Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Early Election Predictions (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Early Election Predictions
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It "seeming" to be a statewide conspiracy for Gore is absurd"

Statewide conspiracy is an absurd construction of what I said. But it's off topic and does not matter.

Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My numbers prediction is Obama with 50%, Romney with 48%, other candidates with 2% (Tea Party/fringe).

In terms of the electoral college, Obama will win 291-247

Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it can be shown pretty conclusively that everybody making predictions now is wrong, except in the case of like winning the lottery you happened to pick the winning number, whatever your "system" might have been.
Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama's numbers with African-Americans have slid continually since he came out on SSM.
I wouldn't put too much weight on that poll, Pete. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com did an analysis, and he had some significant critiques.

quote:
The poll surveyed 810 North Carolina voters, and weighted its demographics such that 22 percent were African-American. If you do the math, that suggests that about 180 respondents in the survey were black.

The margin of error on a 180-person subsample is quite high: about 7.3 percent.

And that probably underestimates the real margin of error somewhat...

In practice, it is possible that Public Policy Polling got something like 100 African-American voters on the phone rather than 180, which would be associated with a margin of error of about 10 percent. In addition, all of these African-Americans were reached on landlines, and they may have different demographic characteristics (for instance, being older) than the cellphone voters that the survey missed.

In fact, Nate has seen possible signs that African-Americans are changing their views on gay marriage.

quote:
Since Mr. Obama declared his support for gay marriage, however, and similar pronouncements by the N.A.A.C.P, Jay-Z and Colin Powell, a handful of polls suggest that opinions in the African-American community are shifting...

There is reason to be cautious in interpreting these numbers. First, polling has tended to overestimate support for same-sex marriage ballot referendums by about seven percentage points. In addition, the sample sizes for demographic subgroups like African-Americans are small, producing large margins of error.

Moreover, voters who are newly converted to a candidate or cause may support only tenuously at first and may be persuaded to revert to their prior position...

It may also be the case that Mr. Obama’s announcement did not change minds so much as it made it easier for African-American voters to express support for same-sex marriage publicly...

At the very least, the signs of a jump in black support for gay marriage suggest that black voters are unlikely to abandon Mr. Obama over his same-sex marriage stance, as some commentators had predicted.

Although there are signs that the gay marriage issue isn't winning Obama friends in the black community, it very well may not lose him enough friends to count.
Posts: 7433 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The idea that Obama's ssm stance is going to hurt him politically is itself a strategic narrative. If Obama loses, the anti-ssm movers are going to do everything they can to blame it on ssm, in order to frighten other politicians away from similar stands. Its a pretty obvious tactic, considering that the narrative is already getting tons of play, despite the fact that there has been no evidence at all that its costing Obama votes in any demographic. People are doing the correlation/causation shuffle to tie any downward polling fluctuation to Obama's announcement.

As Wayward points out, people who are actually talking to and polling on the issue are finding that its more likely the exact opposite is happening; Obama's stance is eroding the slightly-higher-than-average opposition to ssm in the black community:

NPR

Posts: 4425 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Although there are signs that the gay marriage issue isn't winning Obama friends in the black community, it very well may not lose him enough friends to count.

It might not. It's too early to tell. What I found interesting is that losing a mere 9% of the black vote could swing key states.

If Romney started courting leagues of small independent black churches, I suspect he could swing that many. More may swing the other way, embracing SSM, but if Romney only needs 9% to effect such changes in key battleground states ...

Surely you concede that with his last election numbers nearing 95% of the black vote that O-man's got no where to go but down.

What else is Romney going to talk about? National Defense? Whoops! Obama's rock hard there. The economy? Not in too many specifics, or else Romney walks the tightrope between preelection flip-flop and alienating the mainstream with T party lingo. Marriage is going to come up.

Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I predict that when the R v O campaign gets heavy, that an ssm supporter planted high in the Romney PR machine will call a press conference and say Oh my gawsh, I just realize that Governor Romney opposes equal marriage rights and I cannot in conscience support him. You know, typical lefty scripted spontenaity.
Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What else is Romney going to talk about? National Defense? Whoops! Obama's rock hard there.
Must...resist..riff..on.."rock hard".

