College wasn't actually written into the constitution, it would be unconstitutional.
Woah. Consider my mind blown.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2012, 04:01:53 PM
Except not at all. They're always free to vote for the other guy, and that changes the equation.
Still, you guys deserve to have these problems. Instead of going with the perfect Westminster system, you folks elected to fail at governing.
Well at the time the Westminster system gave Old Sarum two seats in Parliament.
I like the electoral college. First, it isn't as though it is terrible. The way our country is divided, to lose the electoral vote and win the popular vote, the election almost needs to be 50-50. So a guy wins getting marginally fewer votes: that hardly seems as anti democratic as in a multi party parliamentary system where the winner gets perhaps 35% of the vote and then politicians cut deals to decide the form of government.
Second, doing away with it would really only level the playing field if we federalized elections. States don't have the same registration or voting procedures, and also don't have the same eligibility rules for who can vote.
Third, what chaos would there be if we needed a national recount. Florida alone was bad enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 01:19:24 PM
The Obama administration threatened to publish the names of those holders of GM bonds who refused the terms of the restructuring.
???
I don't understand what this means. GM's assets were sold in a 363 sale. There are no terms for creditors to refuse in such a sale. The only way to register disapproval is oppose the sale in court, and there is no way to do that incognito.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2012, 05:22:17 PM
???
I don't understand what this means. GM's assets were sold in a 363 sale. There are no terms for creditors to refuse in such a sale. The only way to register disapproval is oppose the sale in court, and there is no way to do that incognito.
Of course you know what it means. You were very active in the threads about the GM bailout.
One of the aspects of that bailout plan put forth by Obama's auto czar was it called for holders of GM bonds to be paid a specified fraction of par value (10%? 20?). Several bond holders opposed the plan, in the belief that as first claimants to GM's assets they could do better than 10% in a liquidation. Obama obviously didn't want GM to be liquidated. He threatened the bond holders with time in the media stocks if they didn't give in. After he made the threat they gave in.
There have only been a few Senate election polls post-debate, but the down-ticket effect of Mitt's performance is mixed for now.
The Ohio Senate race seems to come back to being tied after a Democratic lead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/oh/ohio_senate_mandel_vs_brown-2100.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/oh/ohio_senate_mandel_vs_brown-2100.html)
However in Virginia, Democratic candidate and former Governor Tim Kaine has maintained his lead against former Senator George Allen: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/va/virginia_senate_allen_vs_kaine-1833.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/va/virginia_senate_allen_vs_kaine-1833.html)
I am awaiting polls to see if Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts will regain his edge against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, who has recently built a narrow lead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html)
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 02:39:32 PM
Hmmmm...that might get the Republicans to finally support ending it. I hope so.
:o I LOVE the electoral college.
QuoteI still do not understand why people are so excited about Romney after that debate. All his ideas were either horrible, vague, or completely unfeasible.
People are voting on a man, not a series of policy positions. Romney came across well.
QuoteHe threatened the bond holders with time in the media stocks if they didn't give in. After he made the threat they gave in.
You really think this? I can't imagine what sort of company or individual would choose to act against their rational economic interest to avoid being criticised in the media :mellow:
Just to add to Phil's post, I wish Brown and Warren could both win :(
Quote from: Phillip V on October 08, 2012, 08:56:04 PM
I am awaiting polls to see if Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts will regain his edge against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, who has recently built a narrow lead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html)
He keeps being a dick, and he won't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2012, 09:04:22 PM
:o I LOVE the electoral college.
Certainly makes election night more interesting.
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2012, 03:23:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 08, 2012, 02:46:48 PM
I'm speaking very generally here because I don't quite agree with your characterization of Romney in the debate, but are you shocked that a significant portion of the electorate values style over substance?
Good point, once I listened to the Nixon-Kennedy debate and was amazed anybody ever though Nixon didn't wipe the floor with him.
People who listened to the debate on the radio did believe that, unfortunately a hell of a lot more people watched the debate on tv.