Republican dogma teaches that any Democrat is weak on defense no matter his actual record would indicate. Romney can and will and is already flogging this message.

Posts: 5657 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama can simply respond that Romney ("Russia, our #1 geopolitical foe...") apparently knows as much about foreign policy as Cain ("Libya....Libya...Libya..."). More, actually, since he speaks French like a frog. There are differences, too, in that Cain said he would like to be the Secretary of Defense in a Romney WH and Romney may have impulsively barked out "sacre bleu!" when he heard about that.

[ June 15, 2012, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You know, typical lefty scripted spontenaity.

Those wascally leftists...
Posts: 4425 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, well wait 35 years until the conservatives finally grasp and adopt your tactics (just as the Tea Party has adopted Lefty tactics from the late 1970s) and see how you like them used against you. [Razz]
Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama wins.

Romney will garner flyover country.

Obama will manage to lock out the North East, and the West coast. He will take Penn and Ohio with metropolitan city based votes. He will also eek out a victory in Florida.

In essence, his win will be built from the following coalition.

DNC supporting Democrats. The machine will lockstep the traditional DNC Big Union political focus that depends on 4 more years with Obama.

Liberal causes based independent Liberals. Social cause or liberal causes will be forced out of desperation to support Obama. No one really cares about the temperature of the Sun, who is starving in Appalachia, or why Jim cant marry John. But the supporters of these fringe political issues aren't even invited to the political table for discussion with Romney.

Black voters, voting mostly due to pigmentation and no other reason. Blacks have taken a huge economic hit under this administration's policies. But for the most part, the black voters won't stop and question if President Obama's promises have even remotely turned out as he said they would.

Hispanics that are citizenship challenged. Motor Voter laws, and the refusal of Voter ID laws has created an interesting case where many of the Southern States now have substantial illegal voters who break the traditional mold. In the past we had "Dead Voters" or "Out of District Voters", or even the favorite ploy of "mass proxy" voters. But in this case we have a substantial pool of "voters" who will vote in Federal Elections and largely for Democrat candidates. Given Obama's recent announcement to not enforce immigration law, he will undoubtably enjoy even more support from this group of voters. In most states and in most voting districts the existence of illegal voters has as much impact as absentee ballot provisional counting does. IE not enough to make a difference even if every single vote by the illegals was cast in the same direction. However in states like Florida, where margins in presidential elections amount to a couple thousand, having 80,000 illegals registered to vote who are also primarily Hispanic, and primarily leaning Democrat probably will take that state, and the election to Obama's favor.

Social voters. The Get out the vote to be in a popular movement young voter. Likely their first election. Likely don't know who their state representatives are or even what the <D> or <R> means following the names on the ballot. These are voters who are voting because they have been told by their peers they have to vote.

Romney will lose due to the following:

RNC. Its so out of touch that it cant understand that raising scads of cash from major corporate donors and conservatives with more money than sense in order to run glitzy attack media advertising, does nothing to address what most Republican rank and file see as important. All in all the RNC favored candidates from Romney down are there not because they are the best people but because they played the RNC game and got the money.

Moral Issues Supporters. In the grand scheme of things, where you are allowed to put a penis, or what you are allowed to put into a vagina is ultimately not an actual political policy debate. Many of the fundamentalist Christian denominations threaten candidates that if they don't publicly espouse the same opinion, they wont get that denomination's block vote or the money that is needed to fund second and third tier candidates in an election cycle. Most American's dont really care if Gary marries Steve. But Romeny will be too timid to risk losing this block of voters and therefor two their version of the party line.

Tea Party voters. While the mainstream media still miss characterizes and misrepresents the Tea Party, the reality remains that these people see a specific but also broad set of issues that need to be addressed. IE, the government has too many regulatory holds on every day life. The government has grown too large in terms of administrative units and in actual employees. Taxation policy is too dysfunctional to either fund the government or be fair in the taxation levels. For romeny to win their vote, he has to promise to eliminate government agencies, reduce government staff levels, eliminate regulatory oversights, eliminate current tax code, and propose an enactable replacement of the tax code that is broad, flat and fair. None of which Romney is going to do. Many Tea Party supporters will be casting protest votes or not at all.

The average American. TMZ and the latest fashion craze. They will tire of the contest between the two candidates early. Given the portrayal of Obama over the past 3 years in the media, these voters wont even be able to fathom a single plausible reason why anyone wouldn't want Obama as President for 4 more years. Thankfully most of them wont vote in November because they will actually somehow forget about election day. But enough of them will go to the polling station to eliminate Romney's chances.

Popular vote wise, I see Obama pulling 52% to Romney's 48%.

EC wise I see it being much tighter.
Obama 268
Romney 270
WA,CA,OR,NV,CO,NM, NE2, MN, WI, IL, MI, NY, VT, ME, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, DC, MD, NC,SC, HI, all going to Obama.

Remainder going to Romney with key wins in VA and FL.

Will lead to the claims of Romney not being a legitimate political leader, stolen elections, and a call for the elimination of the EC.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But in this case we have a substantial pool of "voters" who will vote in Federal Elections and largely for Democrat candidates.
Can you provide any proof of this at all?
Posts: 19688 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah sure...

Why dont you consulte with the Florida AG, and the fact they have 80,000 illegal but registered voters according to Federal Department of Homeland Security. These represent only the partial lis since the original request only contained a sample from the Florida registered voters list pool which was cross referenced with the Federal illegals list. So yeah.. 80,000 in Florida so far.

Or closer to home where I live, the Democrats in charge here discovered to their alarm that there were over 1000 illegal Hispanic voters that voted in the last election, who are still registered to vote, who also voted for Republicans , and who are likely the cause of a change in hands from a Democratic State Senator to a Republican State Senator as well as two county commissioners changing to Republicans.

But in the case of Florida, you might want to see what former Speaker Pelosi had to say about this issue. And why Florida wants Holder gone so it can purge the illegals it has confirmed as being illegal from their voter rolls.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AH.

Checking out Red's lead: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/21/nancy-pelosi-this-holder-contempt-vote-is-about-voter-suppression/

So THAT is why the Dems ally with the PRI and why they are supporting the cartels with guns.

With the US economy tanked, illegals were going back to Mexico. Violence makes them flee back north despite our poisoned economy.

Not terribly likely, but better than Cherry's gun control theory. And I have to say more likely than Holder's explanation for Fast & Furious.

And it's certainly more likely than Pelosi's conspiracy theory that Republicans planned Operation Fast and Furious themselves, then convinced Holder to willfully ignore the requirements of a Congressional subpoena, so that they could bring him up on contempt charges, so that they could undermine Holder's quest to protect the right of illegal aliens to vote ... oh wait.

[ June 22, 2012, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Moral Issues Supporters. In the grand scheme of things, where you are allowed to put a penis, or what you are allowed to put into a vagina is ultimately not an actual political policy debate. Many of the fundamentalist Christian denominations threaten candidates that if they don't publicly espouse the same opinion, they wont get that denomination's block vote or the money that is needed to fund second and third tier candidates in an election cycle. Most American's dont really care if Gary marries Steve. But Romeny will be too timid to risk losing this block of voters and therefor two their version of the party line."

Not really relevant, since Romney obviously isn't getting the hardcore fundy vote in the first place, and secondly he's already declared as a moderate on that issue, ie. pro SSU but against the neutering of the marriage concept. And Obama's taken the full neuter position on ssm, which puts him in the minority. O's even going to lose black votes on this, though not the majority. If you think that O's going to win the national vote on SSM, you've mistaken the campus for the country.

Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Black voters, voting mostly due to pigmentation and no other reason
That's why nearly the same percentage of black voters cast their ballots for Kerry - because he had pigmentation as well.
Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Black voters, voting mostly due to pigmentation and no other reason
And when Mormons vote for Romney, will that be because of pigmentation as well?
Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Lefties have tried very hard to make blackness a religion. Hence Kwanzaa. [Razz]

Sorry, GregD, but you earned that one.

Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding is that while blacks have consistently voted democrat around the same percentage year after year they had a much higher turnout for Obama.

I predict that turnout will drop significantly this time around. I predict something similar will happen with evangelicals and Romney. Similar percentages but lower turnout.

Posts: 3630 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOJ

Yep they did. And when asked why they voted Post election 2008, most of the voters that happen to be black voted for him not due to any political issue, nor due to party affiliation, but instead simply because he was black or because they said it was about time that a black person take the office for the first time.

Hence the statement that most blacks will indeed by self admission be voting based solely on skin color. And you are correct in noting the level of support by blacks for the democrat presidential candidate in 2008 went up very high. Higher than the normal Black goes Democrat block. Which is why the DNC decided to figure out for sure why Obama got that hige a percentage of the Black vote on the hopes that the reson why could be tranfered to other groups to increase their voting percentage as well.

Unfortunately, the DNC found out that it was by voter self admission simply due to skin color and not due to some wizbang effectiveness of the DNC campaign. Meaning unless someone can manage to invent a skin pigmentation changer, the 95% Black support for Obama is not translatable to other groups.

So while people are TRYING to make this about racisim on my part, I'm just pointing out what the DNC found out for itself.

Its politically incorrect to say a black man may vote for a black man. Just as its politically incorrect to point out a white man will vote for a white man. Or even that mormons might vote for mormons.. or catholics for catholics, jews for jews...

The issue is the last group that will cost Romney the popular vote. There are just too many Americans who lack any understanding of economics, geopolitics, economics, and civil liberties to enable them to make an informed and educated decission upon who to vote for and why they should.

We have people who vote based on the pressence of a D or R next to a name. That is ignorant. We have people who vote based on religion. That is ignorant. We have people who vote on skin color. That is ignorant. But the reality is we have a bunch of prejudicial people who pre judge a candidate on some pretty pathetic standards. That is why we get the crap we have been getting for the last decade of political races.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

A 7% increase in Blacks voting for the Democrat Presidential Candidate 2004 vs 2008 is a huge increase by any standard. Did all Blacks vote on the basis of skin color? Nope. But a large number did by self admission. And when you take the Brady effect into account, the likelihood is that far more did vote based solely on skin color than was self admitted.

A 7% gain in votes in a discreet voting block is always going to be investigated for causality and exploitation.

By the same token however you also need to factor in why for example, did white Democrats self admittedly not vote for Obama in 2008. By self admission at least 3% of White Democrat voters did not vote for Obama because of his skin color. Given that White male voters make up 40% of the electorate, that cost Obama a statistically larger number of votes that essentially wiped out any advantage Obama got from getting 7% more votes from the black voting block which makes up only 13% of the total electorate.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~sstephen/papers/RacialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn-black_americans.htm

Examples of scholarly takes on the issue which informed my current opinion, which remains that many people are voting for a candidate for some of the most senseless reasons that are not critically arrived at through an educated process but instead, are arrived at for the most superficial and least informed reasons an observer could imagine.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Examples of scholarly takes on the issue which informed my current opinion, which remains that many people are voting for a candidate for some of the most senseless reasons that are not critically arrived at through an educated process but instead, are arrived at for the most superficial and least informed reasons an observer could imagine."

Which is why they are so easy to manipulate with lies and negative rather than positive advertising. I expect this to be the most negative campaign in my lifetime.

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its going to make the 2004 election, where the differences that were examined were so trivial between Kerry and Bush, while no reporter ever actually asked questions that demanded concrete numbers and definitive answers of the candidates seem to have been the most thoroughly examined political contest ever. Were there real differences between them? Yes. Did the average voter have an easy way to determine what they were? No.