In other news, I have actually read some Hyman Minsky as of today. A working paper from '90 or '91 on the financial instability hypothesis. :) :Joos
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2012, 06:15:18 PM
Of course you know what it means. You were very active in the threads about the GM bailout.
One of the aspects of that bailout plan put forth by Obama's auto czar was it called for holders of GM bonds to be paid a specified fraction of par value (10%? 20?). Several bond holders opposed the plan, in the belief that as first claimants to GM's assets they could do better than 10% in a liquidation. Obama obviously didn't want GM to be liquidated. He threatened the bond holders with time in the media stocks if they didn't give in. After he made the threat they gave in.
The reason why I don't know what these means is because it didn't happen.
Most bond holders approved the 363 sale because they knew (and it was obvious) that a liquidation would leave them with nothing.
A few bondholders did challenge the sale. They failed because (among other things) they didn't present any evidence that a liquidation or any other alternative would yield more value, but the only consequence of that failure was Judge Gerber denying their claim. No pillories or any other medievial punishment equipment was involved.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 09, 2012, 12:42:05 AM
In other news, I have actually read some Hyman Minsky as of today. A working paper from '90 or '91 on the financial instability hypothesis. :) :Joos
:)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2012, 08:54:29 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 09, 2012, 12:42:05 AM
In other news, I have actually read some Hyman Minsky as of today. A working paper from '90 or '91 on the financial instability hypothesis. :) :Joos
:)
That calls for a toast! White wine and orange juice for everyone!
Why are you trying to make Minsky white whine?
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2012, 01:29:51 PM
Those are RCP averages. You know what I think about that meaningless babble.
Actually, I've been mislead by a link to RCP. That was actually just one tracking poll, which is an even more meaningless number (especially if it was cherry-picked rather than taken at random). The RCP averages point to a 2-2.5% post-debate swing, which is exactly what 538 indicates as well.
Well, now here's one you can dismiss as ever more meaningless:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
The Pew poll of likely voters had a gigantic swing, like 12-ish as of yesterday.
Yeah, swing of 12, I'm going to be a little skeptical without further corroboration. Let's see what Pew says in a couple of days.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 02:22:21 PM
Yeah, swing of 12, I'm going to be a little skeptical without further corroboration. Let's see what Pew says in a couple of days.
You know he linked to the RCP poll of polls, right? The result is certainly corroborated.
Now let's see if it's sustained, or a momentary bounce. That's the real question.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2012, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 02:22:21 PM
Yeah, swing of 12, I'm going to be a little skeptical without further corroboration. Let's see what Pew says in a couple of days.
You know he linked to the RCP poll of polls, right? The result is certainly corroborated.
No, the post-debate swing of 12 is not corroborated at all, and I'm not sure how the RCP poll of polls led you to believe otherwise. No other poll had a swing nearly that big, so such an outlier should immediately make everyone skeptical.
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2012, 03:03:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 02:22:21 PM
Yeah, swing of 12, I'm going to be a little skeptical without further corroboration. Let's see what Pew says in a couple of days.
You know he linked to the RCP poll of polls, right? The result is certainly corroborated.
No, the post-debate swing of 12 is not corroborated at all, and I'm not sure how the RCP poll of polls led you to believe otherwise. No other poll had a swing nearly that big, so such an outlier should immediately make everyone skeptical.
Because RCP merely combines together several different polls. Follow the link. 3 of the 6 polls now show Romney in the lead, 2 show Obama, and one shows a tie. I don't think anyone had Romney in the lead a few days ago.
It's a definite bounce. But lets see if it lasts.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2012, 03:20:32 PM
Because RCP merely combines together several different polls. Follow the link. 3 of the 6 polls now show Romney in the lead, 2 show Obama, and one shows a tie. I don't think anyone had Romney in the lead a few days ago.
And that corroborates a 12 point bounce how?
Quote
It's a definite bounce. But lets see if it lasts.
Yes, it's a bounce. But a 1 point bounce is not quite the same as a 200 point bounce. Magnitude matters in statistics, it's not just true/false.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2012, 08:53:37 AM
The reason why I don't know what these means is because it didn't happen.