Skip forward to 2008. That had to be the most white gloved contest ever. With both bending over backwards to not disagree substaintially while at the same time going to great pains to avoid any potential investigation of either candidates potential shortcomings. The only difference that was publicly discernible was party affiliation. That there were huge difficiencies in both candidates was never examined by the average American or for that matter even the media. McCain has a horrible temper which has cost him many political victories and defeats. No one bothered asking him " Why do you lose your temper so frequently and have a reputation for not being able to seal deals or follow through on stuff?". While at the same time no one ever bothered asking Obama " Since you havent actually had a private sector job & have apparently always been running for the next highest office instead of performing the duties of the office you currently hold at the time- what allows you to say you understand the private sector or how representative government works?"

And in the latter case we have an inexperienced narcissist in the office who can't understand why he is being criticized at all when most of his efforts have come up as goose eggs.

I dont think the topics of race or religion will be brought up by either side officially. I think the actual campaigns will both be expressing nebulous non specific platitudes ala Obama's current slogan word "Forward". But I do think the pacs and the independent political pressure groups are going to get obscenely ugly making it seem to the average American that their choice is between Pol Pot and Stalin.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskullvw,

quote:
Since you havent actually had a private sector job & have apparently always been running for the next highest office instead of performing the duties of the office you currently hold at the time- what allows you to say you understand the private sector or how representative government works?"
Perhaps you could inform yourself before such statements? His career history is readily avialable via wikipedia and includes many years in private sector employment

"worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group"; "While in law school he worked as an associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin"; "n 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004" - which excludes his community organizing jobs, his consulting for community organizing, and his law professor position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama

Also from what I recall he was considered one of the most effective politicians in each of the offices he held. So your disparaging remarks about running for the next office implying that he failed to fulfill the duties of the current office are quite wide of the mark.

[ June 23, 2012, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7093 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of counsel would give him some real world experience.

As a general rule, junior associate jobs at firms where there are multiple named partners are carefully shielded from anything that would give them real world experience ...

Posts: 36642 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And in the latter case we have an inexperienced narcissist in the office who can't understand why he is being criticized at all when most of his efforts have come up as goose eggs."

Consider that that is an opinion, and further consider that the facts might not conform to your opinion.

"I dont think the topics of race or religion will be brought up by either side officially. I think the actual campaigns will both be expressing nebulous non specific platitudes ala Obama's current slogan word "Forward". But I do think the pacs and the independent political pressure groups are going to get obscenely ugly making it seem to the average American that their choice is between Pol Pot and Stalin."

The best thing you and I have that brings us together is our cynicism. Not a good model for a marriage, but not altogether unhelpful in politics. If we could meet without knives I imagine we'd have a lot to share.

Posts: 5607 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice to see you around, Red. I agree that issues of actual substance will be mostly avoided in this campaign, and that the general public seems not to engage with the things that really effect them. I think your examples, however, are *examples* of missing that mark. McCain's temper? The guy is a Senator; I don't think that his anger issues are anything worrisome when it comes to holding office. A much better question would have been "why do you want us to follow Ireland's model of corporate welfare." Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but McCain was explicitly naming Ireland as a model in the debates, and their economy has experienced the very worst of the global recession.

Indeed, the recession is the overwhelming issue for most americans, in terms of direct impact on their lives. Those who caused the collapse were primarily shielded from consequences, while middle and lower class Americans have paid a heavy price for four years now. The income gap is widening significantly, meaning more for those who have, and less for the rest. The economy has such a direct, pervasive effect on people's lives that it dwarfs in significance any other issue. And yet, the media and the political class have reduced the issue to a kind of "who is a better pilot" question, as though it were simply a matter of maintaining good growth through deft touches. This kind of inanity is why large segments of the population can favor Romney on the economy, when he's pretty explicit about favoring the wealthy (at everyone else's expense).