Most bond holders approved the 363 sale because they knew (and it was obvious) that a liquidation would leave them with nothing.
A few bondholders did challenge the sale. They failed because (among other things) they didn't present any evidence that a liquidation or any other alternative would yield more value, but the only consequence of that failure was Judge Gerber denying their claim. No pillories or any other medievial punishment equipment was involved.
Really?? Under US bankruptcy law creditors have to convince a judge that they would do better under liquidation than a settlement?
This seems such a basic point, how was it the media so completely missed it at the time?
Associated Press (AP) criticized for using this as the main photo of an article about Romney visiting a school in Virginia today.
Caption: "Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney poses for photographs with students of Fairfield Elementary School, Monday, Oct. 8, 2012, in Fairfield, Va."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F10%2Fromney_fairfield_100812.jpeg&hash=b9253b25e7c77d09c7d3e74f79643f2db770ad40)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/ap-clarifies-romney-photo-caption-137909.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/ap-clarifies-romney-photo-caption-137909.html)
:lmfao:
Man gots junk in his trunk.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 04:21:31 PM
Associated Press (AP) criticized for using this as the main photo of an article about Romney visiting a school in Virginia today.
Caption: "Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney poses for photographs with students of Fairfield Elementary School, Monday, Oct. 8, 2012, in Fairfield, Va."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F10%2Fromney_fairfield_100812.jpeg&hash=b9253b25e7c77d09c7d3e74f79643f2db770ad40)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/ap-clarifies-romney-photo-caption-137909.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/ap-clarifies-romney-photo-caption-137909.html)
:lol:
tear in his pants. She can see his Mormon Magic Underwear.
Siegy is so going to photoshop that pic in ways you don't want to know.
That photo actually makes me more likely to vote for him. :o
Her facial expression turns me on.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 09, 2012, 06:58:24 PM
Her facial expression turns me on.
I bet she can suck a mean lollipop.
You guys are fucking scum.
i'm more freaked out by the one eye creepy stare on his left.
Quote from: HVC on October 09, 2012, 07:32:35 PM
i'm more freaked out by the one eye creepy stare on his left.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.hitfix.com%2Fphotos%2F286792%2FHit_Girl_Morning_Read_article_story_main.jpg&hash=8e0a8b3e7066023c3223814c933ea86cacddddee)
"It is necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back."
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 07:27:56 PM
You guys are fucking scum.
The look on Mittenses face tells me we're not.
A smoking hot 9.5 just came to my front door asking me to vote for Mitt Romney.
The evil has been turned up to eleven, people. Of course, I invited her in to try to convince me why I should. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2012, 08:51:07 PM
A smoking hot 9.5 just came to my front door asking me to vote for Mitt Romney.
The evil has been turned up to eleven, people. Of course, I invited her in to try to convince me why I should. :P
this thread is pointless without pics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2012, 08:51:07 PM
A smoking hot 9.5 just came to my front door asking me to vote for Mitt Romney.
The evil has been turned up to eleven, people. Of course, I invited her in to try to convince me why I should. :P
Where was the hausfrau in all of this?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 08:56:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2012, 08:51:07 PM
A smoking hot 9.5 just came to my front door asking me to vote for Mitt Romney.
The evil has been turned up to eleven, people. Of course, I invited her in to try to convince me why I should. :P
Where was the hausfrau in all of this?
Not home yet. Would have been funny to see the look on both of their faces if she'd happened to arrive right then. Oh well. Viking, taking pics would have been tough to explain. :lol: I might have been able to pull it off, but I dunno.
Anyone post Obama's Big Bird ad here yet? If so, I missed it. :unsure:
http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc
:hmm: Hey, Yi, want to cancel that bet we have? :unsure:
For Seedy (in the unlikely case you've missed this one):
Romney Put Profits From China Ahead of Security for America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCA1uDTDNDE&NR=1&feature=endscreen)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
Really?? Under US bankruptcy law creditors have to convince a judge that they would do better under liquidation than a settlement?
There was no settlement, there was an auction.
Quote from: Syt on October 11, 2012, 08:40:25 AM
For Seedy (in the unlikely case you've missed this one):
Romney Put Profits From China Ahead of Security for America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCA1uDTDNDE&NR=1&feature=endscreen)
You know I didn't, but thanks for the love. ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2012, 09:00:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 08:56:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2012, 08:51:07 PM
A smoking hot 9.5 just came to my front door asking me to vote for Mitt Romney.
The evil has been turned up to eleven, people. Of course, I invited her in to try to convince me why I should. :P
Where was the hausfrau in all of this?
Not home yet. Would have been funny to see the look on both of their faces if she'd happened to arrive right then. Oh well. Viking, taking pics would have been tough to explain. :lol: I might have been able to pull it off, but I dunno.
"Look, honey, I have to take this picture. It is for the internet."
DO: Go to the nearest Romney office ask for "that hot chick you paid to convince me to vote Romney" explaining that you need to take a picture because "the internet demanded it".
Edit: Even better if you bring a camera for the POV perspective.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 08:40:56 AM
There was no settlement, there was an auction.
And at the end of the auction the bond holders walked away with 15 cents on the dollar?
I get the impression you're word dancing on this one Joan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2012, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2012, 08:40:56 AM
There was no settlement, there was an auction.
And at the end of the auction the bond holders walked away with 15 cents on the dollar?
I get the impression you're word dancing on this one Joan.
No I'm not - and that wasn't my intention.
There are two basic ways a Chapter 11 case can go - there can be a formal reorg plan (these days usually prepack) or there can be an aucition of assets using what is called Section 363(b).
Section 363 tends to get used where the bankrupt estate is bleeding out money and a quick resolution is needed to stem losses, which was the sitution both Chrysler and GM found themselves in. It is fairly common and has been used many times before.
Assuming the Section 363 auction is conducted properly and fairly, there won't be prejudice to debtholders because it involves a market test of the value of the assets. Whatever they fetch at auction is what they are worth. In the case of the GM bankruptcy, the US government bid was easily the highest; no one else was prepared to pay value for the estate's assets.
There was no restucturing alternative to the Section 363 sale. Restructuring requies that the debtor secure outside financing (called "DIP" financing) to carry the company over. No one was willing to be a DIP lender, other than Treasury. And Treasury refused to provide DIP financing unless GM agreed to do the Section 363 sale.
So the bankruptcy court's perspective, the only alternative to the Section 363 sale was a liquidation. The court considered that altenative. It gave all parties the opportunity to submit evidence. The overwhelming majority of debtholders, including the official creditors committee, supported the sale of the assets to Treasury. The propononts of the sale submitted expert evidence to the Court establishing that in a liquidation, creditors would receive zero. Dissenting bondholders had the opportunity to submit opposing evidence but failed to do so. The court not surprisingly found that liquidation would not be a better option and thus approved the sale to Treasury.
The reason some people got exercised over the result in GM is that the purchaser of the assets (in this case Treasury) chose to agree to what some people saw as sweetheart deals with some of creditors (in particular UAW). That is the purchaser's prerogative - i.e. the purchaser can make whatever arrangements they so choose. What the purchaser CAN'T do is try to dictate what is done with the proceeds of the sale of asets - those proceeds have to be distributed strictly in accordance with bankruptcy priorities., and in the case of the GM bankruptcy, they were.
The real reason why this was controversial was that the purchaser in this case wasn't a private party, but the US government. And the perception among some was that the government was giving a sweetheart deal to the unions. That may be a legitimate objection to make but it doesn't implicate the rights of creditors in any way. The non-UAW creditors had the right to receive their fair share of proceeds and they did. The UAW creditors didn't get a dime more or less of those proceeds then they were entitled to by law. They cut a nice deal with the government to get the auto workers back on the job for new GM, but that is a separate matter.
Interesting and helpful Joan, thanks.