Posts: 4425 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That had to be the most white gloved contest ever. With both bending over backwards to not disagree substaintially while at the same time going to great pains to avoid any potential investigation of either candidates potential shortcomings.
You are wrong. Let's do a thought experiment - let's imagine that Romney gets the same level of scrutiny in 2012 as Obama got in 2008. What level of media attention to Romney's religious influences would equal the level of coverage provided to Obama's? How about if we give equal levels of attention to every unsavory character who ever had an association with Romney equal or greater to the association that Saul Alinsky or that Rezko guy had to Obama.
Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, What we have is a situation where the effect of race may have been to persuade 5-7% more of blacks to vote for Obama than they did for Gore and Kerry (also note that higher percentages of non-blacks also voted for Obama, so preference based on race alone probably only accounts for a small fraction of that gap). At the same time, you also cite the Bradley effect, which asserts that a small percentage of the white population claims to vote for the black candidate in polls, but then actually casts ballots for the white candidate.

Given that situation, you paraphrased some polling in a way that is inaccurate and derogatory to blacks as a class, which happens to be the definition of racism:
quote:
And when asked why they voted Post election 2008, most of the voters that happen to be black voted for him not due to any political issue, nor due to party affiliation, but instead simply because he was black or because they said it was about time that a black person take the office for the first time.
While it's likely that many blacks expressed pride in voting for a Presidential candidate from a similar ethnic background (something that is near universal in American politics), the implication that blacks were swayed by race over everything else is inconsistent with the data in a way that reflects a common theme of American racism that it is blacks who are really the true racists against "us".
Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR

saying internships and political advocacy lobby group activity is "private sector" experience simply isn't. As has been publicly agreed that his only actual experience in the private sector was his community organizer position, he has been dependent his entire career where he was paid a wage on either a government check or a government grant that ultimately funded his check.

I'd have more confidence in him if he had demonstrated a willingness to flip burgers in the summer and mow other people's yards as a youth. I'd have more confidence in him if he had had his wife's career- even if there is strong support for the fact some of her jobs were political payoffs.

As to his actual political performance in each office he has held, there is a singular commonality they all have with each other. Namely his actual absence from the performance of his office he was elected to because he was busy already running for the next. His number of non-votes, absent votes, and present votes in his various political offices is pretty self damning. If you mean that a politician is most effective by being absent from office and therefor not creating new laws or regulations- or sponsoring new bills that lead to said same, then yes he very well might be an effective political office holder.

But reality is, he was a subsidized junior member of a law firm with the titular title of community organizer. Thats his only actual real world private experience. He was essentially a loaned lawyer to ACORN. And we all know just how worthy and non-criminal ACORN turned out to be...

Personally, thats not much experience at all. His 50+ non votes, 50+ failed bills support, and if I am recalling correctly only 2 cosponsorship bills in the US Senate has been objectively determined to be a very low performance threshold for those in his peer group. His track record in the Illinois Senate was also as lackluster, with one of the main excuses offered by him for this pattern of poor performance being that he was seeking a higher office where he could actually get something done when he realized the office he had just gotten was not an effective enough tool for him to offer political leadership and influence from. By his own admission he was not effective in these previous offices because he was looking for a higher level of office that would enable him to more effectively serve his constituents.

His experience really is thread bare. And his results now that he has the highest elective office in the land have really come up goose eggs. He hasn't fixed the economy- its at the same exact level it was when he started if you apply the most generous of benchmarks. His debt policy is an utter failure. His energy policy has been an utter failure. His healthcare policy has driven up costs, stiffled economic growth and is likely to be determined on Monday to be unconstitutional. His voter rights policy has been a failure. His border control policy has been a failure. His withdrawal from Iraq is bipartisainly viewed as being ultimately non productive and likely leading to Iraq falling into dictatorship. His Afghan policy is on such shakey ground that the Afghans are moving to closer ties with Pakistan. His Pakistan policy has created a situation where we may not even be capable of staying in Afghanistan even if the Afghans request it of us. His monetary policy with China has failed. His relationship with Russia has become so failed that Putin does not even want to hold any discussions of substance with Obama. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria are all total disasters. Isreal has been treated so duplicitously that they have publicly stated they will determine their own solution to the various Arab Spring crisis issues and Iran. Iran now has the launch capacity for a nuclear bomb and likely 6 bombs worth of weapons grade material...