So the gubmint at the time of the 363 was sole owner of GM? And then decided to gift a certain percentage to the UAW?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 11, 2012, 01:01:31 PM
Interesting and helpful Joan, thanks.
So the gubmint at the time of the 363 was sole owner of GM? And then decided to gift a certain percentage to the UAW?
The government was the owner of the new entity that bought the old GM assets, and decided to gift interests in that new entity to the UAW and have the new entity make other concessions. But that didn't effect the rights of the GM creditors because they only had rights against the old entity.
Imagine for example that the Shop Around the Corner ("SAC") goes bankrupt. The SAC trademark, their goodwill, the inventory of books in their corner store location are all sold via auction. The highest bidder is Fox Books which pays $100,000.
Assume SAC owes $1 million to unsecured creditors who all rank equally. They consist of
Bank loan - 500K
unpaid bills to vendors, etc - 400K
Meg Ryan's unpaid back salary - 100K
Then each of those creditors is entitled to 10 cents of the dollar for their outstanding claims.
But let's say Fox bought the SAC assets because it intends to keep running the bookstore in its old location. They think they can make money there using their own more efficient supply and acquisition chain and by having better marketing and promotion. They also really want to keep Meg Ryan on because they think her bubbly good humor and infectious smile will help keep the old customer base. But Meg won't work for them unless Fox agrees to pay the reamining 90K for her back salary. So Fox agrees to pay up and as a result Meg ends up getting 100% of her losses paid at the end of the day, whereas everyone else only got 10%.
Now the other creditors might object and say this is unfair and even insinuate that Meg Ryan is getting a sweetheart deal because Fox's CEO is trying to make moves on her. But they don't have much a leg to stand on because their rights are unaffected by Fox's deal with Meg. No matter what they are entitled to the 10 cents in proceeds, no more no less and that is what they got. And if there is soemthing improper about the special treatment of Meg, well that is an issue for Fox's Board of Directors or shareholders to examine because the money is coming out of the Fox corporate coffers, but it is irrelevant for the old SAC creditors.
The GM situation is similar - the government can be attacked for wasting taxpayer resources giving the Union more inducement than was commercially justifiable, but the injured party in that event is the taxpayer, not the old GM creditors.
The race is now at its most competitive all year with a relatively huge number of states in play. The big question, besides the next debate in a few days, is which states the campaigns will commit to and which will be abandoned. Will Romney actually try and seriously make a play for Michigan and Wisconsin? Is Pennsylvania also competitive? Does Romney actually have to worry about North Carolina? Thus, the four states I just mentioned are probably big question marks for both campaigns. There are so few days left and precious campaign dollars.
Focus or keep trying to broaden the map?
Concerning North Carolina, there have only been two polls done this October and both show Romney leads, so I think RCP will soon color the state pink. Obama has not been in the state since the Democratic National Convention.
The "softest" supposed toss-up states are Michigan and Pennsylvania. They previously had Obama leading by around double-digits, so I am skeptical that they are actually in play. If the two states continue to show tight polling after this Tuesday's debate, then Obama is in serious trouble.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/2012electionmap1013.png)
Additionally, Romney has last week started outspending Obama for the first time this election in ad buys.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-UY370_ElectT_G_20121012230306.jpg&hash=7b24760d2199d2aaa80a54f4f243d3fd697a5add)
OK Joan, but what if the Corleone crime family goes bankrupt, or the Miami Sharks, or Weyland-Yutani?
It seems clear now that WV is the most racist state in the country. The south has been red since Reagan, they waited till the dems put up a black guy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 13, 2012, 09:24:07 PM
It seems clear now that WV is the most racist state in the country. The south has been red since Reagan, they waited till the dems put up a black guy.
Incorrect.
On voting patterns or their implications?
Yes!
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
What if the polls move 4-5 points in Romney's favor?
What if Obama chokes to death on his nicotine gum while walking to the Oval Office tomorrow morning?
:whistle:
:hmm: I have to say that I vastly underestimated the probability of Obama choking to death on his nicotine gum.