I mean hey we could go on listing utter failures in his policy choices, but that would be unfair to not also list an accomplishment, like say maybe managing to continue most of Bush's policy regarding the War on Terror which allowed him to have the opportunity to kill OBL. Or the fact he insulted the Brits by giving back Churchill's bust which still is a sore spot with our mother country.

But at this point it is very hard to argue that Obama has been a successful executive while head of state. His most oft used tactic is to simply blame others for any failings he is questioned about. If its not Bush at fault, its Republicans, or earth quakes, or market conditions in China, or the governments of Europe. Never once has he said he was at fault. He always blames others and is always ready to take the credit. His use of the word "I" in speeches is indicative of this. The inability to admit responsibility and the aggrandizement of the personhood above others are key components of the classic narcissist. About the only instance where he admitted partial personal responsibility for a failed policy was when he admitted that there weren't as many shovel ready projects as he was lead to believe there were when he passed year one stimulus.

The guy really has been a monumental failure- and we deserved it because too few people ever even attempted to grill then candidate Obama about his experiences and qualifications. We were all jointly messmerized by the fact that he was a post racial canidate that surely everyone would work for once he was elected - ushering us into a new age of hope and change.

Really didnt work out too well. But ironically the fault is ours because of the 300 million of us, the best we could come up with was a foul tempered military hero Senator who cannot get crap done in the Senate and a Senator with no previous experience other than a stint as a community organizer legal advisor who couldnt get anything done in the Senate because he was almost never there. We voted for these loosers and we got what we deserved.

Even if McCain had been elected, we'd still be in likely the same exact boat because neither man was actually qualified to be a President. McCain would have done slightly better on the economy, and maybe handled the Arab Spring issues a bit better, but otherwise it would have been little different from what Obama has managed to do.

I am very pessimistic about this election. Namely because Obama is so over his head its become almost nightmarish to see what his next mistake will be. And in Romney's case, he is so far removed from the common man that he cant even begin to see it from the perspective of peopl that cant even afford a savings account. Its just going to be a disaster regardless of who wins because we have a choice between an incompetent incumbent and an incompetent challenger.

In the end it isnt much of a choice.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

I'm sorry but I am not going to discuss these new issues with you.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red for his success or lack thereof you need to look at legislation introduced, legislation supported, and legislation opposed. A lot of voting stuff doesnt matter at all since it can be fluff legislation; legislation so broadly supported or opposed that an additional vote can't impact the outcome; or you can have a matching vote where a member who votes opposite you also agrees not to show, and esentially nullify.
Posts: 7093 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the terms of legislation introduced, he has almost none, his support and opposition of bills is what he is supposed to do in the first place. That would be congratulating someone for being a competent ticket taker at the ball park. Thats what both of them are supposed to do. The historical benchmark for Senators is the bills they sponsor AND get turned into law.

As far as I know he co sponsored two bills, both of which failed. And he otherwise had no leadership or ownership invested in other individual bills.

So by your new standard, he is a failed Senator. But then again his peers pretty much all agreed that he did not have much of a Senate record. Nice guy, but hardly around. By my original standard I was taking your into account and giving him extra credit for proceedural votes and non binding resolution votes.