On the one hand, the rage would be awesome if Romney actually won. On the other hand the real-world consequences would be disastrous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 13, 2012, 09:44:42 PM
On voting patterns or their implications?
Voting patterns. West Virginia almost always went Democrat in Presidential elections until 2000, but they voted for Bush twice by large margins.
Gore lost in West Virginia because of some big NRA spending (West Virginia is a massively pro-gun state with lots of redneck hunters.) After that I think the declining power of unions sealed the national Dem's fate in WV (the State Dems are still mostly all powerful through inertia.)
WV was never your typical Democrat state anyway, it's always been extremely conservative socially but was dominated by large union concerns. As coal mining has died and various steel refining activity went away the State has become mostly a welfare/tourist state with most people working for the government or Wal-Mart and that means unions are no longer very powerful. All the natural social conservative impulses now are more important than the traditional reason for West Virginia's Democratic allegiance in national elections.
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2012, 02:37:28 PM
On the one hand, the rage would be awesome if Romney actually won. On the other hand the real-world consequences would be disastrous.
Yes, the gnashing of hopeless teeth and unchanged wailing would be as interesting a spectacle as '92's was, but the running of the Tea Party's tables would be rather unsightly.
Ok, looking at the numbers it appears a longer-term trend in WV. Still, they did have as large a vote for McCain who lost soundly as for Bush who won. (And Hilary mopped the floor with Obama in the primary). vOv
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2012, 03:32:31 PM
Ok, looking at the numbers it appears a longer-term trend in WV.
:D
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 14, 2012, 03:03:30 PM
WV was never your typical Democrat state anyway, it's always been extremely conservative socially but was dominated by large union concerns. As coal mining has died and various steel refining activity went away the State has become mostly a welfare/tourist state with most people working for the government or Wal-Mart and that means unions are no longer very powerful. All the natural social conservative impulses now are more important than the traditional reason for West Virginia's Democratic allegiance in national elections.
What I find interesting about WV is how the panhandle is in the GS locality pay scale for Washington, DC; Federal employees have grown there, should be interesting to watch how that part of the state continues to develop into a DC bedroom and commuter region for los federales.
My understanding is the Eastern Panhandle (the communities with direct transit to DC anyway) is very different from the rest of the state. It's actually a weird region of the country, I've been the Harper's Ferry once but unless you're deliberately wanting to go to the Eastern Panhandle there isn't much reason to be there. The major interstate from Maryland west (68) stays inside Maryland all the way until you're in North Central WV and bypasses the E. Panhandle entirely. I-81 cuts through the middle of the Eastern panhandle N/S but basically you'd have to be coming from southwest Virginia and going to like Harrisburg or central PA to actually use 81 through there as a through route, even going Roanoke-->Philly you'd switch off 81 before WV. I guess if you're driving all the way to NYC you'd stay on 81 too.
The eastern panhandle is also in a really weird, almost gerrymandered congressional district that includes Charleston (and there was legislation over this after the last census--it's one of the if not the largest east-west congressional district east of the Mississippi.) The eastern panhandle has a lot of conflicts with Charleston because the traditional powers in the state are southern coal and there's none of that in the EP.
One legislator even talked secession a year or so ago:
Linky (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/west-virginia-legislator-hatches-plan-rejoin-virginia)
QuoteWest Virginia Legislator Hatches Plan to Secede
—By Tim Murphy| Tue Feb. 1, 2011 4:00 AM PST
29
First Tunisia, then Egypt, now...West Virginia? Well, no, not exactly. But delegate Larry Kump has had it up to here with his state's government. "I take pride in being a Mountaineer," says the freshman legislator—but he'd rather break his beloved state apart than see it suffer on as an economic backwater.
"Our per capita income in West Virginia is 47th in the United States; it's one of the few things we're not 50th in," Kump says. "We've lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs over the past three years. Gross Domestic Product is 49th in the nation."