But you can see it here for yourself and judge if you could even remotely classify his Senate record as accomplished.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9490/

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He hasn't fixed the economy- its at the same exact level it was when he started if you apply the most generous of benchmarks. His debt policy is an utter failure. His energy policy has been an utter failure. His healthcare policy has driven up costs, stiffled economic growth and is likely to be determined on Monday to be unconstitutional. His voter rights policy has been a failure. His border control policy has been a failure. His withdrawal from Iraq is bipartisainly viewed as being ultimately non productive and likely leading to Iraq falling into dictatorship. His Afghan policy is on such shakey ground that the Afghans are moving to closer ties with Pakistan. His Pakistan policy has created a situation where we may not even be capable of staying in Afghanistan even if the Afghans request it of us. His monetary policy with China has failed. His relationship with Russia has become so failed that Putin does not even want to hold any discussions of substance with Obama. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria are all total disasters. Isreal has been treated so duplicitously that they have publicly stated they will determine their own solution to the various Arab Spring crisis issues and Iran. Iran now has the launch capacity for a nuclear bomb and likely 6 bombs worth of weapons grade material...
Wow, lots of crazy in this.

quote:
He hasn't fixed the economy- its at the same exact level it was when he started if you apply the most generous of benchmarks
How do you equate losing 600,000 jobs a month in the worst economic collapse in 80 years with the mild job growth we have had since shortly after he took office. Or if you want comparisons, what accounts for the fact that his limited stimulus program in the United States has resulted in better levels of economic performance than the major economies of Europe which adopted austerity policies?

more later, gotta go to dinner

Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, lets look at his actual Senate record - how is it that you manage to overlook pretty much everything?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

Posts: 7093 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate
Posts: 7093 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I said LR, he has 2 sponsored bills. Thats it both failed. He has tons of sponsored amendments- ie ear marks. And I thought we were all in agreement ear marks were part of the problem in Washington?

If you want to count ear mark amendments which reflect directed funding under the continuing resolution, and count them as successes because they are unanimous consent cleared addendum's to the funding resolutions.. then sure greta accept them as successes since he didn't even have to be on the Senate floor to have them passed.

I gave you a listing of actual recoreded votes on full bills and resoultions. I did not credit him with his earmark activities or his placement of a reserved amendment to bills, meaning he reserves the right to furnish a legally fulfilled coment on a Bill's scope and purpose predicated on that bill getting passed by the Senate. And in most cases those bills died.

I know its hard to be critical here, but his record is essentially non existent. Would you like me to agree that Obama propossed specific ear mark language on 140 bills that ultimately died or were clear as a unanimous consent with all the other ear marks offered by others to keep the pork flowing home?

I thought we were talking about actual legislative effort intended to introduce new laws, correct old laws, implement policy in a legal framework, or introduce reform policy by law. I didnt know ear marks were the benchmark for success as a Senator now.

The last few election cycles, the bipartisain agreement has been ear marks are one of the major problems that have to be stopped. So since his Senate record, sans legislative results, seems to be that he managed to add earmarks?

How can you conflate that with success or even propose that it supports the idea that Obama was effective? Most of his earmarks died with the bills he attached them to.

Aren't you making my argument for me at this point?

I mean I'm sorry but if most of your bills get an administrative reading and then held in committee with no further action, or your successes that were agreed to were almost exclusively bills that commemorate the lives of individuals or national observances....I mean Juneteenth may be historically relevant... but his own bills ALL DIED IN COMMITTEE. Thats not a very good track record.

Posts: 6332 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
His debt policy is an utter failure
Obama's debt policy was to stimulate the economy in the short term while looking for long term deficit reduction. This worked better than the austerity debt policy promoted by Republicans and implemented elsewhere in the world, but the level of recovery has been impeded by the unprecedented reduction in government employment forced by Republicans at state and national level. If government hiring had been maintained at a flat level, unemployment would be at about 7% right now; if government employment had been increased (in roughly the same levels as it was during recessions under past Republican Administrations), then unemployment would be at about 6% right now.

So what part of Obama's debt policy is an utter failure?

Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
His healthcare policy has driven up costs, stiffled economic growth and is likely to be determined on Monday to be unconstitutional.
If his healthcare policy has driven up costs, how come the rate of increase in the costs of healthcare is no greater than in the period 1994-2008? There's no evidence that it has stifled economic growth. You may be right that it is determined to be unconstitutional - that's what 5 votes means.
Posts: 3019 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1