"One of my favorite sayings here in West Virginia is 'Thank God for Mississippi,' because if it wasn't for Mississippi, we'd be fiftieth in everything."
He adds, "I'd prefer West Virginians stay together and just get their act together—but if they don't, I think it's a good idea to go elsewhere."
Elsewhere, in this case, means moving back in with the ex. Last week, Kump, a self-identified "libertarian grassroots populist" with tea party ties, introduced a bill in the state legislature calling for a non-binding referendum on secession. Specifically, Kump suggests that the three counties of the state's eastern panhandle break away from the mother ship and become a part of Virginia (as they were prior to 1863). His reason is simple: Kump believes the state government has created an economic climate that's holding its citizens back. West Virginia's almost heaven, in other words, but it's an awful big "almost."
"One of my favorite sayings here in West Virginia is 'Thank God for Mississippi,'* because if it wasn't for Mississippi, we'd be fiftieth in everything," says Kump (who clearly hasn't seen this map). "All you need to do is cross the border in any of the surrounding states and they're all doing much better than we are."
Kump's hardly the first person to contemplate leaving West Virginia, but his grievances are noteworthy in part because of what inspired him: Unleashing Capitalism, a 2007 pro-business manifesto edited by West Virginia University economist Russell Sobel. The book, supported by funding from the energy conglomerate Koch Industries, has become a must-read for the state's reform-minded conservatives, who tout it as a blueprint for economic growth. The state's GOP chairman called the book "our party platform" when it was first released; it's spawned a sequel (about South Carolina), and been honored by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Washington-based think tank backed by Exxon-Mobil.
"A lot of people want to blame West Virginia's poverty on things like our climate or our geography or our weather," says Sobel. "The argument in the book is that our policies aren't as good as the states around us."
To wit, Kump (and the book) take dead aim at his state's regulatory structure and tax code, decrying West Virginia's tax on business inventory, for instance, as well as a sales tax on groceries. Among other things, Unleashing Capitalism makes the argument for the abolition of the state's minimum wage law and the easing of mine safety regulations.
But some of Kump's complaints could have broader support. For instance, he cites a report from Americans for Tort Reform, which calls the state a "judicial hellhole." Frivolous lawsuits might not be the job-killers business groups make them out to be, but Kump's call for an end to the election of judges isn't without merit. Judicial elections in West Virginia have helped corporations stock the bench with friendly jurists—just take it from John Grisham.
If nothing else, Kump has geography on his side. Sobel, who did not advocate secession in the book or consult with Kump about the bill, explains: "The eastern panhandle of West Virginia competes in the DC labor market. It's so different than the rest of the state."
That poor place—I feel bad for them," he continues. "They definitely deserve to be a part of one of those other states, you know? I think it's really funny that he's doing that."
Still, hatching a plan to detach your legislative district from the rest of the state is usually the kind of thing you'd want to run by residents first. Kump, who took office three weeks ago, concedes his constituents seemed "taken aback" at first. As one woman told the Charleston Daily Mail, "What would we do? Return to England?" People are starting to come around, Kump says. But his colleagues in the capital? Not so much.
"Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if we even get a committee hearing," Kump concedes. "But if we do, I'll go in with both guns blazing."
*This is not, apparently, just a West Virginia thing. Arkansans do it too—so much so that Gov. Mike Beebe recently had to tell his constituents to knock it off.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 15, 2012, 06:34:30 AM
My understanding is the Eastern Panhandle (the communities with direct transit to DC anyway) is very different from the rest of the state. It's actually a weird region of the country, I've been the Harper's Ferry once but unless you're deliberately wanting to go to the Eastern Panhandle there isn't much reason to be there.
I've applied to a position in Martinsburg recently, and man, now I know why so many GS-14s would want to relocate there, you can live like a prince on that scale, the home prices are ridiculously low. You ought to see the spreads you can score under 200K, and that's not including short sells.
But yeah, unless you have a reason to be there, there's no reason to be there. Whole lot of nothing between Charles Town and Harper's Ferry. But if you want to get away from it all, that's your destination.